Plato's Symposium
In the Symposium, Plato gives us one of the most close-up and personal
pictures of Socrates we have. Socrates himself
never wrote a line that we know of; all that we know of him (his
personality, his views, his biography) we get through Plato's ey
es and pen. We cannot, therefore, know how accurate or embellished this
account is. The elaborate way Plato introduces the
"story" of the Symposium may lead you to believe that it is a fiction, just
as the other works we will read this semester are.
You can decide that for yourself.
The Greek word "symposium" means something like "drinking party," but it
also means something like "a convivial [look it up]
evening of drinking and intellectual conversation." It has been borrowed
into English. Look it up in your dictionary. You might
translate it "feast." ¯
Notice that the work begins in medias res. Who is Apollodorus speaking to as
the work opens? We learn that there was a
supper at the home of Agathon, at which Socrates was a guest. Aristodemus
(an uninvited guest at that dinner) later
described that evening to Phoenix, as well as to Apollodorus. Phoenix passed
on the story to "another person," who in turn
told Glaucon about the occasion. Apollodorus then recounted it in detail to
Glaucon, and later to his unnamed "companion."
It is this last account that we are reading. Why all this elaborate
spaghetti of accounts? One effect is surely to lend an
aura of verisimitude [look it up] to the events--to make it sound like it
really happened. (Note on p. 2 that Socrates later
confirmed some of th e details of this story.) Another is perhaps to "cover"
any objections to the details of this account--in
fact to call into question th...
... middle of paper ...
...). Just when he seems to be getting serious,
however, he gives you an account of a very funny
"seduction scene" that backfires. Read it slowly and enjoy it.
What of Socrates' response? It is honest--cruelly honest. The astounding
thing about Socrates is that he is always the
same. Why is this ability so absolutely amazing? Alcibiades calls him a
"wonderful monster." Alcibiades then turns to exampl
es of this apparently superhuman talent. Read pages 40-41 carefully. What
does "allegory" mean? Why does Socrates use
the kind of language he does (of "pack-asses and smiths")?
What is Plato's response to all this? Then, a second interruption, this time
of the sort we had expected when Alcibiades
arrived. Notice that they "spoiled the order of the banquet." Who remains
awake? What do they talk about? What does
Socrat es do when he leaves? Could you?
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own but rather aimed at bringing out the worst in his interlocutors.
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 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 classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
Socrates was accused of being a sophist because he was "engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger," and "teaching others these same things." (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics page 21) Socrates is also accused of denying the existence of the gods, and corrupting the youth. Socrates goes about trying to prove his innocence. The jury that Socrates was tried by was made up of 501 Athenian citizens of all classes of society. While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision.
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 the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his 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.
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.
Within the fictional worlds of Haroun and the Sea of Stories, the characters realize that stories are not mere entertainment, but are crucial to their lives. Fictional stories are crucial pieces to Rashid Khalifa since he relies on them for a career and brings him enjoyment. They are also important to a politician because storytelling is a critical part of a politician’s survival and livelihood since they rely on the storytellers to persuade and convince people to vote for them. Most importantly they are important to Guppees since they depend on stories to be the source of all there speaking, and the pages of Gup (the army) they depend on stories to help them fight. All in all stories can
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
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.
As students file into the auditorium of the Academy the first thing that we all notice is the two professors that were standing at the front of the room. After all the students were seated that is when the first professor stepped forward to address the class. Plato: Good Morning Students! Students: Good Morning Professor! Plato: Many of you may know who I am and then there are those of you that do not. For those of you that do not know who I am, my name is Plato. I founded this Academy in 387 and it is the first of its kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy). I have studied under many great philosophers. After Plato got done speaking he stepped back and the professor standing to the left of him stepped forward and addressed the class. Aristotle: Good Morning Student! Students: Good Morning Professor! Aristotle: Like Plato there are many of you that know me and there are those of you that do not. So I will introduce myself to those of you that do not know me. My name is Aristotle. I was a
When we read any work of fiction, no matter how realistic or fabulous, as readers, we undergo a "suspension of disbelief". The fictional world creates a new set of boundaries, making possible or credible events and reactions that might not commonly occur in the "real world", but which have a logic or a plausibility to them in that fictional world. In order for this to be convincing, we trust the narrator. We take on his perspective, if not totally, then substantially. He becomes our eyes and ears in this world and we have to see him as reliable if we are to proceed with the story's development.