More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison/contrast essay examples
College level compare and contrast essay
Comparison and contrast essays college
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
In doing so, Unjust Speech advocates a hedonistic lifestyle, one that ignores the concept of shame and focuses rather on self-indulgence. Whereas Just Speech holds society to a common moral ideal, Unjust Speech atones the audience’s vices through pointing out the hypocrisy of the celebrated Greek heroes of the past. Unjust Speech claims that justice is not “with the Gods” (903-5) because Zeus did not perish after having done violence to his father, but rather was rewarded for …show more content…
Explaining that not only does it subvert pleasures, it tramples “novel notions” for the sake of tradition, and encourages an impotent “moderation” (896, 1060). For Unjust Speech, he sees no reason to simply endure this façade when one can theoretically work around it. Unjust Speech encourages resistance, calling on man to “believe that nothing is shameful!” (1078). This part of his argument displays that Unjust Speech recognizes shame as the essential cornerstone of societal life, yet encourages humans to not let it define them. He advocates for strong individualism against Just Speech’s encouraging words about societal
In Sophocles play, Antigone, the reader explores many aspects of a Greek tragedy. In this play, a complex family follows a series of mishaps after hearing from a “seer.” After the family thinks they have overcome the worst, they then endure two brothers fighting over both of their rightful places on the throne. In the end, both of them die, but one, Eteocles, was buried a king, and the other, Polynices was left to be untouched a “traitor.” Their sister, Antigone, feels it is her rightful to disobey her uncle, Creon, who sets a decree that declares Policies was to be left unburied. She called this “the doom reserved for enemies marches on the ones we love the most” (Fagles 1984, 59).
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
In this essay I argue that it is Michel Foucault Cynic parrhesia that is more adept or able to create an atmosphere where we are only forced to ask ourselves to reexamine our political responsibility within our society. In Foucault’s Freedom of Speech given at the University of California he discusses this topic of parrhesia in great length describing what it meant to the Greeks and how they interpreted it using examples from them when used in such little texts. After describing this in detail with examples Foucault later describes that it can lead to more than just that that we can see two forms of parrhesia in Cynic and Socratic the second coming from excerpts in Socrates however it is the Cynic for me that is more interesting and riskier form that can help us understand this further.
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 debate between Unjust and Just Speech in Aristophanes’ Clouds draws the reader’s attention to the theme of natural pleasure versus lawful justice. The debate begins with the two Speeches representing
Throughout his comedy, The Clouds, Aristophanes ridicules aspects of Greek society when he destroys tradition by denouncing the importance of the gods' influence on the actions of mortals, and he unknowingly parallels Greek society with today's. Disguised by laughter, he digs deep into the truth by which citizens of Greek and future cultures will abide. Aristophanes challenges humans' strength in belief systems, fortitude of character, and ability to deal with the complexity of parenting. He also defiantly misrepresents an icon like Socrates as comical, atheistic, and consumed by ideas of self interest, which is contradictory to the Socrates seen in Plato's Apology or Phaedo. However different from each other, each writing contained a role for Socrates, which symbolized the messages trying to be conveyed in each. So even if the name is alike, the ultimate purpose of a good character was met.
In the Aristophanes play The Clouds the exchange between the Just and the Unjust over the education of Phidipidies and which of the arguments that shall be his teacher. Throughout the play you see a contrast of old and new, the old- Stepciaties, and the new-phidipidies, but here it can be seen as well with the old –or the just, based on morality, honor, fitness, and strength; and the new, or the unjust based on knowledge, progress, questioning, excess, exchange of ideas and rhetoric.
Even before this story begins, irony is brewing and continues throughout the pages. The creative author is using this enticing technique as a backbone for his play, and also as a key component in foreshadowing the tragic plot. Oedipus Rex by Sophocles is filled with many different ironies, so much so, that this reoccurring element tremendously affects the outcome of the story.
