Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thoughts and ideas of plato
Plato philosophy short essay
Reflections on plato
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Gorgias, Plato attempts to outline the ways one can live a good life. He begins this by examining oratory. He dispels the presented notions that the life of an orator is more just and good than other professions, such as the life of a philosopher. Plato progressively raises questions that connect oratory to actions that are shameful and undesirable. Oratory came to be defined as a means of attaining one’s personal ambitions. This definition leaves it open to the possibility of pursuing shameful and evil outcomes. Plato condemns the orators (Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles) of always producing long, polished speeches that are used as a medium for persuasion. He contrasts this to Socrates’ request to have forthright discussions, where both parties attempt to seek the truth. This comparison outlines the conflicting differences in values and methods. Deliberations between Socrates and Gorgias decide that oratory enables its experts to rule over others because it equips him with the skill to persuade. The two then agree that there are two …show more content…
The men come to describe the orator-politician as a person who engages in one of the practices that aim at producing pleasure without any regard to what is good. This is a statement previously set up in the deliberation between Socrates and Polus. Socrates just now connects the orator lifestyle to the life indifferent to producing what is truly good. Socrates compares the philosopher’s life to that of a craftsman. A craftsman considers the good of the craft’s focus. This consideration makes this good in terms of organization and order. Craftsmen whose work is good will be organized and orderly; those whose work is disorganized will be poor quality. This is also true for the soul. Persons whose souls are thus made good will be happy; those whose souls are unjust and undisciplined will be
One would expect Socrates to win against his non-philosophical interlocutors. However, this is not the case. The more the conversations proceed, the more they are infiltrated by anger and misunderstanding, the more one is under the impression that Socrates may well silence his interlocutors but he hardly persuades them. His last interlocutor, Callicles, not only is not persuaded by him, but at one point even refuses to talk to Socrates and leaves him with the choice between abandoning the discussion altogether and performing a monologue.
Within the many layers of Aristophanes’ comedic play Clouds, the ceaseless conflict between human nature and political virtue is unmistakable. After being expelled from the Thinkery, Strepsiades refuses to give up his cause to evade his creditors and sends his reluctant son Pheidippides to learn the art of rhetoric in his place. Even before venturing to the Thinkery, Pheidippides warns his father that he will severely regret his decision to coerce him into learning with Socrates, a correct prediction. When both Strepsiades and Pheidippides enter the Thinkery, Socrates introduces both the Just Speech and Unjust Speech. Yet, he immediately exits and leaves Pheidippides to observe and “learn them [just and unjust things] himself” (886). The two
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias attempts to prove Helen’s innocence since she is blamed to be the cause of the Trojan War. Gorgias uses rhetoric to persuade listeners to believe why there are only four reasons to explain why Helen was driven to Troy. All of which he will argue were not her fault. Fate was the first cause, followed by force. Gorgias then seems to focus the most on the power of Logos, or words. Finally he explains how she could have been compelled by love (82B116).
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
The first thing one must consider is whether there is any merit in writing or rhetoric. According to Socrates, speech writing is not bad. The only way it can ever be bad is if it is not done well. Therefore, one must consider what is necessary for writing well. Socrates proposes that in order to write well, one must know what is true about his subject. However, Phaedrus points out that perhaps all that is necessary to be seen as a good writer is to know what the people believe to be right about that subject and then write about it as they view it. However, Socrates shows that this is erroneous because then one can persuade others that wrong is right, and as a result rhetoric would have poor results. Instead, Socrates proposes that correct rhetoric is a tool through which knowledge is used to expertly persuade others. However, rhetoric can also be seen as, not a form of art, rather a talent. If it is thus seen, then in order to become an expert in it one must be born with the talent. Even if rhetoric were only a talent, there are steps to improve and build on it. For example, one may have talent, but without an acquaintance with the truth of the subject, one cannot give a professional speech. Once one is acquainted with his subject, th...
