More handpicked essays just for you.
Quotation from Immanuel Kant as a cue, to explain the notion of enlightenment
Describe the Enlightenment
Essay on what enlightenment is
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Phaedo by Plato The main theme behind the "Phaedo" is Socrates' readiness and willingness to die, because of his belief of immortality. Socrates believed that when his body ceased to exist anymore, that his soul would leave and join that of the forms, where he would be eternally. Socrates believed so strongly in this, that not only did he not fear his death, he welcomed it. He believed that only when the soul separated from the body, is a person able to be truly enlightened and gain all knowledge. This "enlightenment" has been Socrates' life long goal of discovering the truth. Even at his hour of death, Socrates showed no hesitation. However, Socrates' friends did not believe so strongly, and took some great convincing by Socrates, to allow his friends to be okay with his death. The two proofs that Socrates used to convince his friends are the "Doctrine of Opposites" and the "simple and composite theory. The first proof, the "Doctrine of Opposites," is the type of proof that uses a sequence of factual statements the lead from to another to prove that one thing is the same as another thing. The "Doctrine of Opposites" uses simple references to allow the reader to easily comprehend and follow the steps of the logical process. For example, hot comes from cold. An object could not possibly be hot if it was never heated up from the state of being cold. The same holds true for the reverse of this analogy. If cold object must have at one point been cooled down from a state of being hot. Since hot and cold are opposites, this simple statement proves that things come from there opposite. Also by using this example, Socrates is trying to imply the idea of eternal existence. He is saying that cold doesn't come from thin air. It had to have come from some previous existence in some other form, which in this case would be hot. Another example that he uses is the asleep and awake analogy. One would have to agree that a person could be only one or the other. If you are not sleeping, then you are awake and if you are not awake then you have to be asleep. This example further proves that you can only be one of something or the other, its opposite, but you must be one of them.
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 what is noted as one of Plato first accounts, we become acquainted with a very intriguing man known as Socrates; a man, whose ambition to seek knowledge, inevitably leaves a significant impact on humanity. Most of all, it is methodologies of attaining this knowledge that makes him so mesmerizing. This methodology is referred to as Socratic irony, in literature. In any case, I will introduce the argument that Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this type of methodology, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
"Apology" and "Phaedo" Knowledge of Death versus Belief in a Soul In Plato’s "Apology," Socrates says that he knows nothing of death while in "Phaedo" he discusses many of his beliefs on death and its philosophical ramifications. From this simple perspective it may seem as though he is contradicting himself although he, after further investigation, is not. Philosophically, the idea of death and an afterlife can be looked at from multiple non-contradictory viewpoints. Socrates talks of his lack of knowledge of death in order to define, more so, his philosophy on life. While in "Phaedo," he talks explicitly about his philosophy on death. The two discussions of death are equally important in determining Socrates’ overall philosophical outlook on life and death although the have different emphasis. They both do help to define philosophy’s proper relationship to death. In Plato’s "Apology " Socrates announces that he is not afraid of death because he knows nothing of it. His lack of knowledge of death is relative to his knowledge of living and, in that manner, helps to define his knowledge of life. Socrates, at his trial, is faced with the death penalty unless he pleads with the judges for a different sentence. The sentences that he may be able to obtain instead of death are a fine, banishment from the city, or imprisonment. Socrates refuses and accepts death. His reasoning for this decision is that the other options are most certainly evils; owing money that he does not have to people he does not want to pay, being sent away from his friends, his family, his city and his home to go to a foreign land, or imprisonment. His beliefs, though, and his teachings seem most valuable to him and any inter...
The people of Athens used Socrates as a scapegoat for the wrongs that had befallen them in regards to plagues as well as him upsetting the higher ups. It was believed by the people that he had upset the Gods and was the cause of the misfortune. Socrates knew this and saw this as a last service to his country and people, which is why he was content with his death.
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.
