In the history of early philosophy, there were 3 prominent views on how to live one's life. These were presented by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. Plato, presenting the most simple of the three, believed that one should direct their life towards virtue, morality, and harmony of the soul. Explaining himself in his work Gorgias, Plato has Socrates and Polus talking to each other about the relation between happiness and wrong doing. Polus answers yes, happiness and wrong doing go together. Furthering his answer, Polus describes how a happy man is a powerful man. This powerful man can do whatever he wants. The example used by Polus is he can murder others, but does not get imprisoned for it. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Socrates answers no. Plato’s belief is expressed through Socrates. Socrates states that the only things that matter in life are virtue and morality. Nothing else, like wealth or power, truly matter for a happy person. For Socrates, a happy person is a moral person. He also believes that it is better to suffer than to do a wrong to another person. Plato also expresses his views in Book 2 of The Republic through the story of The ring of Gyges. In this story, there are two men, each with a magic ring. One man is a just man while the other is found to be unjust. The just man decides to not use the rings power, which would allow the man to become invisible and do whatever he wants to do. However, the unjust man decides to use this power, but is caught up in his actions and is not happy ultimately. The just man, since not using the ring, is happy because he is in control of himself and did the virtuous action of not becoming invisible to benefit himself. Plato is clearly arguing for the just m...
... middle of paper ...
...t have the external good of health. As seen, only the virtue is necessary, yet the family and friends helped. If a person does a virtuous action with the right intention, then this is what will make them happy. Even if this action does not end up great, as somehow their action turns into a negative, their positive intention will still keep them happy. A virtuous action without the positive intent will not make anyone happy, but will only temporarily satisfy them. A perfect example of this would be a wealthy man donating money, only for tax purposes. They give the money to help themselves and do not care about how this money will not help others. By this motive behind, they do not have a positive intention for their virtuous action. This wealthy man may have the money, family, friends, and health, but does not have the virtue, so will never truly be happy.
Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He questioned the very nature of why things were the way they were, while never settling for simple, mundane answers. Socrates would rather die searching for the truth than live accepting what he considered a blatant lie. I like to think of myself the same way. I too would rather examine the wonders of life rather than accept what I am just told. The truth is some can’t handle the truth. I on the other hand welcome it with earnest anticipation and fervent enthusiasm.
Plato’s character in “The Ring of Gyges” is trying to convey certain points about human nature and wisdom. In Glaucon’s fictional story, Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a mysterious ring which allows him the power to become invisible. Gyges eventually gives up his lowly life as a shepherd and becomes an authoritative and crooked dictator due to the power of the ring. Glaucon’s main point in this story is that people are inherently immoral and will look out for themselves over the good of others. Due to his assumption about the nature of the human race Glaucon proclaims that in order to keep human’s from causing damage to others our social order should emphasize a government that will contain their constituents. Glaucon’s proposed social order became the building blocks of the social contract theory of government; “People in a society mutually agreeing not to harm one another and setting up sanctions when they do,” (Caste, 2014).
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.
Thrasymachus also argues that it is advantageous to live an immoral life rather than a moral one. He says, "morality and right are actually good for someone else… and bad for the underling at the receiving end of the orders… the opposite is true for immorality: the wrongdoer lords it over those ...
The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.
Many people seem to fear death, but philosophers such as Socrates and Epicurus would argue that one has no reason to fear it. Socrates sees death as a blessing to be wished for if death is either nothingness or a relocation of the soul, whereas Epicurus argues that one shouldn't worry themselves about death since, once we are gone, death is annihilation which is neither good nor bad. Epicurus believes that death itself is a total lack of perception, wherein there is no pleasure or pain. I agree with Epicurus because Socrates doesn't give a sound argument for death as a blessing, whereas Epicurus' argument is cogent. I would also argue personally that death is not something to be feared because, like Epicurus, I see no sufficient evidence showing we even exist after death.
In his several dialogues, Plato contends the importance of the four virtues: wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice. In The Republic, he describes a top-down hierarchy that correlates to the aspects of one’s soul. Wisdom, courage, and temperance preside control over the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of the soul. It is when one maintains a balance between these aspects of his soul that he attains peace within himself: “...And when he has bound together the three principles within him...he proceeds to act...always thinking and calling that which preserves and cooperates with this harmonious condition (Plato 443c).” Wisdom and knowledge consistently remain at the top of his view of happiness. During the apology, Plato is asked what punishment is best suited for him. He sarcastically answers, “to be fed...(It is) much more suitable than for any one who has won a v...
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
It is easier for wealthy people to pay for their needs, such as health care and dental care. If any abrupt situation approaches dealing with their health, a wealthy person will be financially stable to pay and fix it. According to an article, "Happiness Around The World: Is There More To It Than Money?" by Bozionelos, Nikos, and Ioannis Nikolaou, “One would expect that money is more important when it helps meet basic needs, and this should be especially true in poorer nations. However, as already seen, the relationship between income and general life satisfaction was mainly explained by whether material aspirations (such as buying luxury goods) could be fulfilled.” In other words, one’s concept of happiness can vary from nation to nation. For example, people living in poor nations and having a low income tend to be satisfied by having just enough to meet their necessities. While, on the other hand, people with higher income tend to be satisfied if they have enough to buy luxury goods. Being wealthy does not lead one to happiness; it can help some people to obtain happiness, but it can also lead others to have unwanted experiences. Having a minimum amount of money is necessary to be happy. Having the minimum amount of money to pay bills, have medical assistance, buy groceries, and clothing is considered as the basics needed for one to be happy. Money is a tool that can help a person obtain objects that can help him or her to have a comfortable life. However, money should not become the reason why a person is happy. Happiness comes within a person as a human being and money will never replace a friend, nor a loved
“Plato, Apologia” is a primary source that is a story written by Plato, it is a written account of Socrates, a Greek philosopher, who was being tried for immorality towards the gods and for “corrupting the youth” (Strayer). In this primary source, Socrates is trying to plead his case so he won 't be charged; unfortunately, Socrates does get charged with the crimes he was convicted of and is sentenced to be put to death. Through his Socrates’ plea, his discusses what he believes is “the good life,” what “wisdom” is, and what “virtue” is.
Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an unwise form of government.
When comparing the contemplative lifestyle to the moral virtuous lifestyle, one finds the differences to rest on the three types of good: goods of the body, external goods, and goods of the soul.
..., a person who earns $25,000 is happier than a person who makes $125,000 and an employee who makes $500,000 is only slightly happier than someone who makes $55,000. Lastly, there are more important things in life that and make you happy, for example, friends. They don’t come with a price tag, and if they do, you definitely need new friends. Money won’t make you happy since good times can’t be bought. You don’t need a fancy vacation to have a good time; it’s just a matter of who you spend it with. Over the years, humans have blown the value of money way out of proportion. People make it seem like if you’re not filthy rich, then you won’t live a good life but it’s not true. You can lack money and yet still live a perfect, happy life.
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”