The ultimate goal of human life for Plato is to know and understand the truth or the “eidos” of the “good”. The only way for us to see this truth is through our minds. The truth is not accessible in the physical world but in the intellectual realm. For us to be happy or for use to know the truth is only when we are beyond our physical sense it is a totally different level. So according to Plato, “knowledge” and “virtue” are corollary meaning that as long as one exists the other will follow.
The theories presented seem to have already been established by Socrates long before the day of his death. The Argument from Opposites comes across as an acknowledgment of a natural balance in nature and does not prove we have a soul, only that humans have been living and dying for a very long time. The Theory of Recollection could easily be seen as proof of varying intelligence, which is why some people have a better natural grasp of certain concepts than others, they are just smarter. The Theory of Forms leaves one questioning each existences originality, I think humans are capable of achieving perfection in this
The discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro In Euthyphro, Plato recites a conversation Socrates has with Euthyphro by “the Porch of the King” (Plato, 41). The Greek philosopher and his religious interlocutor Euthyphro mainly talk about the true meaning of piety, although it is less of a conversation and more of Socrates challenging Euthyphro, after the latter claimed that he knew everything about religious matters, and therefore piety. Socrates explains his need for Euthyphro to teach him by explaining that this would help him defend himself against the “indictment” he faces because of Meletus (Plato, 45). In the discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro, I find the exchange quite daunting because Socrates does most of the talking and therefore he is inclined to be leading. This brings me to question how a discourse should really be done.
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 '.
Socrates’ method is not to tell him that he is mistaken in claiming to be an expert on religious matters, but rather to show him through questioning. Just by asking him, what is a definition of holiness, Socrates shows Euthyphro that he has no understanding at all. I like how Socrates used this method to falsify Euthyphro’s
From beginning to end, Aristotle’s captivating reading, Crito, is composed with of the three rhetorical devices: logos, pathos, and ethos. Consequentialy, one of the existent rhetorical devices is more robust than the others. Whilst logos and pathos spawn well-founded emotional and logical enticement, the most indisputable rhetorical device used throughout the story is ethos.Undoubtably, ethos is the utmost evident rhetorical device in the story, Crito, as Socrates honorably stood by his morals, even after Crito tried to prompt the man to abandon them; demonstrating his thickness of character, integrity, and honesty. For most, a wise conclusion would not end in welcoming death with the chance to escape an unjust conviction; yet, in Socrates case it did. By definition, logos is the use of documentation, facts, or inference to create a concrete argument; and it is present during each debate betwixt Crito and Socrates.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradiction WC and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. Socreates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense. Socrates begins his argument by stating the reason he thinks he is being accused is because of his reputation with the citizens of Athens. He says, “I shall call upon the god at Delphi as witness to the existence and nature of my wisdom, if it be such.
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
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates and Meno discuss the definition of virtue and whether it can be taught. They conclude that virtue cannot be taught, “that virtue comes to the virtuous [(those who possess virtue)] by the gift of God” (Plato
Rhetoric is a way of speaking in a persuasive way to create an impact on the audience or have them think the same way as the speaker. The three main strategies of rhetoric speech is ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos meaning the speaker is dwelling upon themselves, pathos meaning the speaker is using imagination to create emotion, and logos meaning facts and logic is used by the speaker to persuade the audience. Socrates used logos in a way that helped him exhibit an effective speech to prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. In spite of this claim, Socrates was truly only showing the court that he really did not know much more than his name.