Plato’s Theaetetus is one of the most read and interpreted texts under the subject of philosophy. Within the dialect, many topics and questions are analyzed and brought to light. Leon Pearl is the author of Is Theaetetus Dreaming?, which discusses the positions taken on the topic of ‘dreaming’ and ‘being awake’, which is conferred about within the Theaetetus. Pearl critiques the question: “How can you determine whether at this moment we are sleeping and all our thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake and talking to one another in the waking state” asked by Socrates within Plato’s Theaetetus (Pearl, p.108). Pearl first analyzes the question from the skeptic’s point of view and then proceeds to falsify the skeptic’s argument by his own interpretation, stating that “if a man is awake and believe that he is awake, then this constitutes a sufficient condition for his knowing the he is awake” (Pearl, p.108). Within Pearl’s argument, the conclusion at the end of section II becomes questionable when considering that knowledge and true belief have no distinction in the ‘awake state’ of mind.
In the last days of Socrates’ life while he awaits his death sentence, he examines and evaluates the facets of life and the morals that come as a part of human nature. He analyzes the concept of being, and what it means to be either living or deceased and through this analysis, Socrates particularly goes in depth with his examination of the human soul. In Phaedo, Plato meets with a follower who had been with Socrates on his last day, on which he talked much about the innermost qualities of being; life and death and how the soul constitutes those two entities. According to Socrates, there are four arguments that prove the existence of the soul: the Argument from Opposites, the Theory of Recollection, the Affinity Argument, and the Theory of Forms.
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 discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
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.
The final argument, Cebes argument says the body might harm the soul, or cause it to be destroyed over time. Socrates responds by establishing the casual power of forms. Forms are “ideas” but are also causes of things in the world. This is because the properties of things only belong to objects in relation to the forms they represent. These forms never become opposites. The idea of tallness can never be the idea of the
Plato is one of the most famous Greek philosophers who has many published works that contributes to the field of ethics. In many of his philosophical debates, Plato claims that the soul never perishes after death and only the body dies. One of Plato 's famous works that argues for the immortality of the soul is the Socratic dialogue, The Phaedo. In this dialogue, Phaedo is telling the story of Socrates ' death, who appears as the main character in the dialogue. Socrates was executed by drinking poison hemlock after the state of Athens accused him of corrupting the youth. The dialogue depicts Socrates as a great philosopher who does not fear death and remains calm while practicing philosophical debates with his students during his last few hours
Wisdom, courage, moderation and justice are four essential virtues the ideal state must be built upon, as explained by Socrates in Plato’s Republic. Throughout the eight books of Socratic dialogue the ideal state and ideas of justice are debated, on both individual and state levels. The guidelines for a perfect state and how it will come about are thoroughly described. Socrates covers every aspect of political life and how it should work stating that “until power and philosophy entirely coincide… cities will have no rest form evils” . In Plato’s Republic Socrates emphasizes the superiority of the philosopher and their abilities to rule as kings above others. He believes that they are best suited to rule as a result of their pure souls and lust for knowledge, the desire for truth over opinions and things that are tangible. The philosopher is best able to fulfill the four essential virtues of the state and thus must be the king. He evokes the idea of a cave, a parallel to the effects of education on the soul and a metaphor for human perceptions, to describe how humans will act and show distinctions between groups of people. This conception of the ideal state has been heavily criticized by his successors, but when applied according to how Plato perceived the state and human capacity, in theory the idea of the philosopher-king is extremely convincing. According to Socrates the soul is made up of three parts, and each person is governed primarily by a different one. Which aspect of the soul occupies a person affects their access to the four virtues deemed ultimate. The appetitive part of the soul is at the bottom of the divided line; it controls the unnecessary desires and is undesirable to be governed by. The spirited element of the s...
Socrates was an insightful philosopher who had an opinion on all the basic fundamental questions. He had very strong beliefs that he willed others into believing through questioning and proving ignorance in others beliefs. He has particular views on every fundamental question and particular views on how people should live their lives. He says God has spoken to him about philosophy and says that it is his destiny and it is his calling in life. Through philosophy he searches for answers to the fundamental questions and gains wisdom and knowledge. The fundamental question of condition is the question of what, if anything, has gone wrong with the world? The question of solution is what can fix the problem? Then there is Death which asks what happens