Protagoras
The passage in question begins with a breakdown in the discussion between Socrates and Protagoras because of disagreement about what its ground rules will be and concludes with the discussion’s restoration. Though formally a mere hiatus from the main line of argument, this passage in fact contains a parable about politics, addressing the question, "How can people of differing abilities and preferences come together to form a community?" Since the passage appears in the middle of a dialogue explicitly concerned with education, the parable extends to education as well. The passage thus provides a springboard for insight into some essential interconnections between and among philosophy, education, and politics. On the one hand, a genuine practitioner of any of the three is ipso facto a engaged in the other two at the same time. And on the other hand, the three share an internal structure which is reflexive and transitive at the same time.
In the passage in question, the discussion between Socrates and Protagoras has broken down in disagreement about what its ground rules will be. After some angry saber-rattling from the principals, and some well-meaning intervention from the onlookers, order is restored and the dialogue continues. For all its vivid, memorable banter, the passage is thus apparently no more than a hiatus from the dialogue’s main line of argument.(1) A commentary may skip over it lightly;(2) an anthology may omit it entirely.(3) However, I claim that the passage is more than mere literary entertainment, and has significance beyond the methodology of Socratic dialogue. In this essay I would like to give a reading of the passage which shows it to be not only a dispute about philosophical methodology but also a parable for politics. I will then go on to show that this political parable, placed as it is at the center of a philosophical work in which education is explicitly at issue, suggests some essential interconnections between philosophy, politics, and education.
The discussion between Socrates, the dialectician, and Protagoras, the speech-maker, began in a friendly fashion (317e), but by 334d it has broken down entirely. Socrates’s elenchus has exposed some problems in Protagoras’s position, and Protagoras seems to realize that things go better for him when he makes a speech (as at 320d-328d). When he extricates himself from a tight spot into which Socrates has backed him by giving a short speech (334a-c) which brings him applause, Socrates realizes that Protagoras does not wish to engage in dialectic.
Alain de Botton commences the section by delineating the story of how Socrates became the figure he became. Socrates lived a lifestyle in which he did things that he thought were correct and did not worry much about approval from society. de Botton states, “every society has notions of what one should believe and how one should behave in order to avoid suspicion and unpopularity” (9). In other words, de Botton believes that society has placed views for people to know what is right and what is wrong. People will submit to conformity by behaving in ways that people will view as “acceptable”.
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 Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
Initially, the mens rea of rape prior to the case of DPP v Morgan a defendant cannot be found liable for rape if he had the reasonable belief that consent was formed between them and the victim. Which leads to an unfairness to those victims that have been violated, and also that any person accused of rape could say they had belief in consent. Although, it was shown not to matter how unreasonable that belief may have been, in concerning the knowledge or lack of knowledge of consent. Needless to say, the current law has attempted to improve and develop upon this concept, though it may not be completely satisfactory. The 21st century initiated a new state of trying to improve the current laws and precedents on the definition of rape, the prior precedent simply not suitable for the 21st century. Various cases after Morgan , prior to the act that redrew and reformed the Mens rea of rape, came to court and illustrated how the principle of Morgan operates. In Kimber the defendant (D) was charged with sexually assaulting a mentally disordered woman. It had to be determined whether his interference was in fact an assault, even with the D’s claim of consent to his actions, though she claimed otherwise. The court came to find that the mens rea for assault is intentionally touching a Victim (V), unlawfully, i.e. without consent. However, due to the fact that the D believed the consent was there, however unreasonably, he therefore lacked the mens rea of the assault and therefore not guilty.
Gover, A. R., D. Pudrzynska Paul, and M. Dodge. "Law Enforcement Officers' Attitudes About Domestic Violence." Violence Against Women 17.5 (2011): 619-36. Print.
Within the past thirty years, the courts have extended the legal parameters of rape to include the withdrawal of consent after penetration. Courts and state legislatures around the country should seek to modernize rape statutes to protect all victims of nonconsensual intercourse, regardless of when those victims manifest their lack of consent. Within English common law, a conviction of rape required evidence that the perpetrator used force or threats of force against the victim. There is much contradiction between states regarding consent. In an effort to eliminate moral ambiguity or the question of consent, an affirmative consent standard should be set into place that refines the classification of consent from “not saying no to sex” to saying yes to the sex with words or obvious enthusiastic actions.
Many perceive a car mechanic and an auto body repairman as the same person since they both attend to vehicles. The truth is that the two carry out different roles in car attendance but they are both beneficial. A car mechanic is one that you visit to repair your car whereby they are required to attend to the damage in a very short time moreover mechanics are independent or self-employed. An auto body technician is a trained person who can perform so many duties related to a car including a mechanics role to repair, maintain and refinish vehicles. These technicians are highly based in automotive industries.
