Rhetoric can degenerate from “the question at issue” to “abusing one another.” One rhetorician becomes angry that his remark is criticized and is more concerned about winning the debate than having an investigation of truth. Rhetoric is, as Socrates calls it, a form of flattery. Socrates says to Gorgias that “the whole of which rhetoric is a part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit...this habit I sum under the word 'flattery'.” Throughout the entire dialogue, Socrates argues with Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles to figure out the meaning and nature of rhetoric.
I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
This dialogue is aimed at finding the true meaning of rhetoric by trying to identify and expose the defects of sophism synonymous in Athens during the period. Conventional Athens revered the ability to persuade people in political and legal fields, and this is the reason for
Pathos is the expression of one’s emotions in order to evoke another person to feel empathy for them. In an untasteful execution, Crito accomplishes this by expounding how the eradication of Socrates will lead to a pessimistic brunt when he scorns “What it seems is that you’re letting your sons down too.” (Crito, pg. 885) trying to arrange for him a disturbance for not being there for his sons when he could have if he decided to escape and remain alive. Nonetheless, this does not arouse Socrates because he had already consulted the pros and cons; and the pros eclipsed the cons, leaving pathos
The Gorgias dialogue begins with Socrates asking if a discussion with Gorgias would be possible. Socrates makes it clear from the beginning of the dialogue that he would prefer no long display speeches to be made if Gorgias is going to participate in discussion, but asks specifically for only short answers to be given to the questions he asks. James Nichols, translator of the two dialogues argues in his Gorgias essay that “the brevity of the answers about what rhetoric is causes the first definitions to be too broad or universal or inclusive; the definition is narrowed down through Socrates' questioning and, in that sense, under his guidance.” Using this method allows Socrates to arrive at the conclusions necessary to convince Gorgias of what rhetoric is and to understand what he is
Descartes questions each of the five sense; smell, sight, sound, taste, and touch in light of reality. His doubts are relayed to the reader. Affirming that the senses are capable of giving incorrect information thus reality could be perceived incorrectly. Each of these works were developed with a different purpose. Similarly, in a different time period and for a different audience.
There also happens to be the current presidential election. At this point I’d say that most Hindu americans have sided with Hillary Clinton because of the fact that she is trying to aid refugees and is not particularly looking to start conflict, while Trump is. The recent jihadist bombing that had taken place would be seen as both cruel and disgusting. Hindus have always been rather accepting of the other religions surrounding them and they believe that everyone has the right to worship whoever or whatever they wish, and taking violent action against those who do not have the same beliefs as you would be viewed as plain wrong. The Hindu people are a peaceful and nonviolent community that are very accepting of things and people as they are.
In Socrates trial there were two different sets of accusations made against him, one being the newer ones and one being the older ones. I’m going to start off with the latter. The older charges brought up against him include that he speculates about the things in heaven and the things beneath the earth, which to simplify basically means the gods. The problem with that is, that by searching into these things Socrates implies that he doubts them or their existence.
Philosophy has been explained by different philosophers such as Rene Descartes and David Hume among others in different theories. This paper focuses on Rene Descartes and David Hume on their concepts of philosophy and the theories they used to equip us with these fundamental knowledges. During Descartes’ time, philosophy was known as Scholastic-Aristotelian is the one which existed. However, according to Adam& Tannery (1987), Descartes viewed the philosophy as one that was prone to a lot of doubts. Descartes then decided to break with this philosophy and came up with his own that
Plato’s famous philosophical text, Apology, is the account of Socrates’ trial for attempting to corrupt the youth and challenging the popular belief in the Greek Gods. Socrates’ wisely stated during the trial that, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (Apology). His idea of the good life was a life in which one’s complete self seeks out the universal truths and if his ideas were applied to our modern society, they would still be largely applicable. Socrates’ use of the phase ‘the unexamined life’ could have multiple meanings and applications.
Pausanias presents a speech that details why loving young boys is justified, Aristophanes speech discusses the importance of worshiping the gods, and Alcibiades presents one discussing Socrates. The lack of objectivity in these speeches highlights how difficult it can be to remain objective on a subject matter that one cares about; however, not every speech in the Symposium has a motive. Phaedrus discusses the origin of the god love, Agathon examines how love is attractive and full of goodness, and Socrates presents a retelling of a discussion he had with Diotima. Plato presents these speeches along with ones that are not able to maintain their objectivity because the entire story is just a discussion between a group of friends. He details that some ay push their political agenda and justify their actions while others may maintain an objective view of the subject.
Anyone physically different from themselves, the people of Waknuk regard as “abominations” and insulting to the pure image of God based on a fallible old book; Nicholson’s Repentances. Likewise, anyone of a different religious sect, Daesh slaughters with out of context rulings from their religious book. The KKK discriminates against people of colour, regarding them in a very similar way to the way the people of Waknuk regard Deviations. Moreover, calling the Old People’s society (probably secular) a state of “[prevailing] irreligious arrogance” displays their belief that only one way of being is acceptable, and anything else is worthy of punishment (Wyndham 40).
A1 Socrates claims that he does not know him, yet has heard that Meletus is young and unknown, describing him as a man with long hair, little facial hair, and an aquiline nose. He also commends Meletus in his charge against him, believing that his concerns are not misplaced and that he likely cares for the well-being of the state. A2 The charges that Meletus brings against Socrates are that he is corrupting the minds of the youth with his ignorance and he is conjuring up new gods while neglecting to believe in the old ones. A3 Euthyphro is bringing charges against his father for murdering a servant, named Naxos, of his property who was also a murderer for killing another servant in a fit of drunken anger.
In Euthyphro, Scorates had a method to find the true meaning of a word or subject. Socrates was a wise man because he use to always ask question until he reach an answer that fit everything they he belief in. This method was turn into Socratic Method that is use to question people. This is known as Socratic Method and is use to find the definition or true nature of what is justice. Socratic Method makes a person think in more detail when trying to find a meaning to a subject.
Scott Turow’s memoir, One L, perfectly confirms what I have imagined the first year of law school to be like. Although Harvard Law School is a top-ranked law school, the experiences Turow incurred there parallel the experiences of many first-year law school students. Turow’s experiences also occurred during 1975 and 1976. Although more than 40 years ago, not much has changed at law schools across the country. The Socratic Method is still widely used, grades for a term still ultimately depend on one exam, a grade curve is still applied, and most first-year students still learn more about the Law rather than practical knowledge of how to be a lawyer.