We cannot serve someone who has no need. Self sufficient people can deal with you and do things for you. For example, God can do things for us but we cannot be friends with him. We notice that friendship between two good people is not possible. When Socrates says that good people cannot be friends he means that perfect beings or the self sufficient beings cannot be friends, but if we have good character we still have problems and we still have needs, so good human beings will still have friends.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
Another way to look at the parable interpretation would be not to think of it as a Buddhist distaste of discourse, rationale, and logic. Instead one should consider the undesirable role of personal identity or the ‘self’ when philosophizing. Any philosophy that doesn’t contribute to achieving liberation is meaningless. The detrimental element of philosophy is the false identification with the self and the ego. Identification and attachment with the “I” is a common sight in contemporary philosophy.
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.
And likewise, “one should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.”(49d) It is from this argument that Socrates outlines why he must not escape, for it would be to wrong the city that made him. No matter what the city may have done to him, he must never act against it in retaliation. Socrates bases this view of justice on the worth of living a good life. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted by unjust actions” (47e) If we corrupt our soul with injustice, our life would not be worth living, therefore one must never commit an injustice. “When one has come to an agreement that is just with someone, one should fulfill it.”(49e) It is this agreement with the Laws that Socrates would be violating, if he were to
These two questions were the main idea of the discussion between Socrates and his friends: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus… Socrates asks the question of the definition of justice, each one of the interlocutors answers the question in his own way that, according to Socrates, reflects his own personality. One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”.
Thus, since it is impractical to use a rigid moral system, both Weber and Sophocles discuss the importance of responsibility and consequences in decision making. This conception of responsibility and consequences is significant because it differs from a utilitarian quest for “the greater good”. When considering one’s responsibilities, it is inadvisable to cause pain to the individuals that a political leader is responsible for, regardless of the total pleasure it may lead to. In the case of Antigone, Creon’s decision leads to a tragic outcome because he does not take into account the consequences of his actions. His resolve to obstinately stick to his decision is his ultimate downfall.
He states that he nor anyone else should not fear that which they do not know. This is why he does not fear death and finds it foolish to do so. Socrates says “No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man” (Plato 32) and believes that to fear death is “to think oneself wise when one is not” (Plato 32). In this regard he states he is wiser than all men who fear death, for he does not know what death may hold and therefore does not fear it. With the belief of being the wisest of men, Socrates still does not know what will happen upon death; this ignorance may give way to curiosity about death.
Through examining Meletus’s accusation Socrates comes to two conclusions, one is that he is not corrupting the youth; the second is that he is corrupting the youth but he is doing so unwillingly and therefore should not be charged, brought to trial, or punished but instructed on how to prevent it from continuing to happen (26a). Additionally, Socrates continues to use the Socratic Method to examine the second accusation against him from Meletus, impiety. Socrates asks Meletus many questions regarding his accusation and Meletus eventually admits to the jury that Socrates believes in spirits and that spirits are gods or their children (27d). Socrates then states that there is no way that the jury would believe that a
And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working
After analyzing Critos arguments and Socrates response, Socrates decision to stay was the right choice because of his knowledge about what is just and his loyalty to the Laws. Though Crito’s attempt at persuading Socrates to escape to another country was solid, it would not have had a beneficial outcome for Socrates life. It would lead to many negative implications like Socrates being a bad influence for children and youth. Therefore, he would not be able to fulfill Gods command to teach. Overall, the points Socrates makes within his response to Crito shows that escaping Athens is not what would be beneficial for him, his sons and the Laws.
He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,