This view makes more sense as Socrates has thought about the issue more than the comrade and instead he thought about what gain was to conclude to what a lover of gain is. Their contradicting views relate to the human problem of the philosopher versus the city. A philosopher will have a wiser view on the answers due to their deep thoughts; whereas, the city’s view is more irrational and is not ruled by wisdom. This the reason why the human problem could not be solved as the city’s view will contradict the philosopher’s just the views on the lovers of gain.
The long standing and illegal practice of rape and sexual abuse is a global issue seen in practically every continent. The legal definition of rape in the state of Florida includes any type of sexual activity involving force or threat of force. Rape occurs when the victim does not give consent or cannot give consent. Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVI Crimes Section 794.005 part A states, “’Consent’ means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary. Consent does not include coerced submission. ‘Consent’ shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.” For the purpose of this paper it’s vital to compare the legal standard of rape and consent in the U.S., with what is being broadcasted throughout the nation.
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.
Edward Schiappa's cogent and eloquent book fully deserves the praise it has received. As Donovan Ochs observes in his 1991 review of the book (RSQ 21: 3942), Schiappa, presents a clear account of Protagoras' philosophy and supports his reading with a detailed analysis of each of Protagoras' five extant fragments. But even though Schiappa's reading is compelling, we need not necessarily be persuaded by it; for as Protagoras himself remarks, it is always possible to articulate two opposed accounts about everything, and to make the ostensibly weaker account stronger. In this review I will undertake a "Protagorean" project, articulating and defending an account of Protagoras' philosophy that is opposed to Schiappa's account. To this end I will briefly sketch Schiappa's account, which I label an "enlightenment" reading of Protagoras, and I will then sketch an opposed, "rhetoricist" reading of the Sophist.
Socrates have been using rhetorical devices throughout his discussion with Gorgias, and started out by using ethos appeal to draw Gorgias into his questioning, in which Polus gave an indefinite answers to Chaerephon. Ethos appeal can be described as an appeal by character of authority; it is when we tend to believe those who we respect. After Polus failed to answer the question, Socrates responded, “It certainly looks as though Polus is well qualified to speak, Gorgias, but he’s not doing what he promised Chaerephon he’d do.” (Plato 3). Socrates, who was not satisfied with the answer given by Polus, provoked Gorgias into answering for his disciple as Socrates brought Gorgias’ name into the conversation.
O'Dell, A. (2007). Why do police arrest victims of domestic violence? The Need for Comprehensive Training and Investigative Protocols. Journal Of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15(3/4), 53-73.
Ever wonder why children and teens seem to be more aggressive and violent? Violence has gone up because of violent video games. The games children play these days are rated higher than what their age group are suppose to play. “In this study, children who played video games often with older siblings were twice as likely as other children to play mature-rated games (Considered suitable for ages 17 and older)” (Violent). Children are acting violent due to the games they play.
Violent video games can lead to aggressive and violent behavior in children and adolescents. “Violent media increase aggression by teaching observers how to aggress, by priming aggressive cognition (including previously learned aggressive scripts and aggressive perceptual schemata), by increasing arousal, or by creating an aggressive state” (Anderson and Bushman 355). As more children are becoming exposed violence in video games in the recent years, violence in schools and other locations where children are prominent has increased. “A national crime victimization survey compiled and maintained by the United States Department of Justice, shows that overall crime rates in United States society have fallen. Simultaneously, school- based studies reveal that many violent behaviors have increased among children and adolescents” (“Causes of School Violence” 1). Exposure to violence in video games can lead to aggressive behavior, desensitization, and an increase in crimes committed by children and teens in our society.
He begins his argument by means of analogy. Just as a vigorous plant suffers most greatly when it is deprived of necessary nutrients and environment and weather, a vigorous soul, as a philosopher must possess according to Socrates, can become the greatest of the wicked if its upbringing should be bad (491d-492a). What then can corrupt such a vigorous soul? Socrates contends that the upbringing of those with a philosophic soul is corrupted by the unphilosophical majority, saying “They object very loudly and excessively to some of the things that are said or done and approve others in the same way, shouting and clapping, so that the very rocks and surroundings echo the din of their praise or blame and double it” (492b-c). By this, Socrates means that societal beliefs act as a sort of echo chamber whereby the loudest opinions are perpetuated and only come to grow in size to the point where dissenting opinion is incapable of breaking through the cacophony. This mob that forms then compels those who dissent by “disenfranchisement, fines, or death” (492d). In this way, mob society forces dissenters to be