Before the death of Plato, he had a conversation between Socrates and his friends on the philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul. Moreover, he tries to convince them that death is nothing to fear. There is a similarity on the kind of dualistic view of the self. Despite of the belief in immortality linked with the belief in the soul resulting to lack of route from the latter to the former. Socrates argument on immortality, that anything that has an opposite must have resulted from the opposite and there is no other source.3 On the issue of death, Socrates beliefs that death is the opposite of life. He claims that the living from the death and less inverse. The souls of the death could in some way have some link to the living …show more content…
Also, it does not withstand the power of critical thinking. Plato present Socrates as to protect psychic health compared to justice. This came about due to Socrates idea that its is an individual’s interest to be just and he keeps on trying to proof this right. David Sachs, in the “A Fallacy in Plato’s Republic” 5an article disagrees with Socrates idea claiming that one has to have a balanced soul to be just. Just actions do not just come about with an imbalance soul. In defense of Socrates idea and bridging of the two ideas of individual interest Singpurwalla, Rachel G. K. in “Plato’s Defense of Justice in the Republic”6 a person with a balanced soul operates according to certain values and desire that could never lead to unjust actions.
In his thoughts, Plato uses dialect interpretations of type of reasoning and method of intuition1. Simon Blackburn adopts type of reason claiming that the dialect of Plato is the process of extracting the truth by using questions that the answers are already known in order to obtain a person’s reasoning on the
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
He views death as a separation of the soul from the body when the body and soul are together it is life. He believed this so powerfully, that he did not only fear death but welcomed it. Socrates believed that he had to live a life full and hope for death. He had to convince his disciples Cebes and Simmias to be okay with his death since they did not believe in his beliefs. Socrates believed that men were the property of the gods and stated, “it is gods who care for us, and for the gods, we human beings are among their belongings. Don't you think so?” (Phaedo, 62b). Cebes was in an agreement with Socrates on that argument. They both believed that if a man kills himself he will be punished. Cebes suggest that when the soul leaves a body, it may dissipate, no longer existing as one unit. However, Socrates argues that in favor of this myth, souls after death will eventually return to the world in other bodies. Everything that comes to come from its opposites that is explained in the first argument. Simmias then argues that destroying a body will destroy the soul in it. Cebes declares that there is no proof that the souls are immortal and suffer no negative effects after each death and rebirth. Socrates tries to convince his friends with the Argument of Opposites and the Theory of Forms. Socrates hopes that the theory of forms will help explain causation and proof of the
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
Socrates was a philosopher who was true to his word and his death was ultimately felt by his closest friends and followers. In Phaedo, Socrates is met with his closest friends during his final hours as they await his death. At this point Socrates is prepared for death and seems to welcome it. Although death may seem like a scary inevitable fate that we all must face at one point; Socrates saw death as a privilege mainly because he believed that the soul was immortal. As a result, Socrates provides arguments as to why he believed the soul was immortal and even though all his arguments lacked unconvincing evidence, he does bring up good points. In this paper I will talk about Socrates’ most and least convincing arguments on immortality, and explain what Socrates’ problem was with Anaxagoras.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
In The Republic, Plato questioned what justice is. It’s noteworthy in the way he used how he views an individual’s soul to be an analogy for justice. He addressed his question heads-on with an answer stating that there are two types of justice. There’s an individual justice and a social justice. He believes that the individual’s justice has our rationality ruling over out appetites and emotional attachments. Social justice is the same exact thing. It has the rational parts (the leaders i.e. the philosophers) that rule over the appetites (workers) and the spirit (warriors). He says “the state is a man writ large,” which basically means, the state is a big person, it also has its own three parts and each part must be in balance. Plato’s answer to having two types of justice is very naturalistic, meaning the virtues aren’t created by people, but is discovered “out there.” He believes that someone who understands what each of the three parts of government does should be the leader (in other words, the philosophers). In order to keep the leader from doing the wrong thing, one must not select the wrong leader. He does not believe in having a check on the leader because we must select the right leaders and give them the power. To be a good citizen, the person should do what they are best suited for and they should be valuable to society. In his world, he wanted to give children tests to see what they were good at and that would be