This is an argument made by Socrates to Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias 495d – 497d. This argument makes many claims in order to determine if good and pleasure are the same or different and if bad and painful are the same or different. The following will analyzes the argument that Socrates makes and determines if the argument is valid or strong and whether the argument is sound or cogent. Furthermore the errors in the argument are dissected and enlighten to how the argument could have been better constructed. 1. Those who are doing well have suffered the opposite experience than those who are doing badly. 2. A human being cannot possess opposite experiences at the same time. 3. A human being cannot be doing well and badly at the same time. (1, …show more content…
The pleasant is not the same as the good, and the painful is not the same as the bad. (6, 13) This argument would be considered a deductive argument because the conclusion follows necessarily from the sub-conclusions and the premises. As long as all of the premises are true this is a sound argument. Points of concern in the argument are each of the unsupported assertions. The following will determine if any fallacies or false claims have been used in the construction of this argument. For the first unsupported assertion “those who are doing well have suffered the opposite experience than those who are doing badly” it is important to determine if the two are undoubtedly opposite and that there isn’t a possibility for doing good or doing badly to be similar. The meaning of the good is contradictory to the bad. Moreover, it is a set description that good and bad must be opposites. Therefore, this claim is true and the argument remains as of this …show more content…
To disprove this claim two opposite experiences must be reasonable identified that have happened at the same time. To best was to disprove the argument through this claim is with a counter example of two opposite experiences that exist at the same time. However, the numerous counter examples that exist primarily are actually two separate experiences in a small time frame such as feeling sad and happy when moving. The feelings in this scenario are opposites that and the same action (moving) is what is creating them; however, the feelings do not actually exist at the same time, but rather alternating rapidly after each other. The other primary example is actually composed of oxymorons and are only opposite by equivocation. These examples only show words with typically opposing meanings existing together, but are not truly opposite in the circumstance of the use of the word. Additionally a description of two truly opposite things existing at once is consider being a paradox and is by definition not actually feasible. Thus, it is not possible for two opposite experiences to exist at one
It is well known that Plato, a devoted student of Socrates, chronicled many of Socrates' speeches and conversations. Every so often one can find instances where Socrates and other players in these conversations seem to contradict themselves, or at least muddle their arguments. One such occurrence of this is in Plato's Symposium and Plato's Phaedrus. Both texts speak of love in its physical sense, both texts describe love and its effects, and both discuss how it is best realized, yet they do this in very different fashions, and for different reasons.
3. The benefits of bad luck are that it makes a person stronger because when a person has bad luck, they don’t necessarily emphasize the importance of material and human desires. It is only without these things that a person has the potential to find true happiness. Without bad luck a person ...
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
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.
Deduction is the third characteristic of rationalism, which is to prove something with certainty rather than reason. For example, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God through deductive reasoning in his third meditation. It went something like this: “I have an idea of a perfect substance, but I am not a perfect substance, so there is no way I could not be the cause of this idea, so there must be some formal reality which is a perfect substance- like God. Because only perfection can create perfection, and though it can also create imperfection- nothing that is imperfect can create something that is perfect.
In the book “Phaedo,” Plato discusses the theory of forms with ideas that concern the morality of the form. There are four philosophers that are expressed which are Phaedo, Cebes, and Simmias regarding the execution of Socrates. Socrates is presented in “Phaedo” on the morning of his execution where he is being killed. He tells his disciples Simmias and Cebes that he is not afraid of dying because a true philosopher should welcome and look forward to death but not suicide. A man should never commit suicide. He says that we are possessions of the Gods and should not harm themselves. He provides the four arguments for his claim that the soul is immortal and that a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death.
We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it c...
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
ABSTRACT: Aristotle argues that temperance is the mean concerned with pleasure and pain (NE 1107b5-9 and 1117b25-27). Most commentators focus on the moderation of pleasures and hardly discuss how this virtue relates to pain. In what follows, I consider the place of pain in Aristotle’s discussion of temperance and resolve contradictory interpretations by turning to the following question: is temperance ever properly painful? In part one, I examine the textual evidence and conclude that Aristotle would answer no to our question. The temperate person does not feel pain at the absence of appropriately desired objects. In parts two and three, I reconstruct some reasons why Aristotle would hold such a view based. My discussion here is based upon Aristotle’s discussion of continence and the unity of the virtues.
In the Crito, Socrates debates with his friend and follower Crito on escaping from prison where Socrates awaits execution. Crito unsuccessfully attempts to persuade Socrates to escape from prison but the latter is adamant and opts to remain in prison and meet his fate. This paper argues that Socrates had strong convictions in his arguments. Therefore, the paper defends Socrates decision citing it as accurate and commendable even though it marked the end of his life. Firstly, the paper examines Crito’s propositions exhibiting the eminent strong points as well as the destabilizing shortcomings. The second part examines Socrates defense outlining why it was the rightful choice. The main attention will be on Socrates core argument founded on justice and doing injustice maligns one’s soul. Therefore, the paper concludes by phrasing that it is not worth to live with a tainted, distraught and ruined soul.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Deductive reasoning is general information people have and use to reach to some type of conclusion. Deductive is done by understanding the first part which is using logic to reach a conclusion which reasoning is to understand what is going on. There are many different ways to explain what is required of deductive reasoning. For example, in an article, it states, “logical way of reaching a conclusion based on ded...
Mimesis, the ‘imitative representation of the real world in art and literature’ , is a form that was particularly evident within the governance of art in Ancient Greece. Although its exact interpretation does vary, it is most commonly used to describe artistic creation as a whole. The value and need for mimesis has been argued by a number of scholars including Sigmund Freud, Philip Sydney and Adam Smith, but this essay will focus on the arguments outlined by Plato in The Republic and Aristotle in Poetics, attempting to demonstrate the different features of imitation (mimesis) and what it involves for them both. In Plato’s The Republic, he discusses what imitation (mimesis) signifies to him and why he believed it was not worthy of the credit or appreciation it was so often given. In Aristotle’s Poetics on the other hand, he highlights the importance of imitation not just in art, but also in everyday life and why imitation within tragedy is necessary for human development.