Similarly, the only way to beat a child on the verge of a temper tantrum at “Chutes and Ladders” is to forfeit. These similarities suggest that the world is an unwinnable game that can only be won by refusing to play. However, Sophocles’ message regarding life and the world requires a more in depth view of the forfeit. Each time a character refused to play, it is a voluntary action. Therefore, Sophocles suggests that in order to survive in the world, a person must be in charge of their own actions. Sophocles demonstrates the danger of succumbing to involuntary actions through Thebes’ subservience that correlates with its ignorance. As a result of the city’s societal conditions of ignorance and subservience, the reader views the the city as weak. Sophocles’ message about voluntary and deliberate actions aligns with his belief in democracy. Corresponding to the major motifs of the play, a democracy’s basis is deliberate actions by individuals who are neither subservient nor ignorant. Oedipus Rex is both a warning against tyrannies, like prophecies, that completely dictate lives and an advocate for democracies with which life is finally
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.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, and Oedipus Rex all center on morality in terms of each character’s social behavior from the beginning to the end of the story. Gilgamesh, Achilles, and Oedipus are three central characters that embody strong qualities of strength, however carry different experiences of morality. Furthermore, all three characters hold different moral codes that are dependent on their ability to resolve the unique situations that they are in. Nevertheless, morality has ultimately impacted the character’s perception of their role in society in terms of whether or not their actions benefit someone or something. This paper will be examining the morality of the three main characters as they undergo major character transformations
In “Clouds” by Aristophanes, he takes his stand against unjust speech by depicting how it has corrupted the young ones and how it affects Athens. For example, Strepsiades is a citizen of Athens that wants to get rid of his debts without having to actually pay them off. Therefore he took his son, Pheidippidies to the “thinkery”, so that Socrates could teach him unjust speech. Strepsiades implies that, “He’s to learn those two speeches: the stronger, whatever it may be, and the weaker, which argues the unjust things and overturns the stronger,” (West and West 151). Unjust speech questions everything that just speech tries to explain and it does so by rephrasing and contradicting it. In this case, Strepsiades is corrupting his son’s future by making him forget about his democratic and religious ideals so that he could defend him and he could stop stressing about being prosecuted for his debt. Yet, he did not take into consideration that the new knowledge that his son Pheidippidies learned was going to eventually hurt him instead of benefiting him. Pheidippidies was enragde by what his father had done to him, and decided to use unjust speech against him. He confronted him by questioning him over his childhood development, “Did you beat me when I was a boy? Strepsiades: Yes I did; I was well-intentioned and concern for you. Pheidippidies: Then tell me, isn’t it also just for me likewise to be well-intentioned toward you and to beat you, since in fact to be well intentioned is to beat?” (West and West 173). The knowledge that Pheidippides learned, prove to be effective but not in a way that is completely moral. It is against democratic values for a child to talk back to his parents or to be in question them. As a result, unjust speech is corrupting young ones in ways that do not bring any positive outcomes to the community. For example, if Pheidippides went against his own father it is more
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
Although the government has no direct place in the silencing an individual’s convictions; however unpopular, no such immunity is given in the case of one’s peers. The judgement of one’s peers is almost always enough to silence any dissenting opinions. The social cost of an unpopular opinion Twain writes: “... can ruin a man in his business, it can lose him his friends, it can subject him to public insult and abuse, it can ostracize his unoffending family, and make his house a despised and unvisited solitude (Twain).” It is quite ironic that freedom of speech stresses being free, but nevertheless comes with such a great cost to the individual. With such great expense at stake, exercising one’s right to honesty always comes second to maintaining social status. Furthermore, Twain compares the costs of free speech to murder. He writes of free speech: “It ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences (Twain).” Twain rather amusingly juxtaposes the crimes of murder and free speech. The two actions are in theory completely unalike, the former to be punished and the latter to be defended. Yet Twain instead comes to the conclusion that they are actually both privileged and are punished in the same way. Both when committed, immediately condemn an
Glaucon’s first argument confronts one of the reasons people do act justly, however it is not for the greatest of motives. Glaucon lays out the positions you can be in society and weighs the advantages to the disadvantages, and