Plato's Protagoras Analysis

However, they all are different in a sense. Xenophon’s was written by word of mouth but nonetheless he still quoted what he was told, and tried to explain what was going on and almost animate what could’ve been going on. Aristophanes’ was a humorous, sarcastic representation of Socrates. This could’ve easily been mistaken as a negative point of view on him, when in reality it was all pure sarcasm.

For Socrates philosophy is a way of live, and we must always ask question to knowledge, which is also its philosophy. His kind of philosophy denies with other philosophers, because they believe only on the pursuit and building of knowledge. Those philosophers want to obtain as much knowledge as possible, while Socrates searches only the truth. Consequently, the main idea between the Apology and the Allegory of the Cave is knowledge.

Socrates creates a thought-provoking claim around the idea that ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful things’ are fundamentally different, however, Hippias displays a failure to appreciate this distinctiveness and continues to dispute that there is no difference in the matter. The basic question Socrates asks is ‘What is beauty?’, and Hippias addresses the essence, not by defining the feature, but by giving an example of it. Socrates repeatedly receives an example of a ‘beautiful thing’. The Socratic Quest for the definition of the essence is resulting without conclusion, not only in the discussion between Socrates and Hippias but in a number of Plato’s dialogues. Without a concluding answer, the audience is left questioning the metaphysical status that beauty

I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the

Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context.

“ Either I do not corrupt the young or, if I do, it is unwillingly, and you are lying in either case” (Apology 31) Socrates believes that if he presents a point to the

Plato recommends that these thoughts are the main subjects that can be concentrated to give us honest to goodness information. Dispassionate vision alludes to Plato 's reasoning, which numerous accept was that he trust that the fact of the matter is a deliberation. Plato additionally contended the authenticity of all inclusive and conceptual articles. Plato 's reasoning brought upon current science where we see the division amongst individuals and nature, and how we can profit by it. Plato once said that "the body is a jail place of the spirit" this very statement enormously affected religion in Western Philosophy since it isolates the otherworldly world from the physical world.

This is particularly clear in the case of Nicias, who is very conscious of his position as someone familiar with Socrates' methods and aims, and quite effectively takes on the 'Socratic role' in the later and more developed arguments in the second main elenchos section of the dialogue, successfully (defecting spirited but ill-directed attacks by Laches). Yet his intellectual self-confidence is not matched by his personal attitude:while recognizing that conversations with Socrates will involve not just answering questions but 'giving an account of how one lives and has lived one's life', (he claims to correct a naive Lysimachus on this point), he goes on to betray his lack of real involvement by describing the process as one he finds 'not pleasant' and one to which he has 'no objection'- an attitude not born out by his later reaction to personal intellectual failure in the final elenchos. Laches, likewise, not only reacts abusively to Nicias' condescending handling of the 'Socrates role', but also displays his own failure to personify endurance in his own behaviour by his rather choleric 'resignations' from the discussion, when the going gets

His philosophy had a massive impact on further development of European philosophy. Kant, an outstanding Dutch philosopher, in all seriousness perceived many of Hume’s conclusions. For instance, that whole material of knowledge we get from experience and that empirical methods of human understanding are not able to provide its objectivity and necessity, and by this, to substantiate the potential of theoretical sciences and philosophy. Auguste Comte’s ideas about some science’ buildings which linked just with the description of phenomena but not with its explanation, and row of another positivist conclusions were based on Hume’s skepticism. On the other hand, further development of knowledge and philosophy confirmed Hume’s anxiety concerning any philosophical conclusions.

Despite that Kant’s main argument is that enlightenment is the ability to think for oneself independently, he argues in the private and public use of one’s reason, that one should obey the rules whilst be able to privately fully use one’s own reason and observe. Moreover, he states that God said, “Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!” (Kant, 55). This means that one’s freedom is restrained, but the

“Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates n.p.). Socrates is well-known to many as a man of logic. His goal was not to change people’s belief structure, but to show them how to critically think. For example, in the textbook Experiencing Philosophy by Anthony Falikowski, Socrates engages in a logical debate with Euthyphro. To better elaborate, Euthyphro was trying to explain to Socrates, what his belief on piety (the quality of being religious or reverent) and impiety (lack of piety or reverence, especially for a god) were.

His student Plato’s story, “The Cave,” emphasizes that humans may independently take the intellectual journey to enlightenment, reach the Realm of Perfect Forms, and discover truth for themselves. Both teacher and student insisted that Man himself had to reach truth, as it is not received from a higher

Also through the conversation he had with Glaucon and Adeimantus, they both accept Socrates’ assumptions about the nature and aids of justice at the end of Book IV. Which this turn meant they never responded to the argument and ignore they cue to refute Socrates’ claim on justice which can cause the argument to be misleading because of their absence in questioning his argument. Their failure to questions Socrates’ assumption may have contain some drawback to their search of such justice. Socrates’ attempts to define the word justice it meet with a roadblock because they it is not possible to obtain through such needs. However, he may have mentioned the step to obtaining such justice, but evidently they can also downfall back to where they started form.

Both Meno and Socrates evidently seemed to have contrasting attitudes in regards to the concept of virtue, as seen in the opening section of the Meno dialogue. Meno initiates the dialogue with Socrates by questioning whether or not Socrates knows what virtue is, specifically the way it is acquired by humans (Meno, 70a). However, Socrates does not give him a concrete answer, but rather a history of Thessaly (a blessed area), comparing it to Athens (a non-blessed area), in regards to wisdom (70a-71a). In Athens, nobody knows what virtue is or how it is obtained, including Socrates himself, when he says “I share the poverty of my fellow citizens in this matter.”