4. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates argues that human beings do not desire things that they believe to be bad. Socrates presents a valid argument—that is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, his argument is unsound—that is, the argument is valid but holds a false premise. I will argue against the soundness of Socrates’ argument. In the first premise, Socrates asserts the common intuition that bad things are harmful. By harmful, he means a state conducive to unhappiness. He does not mean harmful in the sense of pain. On the face of it, for example, children do not perceive lying as a bad thing nor as harmful. However, once the proper education is presented to them, they realize that lying is a bad thing which is conducive to unhappiness. So, it is a common intuition that everybody knows that bad things are conducive to …show more content…
Premise (2) asserts that wanting something bad involves wanting to be harmed. Premise (3) asserts that human beings do not want to be harmed. Socrates concludes—from premises (1-3)—that nobody wants bad things because they want to be happy. Humans never intentionally choose to be harmed and unhappy. The connection between Premise (2), Premise (3) and the conclusion show a valid argument form, modus tollens (denying the consequent). However, the connection between premise (1) and premise (2) show a problem in Socrates’ argument. Objection (1): Lying is a bad thing, but it is not always conducive to unhappiness. For example, lying to protect or save another humans’ life. In this scenario, lying is not conducive to unhappiness. Lying is actually conducive to happiness, since the lie is saving a person’s life. So, by definition, a bad thing is not always harmful. Since Socrates’ premise (2) is a universal premise—that is, a statement that claims to be true by necessity—all it needs is one objection to prove the statement false. Objections (1) makes premise (2)
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
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.
The paradox arises due to a number of assumptions concerning knowledge, inquiry and definition made by both Socrates and Meno. The assumptions of Socrates are:
I am going to attempt to show that although the argument that Socrates makes in The Republic by Plato is valid, it is not sound. I am going to explain his argument and challenge a premise that he has made to support his argument.
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.
Contrary to this widely accepted myth, I will try to demonstrate that Socrates' argument was erroneous, which made his decision less rational. In fact, had he decided to escape, his behavior would not have represented an unjust act. Although his argumentation and dialogue with Crito seem more like a moral sermon, his ...
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
In order for this argument to be sound, however, the premises need to be true. The first premise immediately comes in to question because it appears to be a false dilemma. Socrates is asserting in his argument that there are only two avenues death might take, when in fact there could be other possibilities. For instance, couldn't death be an eternity of sta...
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
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.
As an aside, I would like to note that, though I believe that a further objection could be made to Socrates conclusions in “The Philosopher's Defense”, due to space considerations, I didn't write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
In other words, Socrates was using this as analogy between what is holy and what is approved of by the gods as holy, he is saying that it is approved because it got approved by yourself and not that it is approved because it has already been approved by the gods. He used this analogy because it was a perfect argument to defend his claim, he is simply stating that you approve of what is holy and not believe something is holy because it has already been approved. What you approve of as holy is what should be holy and not what someone else approves of holy should define what you consider holy. Everyone has their own opinion and has the right to believe what they think is best for them. If they don’t agree with what you believe, then why should they believe in what you approve
Socrates' argument backing up his claim, the statement makes a lot of sense. In order for Philosophers to