From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise.
Reasoning is all the positive and opposing arguments that support or critique the thesis by using logic. Socrates was accused and charged with being a corruptor of the youth and denying the gods of the city but introducing other divinities. Socrates defends his case by using reasoning and logic. Socrates said that if every Athenian improved the youth while only he corrupts them, then is influence should not have a greater effect than all the Athenians. Socrates didn’t corrupt the youth.
Whereas Plato thought that experiments and reasoning are enough to provide the qualities of an object, Aristotle was in favour of the experience and observation. In logic, Plato was more favoured the use of inductive reasoning, while Aristotle used deductive reasoning. The syllogism, a basic unit of logic of A = B, and B = C, then A = C, was developed by Aristotle. Both regarded that thoughts were far more preferable to senses. However Plato stated that senses could fool a person but Aristotle believed that senses are required to establish reality in a proper way.
Thrasymachus continues to claim his position but in a modified form of his first argument, after Socrates commented. Being unjust, Thrasymachus thinks, is better than being just because it 's stronger and leads to a more happy life. As before he, he only takes into consideration only the advantages or disadvantages of being just, and he doesn 't discuss what 's justice or how it plays a role in people. Essentially, this definition is an extreme extension of the previous one. The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '.
From the combination of these two ideas, we can see that people recreate the state on the basis of the form of ideal state. After mentioning this fact, we should start with the analysis of the principles of Plato 's theory of the ideal state. However, the main thing that he intends to achieve in his state is justice. By justice, he understands the situation when “every one is doing his own work, and not being a busybody”. It is essential for us to remember that the well-being of the state is more important than the well-being of citizen – so-called "commonweal".
This will display he will avoid the penalty of the law to his convenience when he had followed it for his entire time in Athens, which will further many people’s belief of his bad character. However, the Athenian justice system was flawed. It is not right for Socrates to accept his death as his punishment when many people did not comply with the requirements of the jury to uphold the law because they decided to convict an innocent man to his death with no strong evidence needed. The laws are established with the sole purpose to establish justice. Instead of establishing justice, many people in the trial let their personal judgments of Socrates establish him as the criminal when he was innocent.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
He believed that justice was decided based on the interests of those with power. Rulers and governments would only make rules and laws that would benefit them and there was no justice except in favour of power. Again, the strong had complete control over what was considered right and wrong. Those in power would only introduce laws that would further their own agendas and those who dared to violate those laws were harshly punished in the name of justice. Thrasymachus clashed with Socrates in terms of ideology about justice.
When examining the Gorgias, by Plato, and Beyond Good and Evil, by Nietzsche, both author’s give their opinion of truth. Plato believes that truth can be used to defeat rhetoric, and even more importantly, that a philosopher king could use it to lead the masses. This claim is based on the notion that absolute truths exist, the masses aren’t fit to rule, and the philosopher king would have unopposed power. As for Nietzsche, he believes that “every truth is a partial truth or perspectival fiction” (Nietzsche xxiii). This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth.
However, this is tied directly to the fundamental understanding of democracy in that citizens have the power to influence their sovereign through becoming the sovereign (through majority decisions). Democracy is good. Democracy is bad whenever the majority abuses its freedoms to serve individual desire. In other words, the characteristics of a democracy are solely dependent on its citizens and there might be more of a convincing reason to believe that both Plato and Aristotle’s criticisms are a result of human nature, instead of democracy itself. IV.