Polus claims that oratory is good for the practitioner because orators are powerful people who can do like tyrants do, to which Socrates replies, saying that orators like tyrants “are the least powerful persons in the city.” (36) Firstly, Socrates points out that when someone acts “he wants not his act, but the object of his act,” (37) or, in other words, what is considered good or bad is not the action taken, but its intention, and because a tyrant mostly acts on the basis of what he considers beneficial to the state, he is not doing what he wants then, but doing what the state wants in order to remain in power. At this point, Socrates was speaking only about power, because, as he stated, Polus’ claim required two answers. Once establishing that freedom to act as intended is true power, Socrates then asks Polus if a person with power would intend to do what is good or evil. Polus admits that a person would intend to do what is seemingly good.
Aristotle believed that rhetoric is a skill habit of mind that is, in itself, morally neutral and can be used for good or ill. He believed th...
Socrates devotes a generous amount of The Republic to creating a Utopian society wherein philosophers rule. As he believes that philosophers ought to lead a city, Socrates first defines a guardian by unmasking elements belonging to philosophers. Above all, philosophers have a hunger for wisdom, and are individuals, “capable of comprehending what is eternal and unchanging,” (Sterling and Scott 174). Additionally, Socrates categorizes truth, pleasures in the soul, generosity, magnificence, courage, grace and temperance, (Sterling and Scott 174-177)...
The central theme of Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the power of rhetoric because it shows the effect of two funeral orators’ on the crowd. In this scene, Antony and Brutus have similar purpose in talking to the public, which is to gain the support of the Plebeians according to their conflicting views about Caesar’s assassination. This essay focuses on comparing the orations of the two speakers in this part of the play according to Aristotle’s rhetoric system. According to Aristotle’s writings, Antony’s speech is more persuasive than Brutus’ speech, because he is able to provide logical, emotional and ethical appeals to his audience. Firstly, in comparison to Brutus’ logic, Antony provides more evidence to prove that Caesar was not ambitious. Secondly, Antony’s emotional acts and speech moved his audience more than Brutus. Finally, Antony acts more noble than Brutus does.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates discusses the nature and uses of rhetoric with Gorgias, while raising moral and philosophical perspective of rhetoric. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a kind of false knowledge whose purpose is to produce conviction, and not to educate people about the true extent of knowledge (Plato 15). On the other hand, Gorgias argues that the study of rhetoric is essential in any other professional fields, in order to provide an effective communication (Plato 19). After their discussion of rhetoric, Socrates seems to understand the true extent of rhetoric better as compared to Gorgias, as he is able to use rhetoric appeals as a device to dominate the conversation. During their discussion, Socrates seems to have use rhetorical appeals, such as ethos appeal and pathos appeal to connect and convince the crowd of audiences, and logos appeal to support his claims. His speeches seems to have shown sarcastic aspects and constantly asking questions in order to keep Gorgias busy, at the same time preparing an ambush. Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication through the form of speaking and writing, with the appropriate knowledge and virtue, it can be used for good purposes. On the other hand, rhetoric also can be used as an act of conviction because rhetorical appeals can be defined as an act of persuasion as well. Learning the true extent of rhetoric can help an individual strengthen their verbal communication skills. Socrates uses rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos appeal to win his argument against Gorgias, as he is able to get the audiences’ attention through rhetoric and cornered Gorgias into revealing the true extent of rhetoric.
The concept of written laws and their place in government is one of the key points of discussion in the Platonic dialog the Statesman. In this philosophical work, a dialog on the nature of the statesmanship is discussed in order to determine what it is that defines the true statesman from all of those who may lay claim to this title. This dialog employs different methods of dialectic as Plato begins to depart from the Socratic method of argumentation. In this dialog Socrates is replaced as the leader of the discussion by the stranger who engages the young Socrates in a discussion about the statesman. Among the different argumentative methods that are used by Plato in this dialog division and myth play a central role in the development of the arguments put forth by the stranger as he leads the young Socrates along the dialectic path toward the nature of the statesman. The statesman is compared to a shepherd or caretaker of the human “flock.” The conclusion that comes from division says that the statesman is one who: Issues commands (with a science) of his own intellect over the human race. This is the first conclusion that the dialog arrives at via the method of division. The dialog, however, does not end here as the stranger suggests that their definition is still wanting of clarity because there are still some (physicians, farmers, merchants, etc…) who would lay claim to the title of shepherds of humanity. For this reason a new approach to the argument must be undertaken: “then we must begin by a new starting-point and travel by a different road” (Statesman 268 D.)