Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The concept of justice
The importance of family
The importance of family
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The concept of justice
At the beginning of the chapter, Cephalus invites Socrates to his home for philosophic discussion. Although it is the first scene, Cephalus appears only in this scene and does not reappear in the dialogue. To understand why he departs the scene so early, first we must focus on the purpose of philosophy.
Philosophers, like Socrates, question why things are, how they should be and what the best way to live is. Philosophy can be disturbing, as it was with Cephalus because it may contradict what you previously believed in. In this particular conversation with Cephalus, he asks, "What is justice?" There are many answers to this question, and Cephalus provides the simple definition that justice is telling the truth and paying one's debts.
Cephalus' principles are based on an elderly, wealthy perspective of life which focuses on what happens after death and reflects on his past life. On page 6, Cephalus expresses his concern of what is to come when he states, "when the prospect of dying is near at hand, a man begins to feel some alarm about things that never troubled him before."
This late perspective of life shows how Cephalus represents a very religiously concerned character. From this, he derives his definition of justice so that it suits himself and satisfies the gods. At this point he is very focused on what the gods think of him because he mentions the fear of, "being in debt to some god," (7).
An indication that Cephalus has a guilty conscience of his past is when he claims his soul is tormented about the fear of the punishments in another world. It appears that he has a guilty mind and is worried about the consequences of his next life. Obviously, an old, wealthy and religious man would not be concerned with matters in the present world, because most of his matters can be solved with money, but not ones in the next world.
If his conscience was free of all troubling thoughts, he would feel the " 'sweet hope'" on his way to what lies beyond, but instead he speaks of what sounds like personal experiences of waking from sleep in terror and being haunted by "dark forebodings."(6) He would not speak of these things if he has not experienced them for himself. Apparently Cephalus does not feel the charm of leading a righteous life.
Cephalus uses the term, "righteous." When someone is described as being righteous, I think of a divine or holy being; a god is an example of a righteous being.
In “The Apology,” Socrates represents himself in his own trial. He boldly questions the morality of the people of court. In this report, I will be analyzing portions of “The Apology” in order to reveal the intellectuality of this text within this time frame. I will only discuss bits of “The Apology“ on account that it is a lengthy piece. However, before discussing the speech it is important to set the scene. Socrates was born in 469 B.C.E. and lived to 399 B.C.E. (Nails, 2014). What we do know about him is second-hand knowledge, or recounts from his former students, Plato and Xenophon (“Plato and Socrates”). Nevertheless, his legacy has influenced philosophy and continues to do so.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
The debate between Just and Unjust Speech highlights the ongoing debate between old and new traditions. These traditions can range from how to interpret laws to family values and the struggle between them is highlighted in Aristophanes Clouds. The battle between old and new is seen in argument between Just and Unjust Speech and the arguments between father Strepsiades and son Pheidippides. The constant battle between old and new is seen in many different areas throughout the Clouds such as justice, piety and issues of law.
Thesis: The completion and substance of Oedipus Rex allows Oedipus to live grief-stricken throughout his successful search for justice.
In this paper, I will argue that Socrates does not typically benefit those that he cross-examines, but that his activity is nonetheless useful and justified. I will argue that Socrates’ cross-examinations are justified and useful because it is a divine mission and because it develops critical thinking skills. I will argue my thesis by first, using The Apology and Euthyphro dialogues to show the usefulness and justification of Socrates’ elenchus. Second, I will suggest objections to the reasons why Socrates’ elenchus is useful and justified. Finally, I will give my rebuttal to the objections against Socrates’ elenchus.
As such, Odysseus’ journey to Hades sheds light upon the differing views of life from those who were subjected to the savagery of war and those not. When speaking with a variety of deceased individuals, Odysseus is told numerous stories of regret, accounts of death which could only be understood by one on the battlefield. Odysseus does not initially wish to speak with his mother, though he eventually recalls, “I stayed where I was until my mother / came up and drank the dark blood” (11.150-151). The interpreted symbolism behind this act is almost paradoxical, while representing the underlying theme of a different perception of mortality. Perhaps honor in a distinguished, fighting death is merely a cover for the unbearable consequences of
Throughout his life, Socrates engaged in critical thinking as a means to uncover the standards of holiness, all the while teaching his apprentices the importance of continual inquiry in accordance with obeying the laws. Socrates primarily focuses on defining that which is holy in The Euthyphro – a critical discussion that acts as a springboard for his philosophical defense of the importance of lifelong curiosity that leads to public inquiry in The Apology. Socrates continues his quest for enlightenment in The Crito, wherein he attempts to explain that while inquiry is necessary, public curiosity has its lawful price, thus those who inquire must both continue to do so and accept the lawful consequences of their inquiry. Each of the above values, holiness, inquiry, and just lawful obedience, interlock under what Socrates describes in The Republic as, “the very cause of knowledge and truth, [it is also] the chief objective in the pursuit of knowledge,” (Sterling & Scott 198) – the good. The good embodies each Socratic pursuit: it acts as an umbrella for all things perceived in what Socrates names, “the intelligible sector,” (Sterling & Scott 199).
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Brittnne Bennett Bennett 1Mrs. BardEnglish Honors25 January 2014The cursed journey of Oedipus By conducting a thorough reading of Sophocles play Oedipus the king, one will easily view Oedipus as caring, getting ahead of himself, and seemingly on a personal journey. In the process of this journey you come to, and understanding that there is more to this apologue than it appears. Due to the fact that, Oedipus goes through a life changing journey; Between his biological family, people who he considered his family, and himself. The decision that he chooses to make will either bring him peace or misery. The story commences with a toxic plague tormenting the city of Thebes. The Priest approaches Oedipus his king, and begs him to help cease this curse. Being a considerate and understanding king who loves his people Oedipus was already one step ahead. At that point Oedipus had sent his brother-in-law Creon to talk to the god Apollo, to grasp and understand as to why this was happening to his people. In return, Creon had suggested to Oedipus that he talks to Tiresias, "The man who sees most eye to eye with Lord Apollo." (Will 17) In doing so, it doesn't end well as Oedipus felt betrayed by his brother-in-law; for sending a false prophet. Leading him to accuse Creon of wanting to steal the throne. As this predicament rises the chorus leader state's that " Quick decisions are not the safest." (Will 35)
As Cephalus leaves the conversation, Polemarchus continues it. Polemarchus forms his idea of justice through quoting Simonides, ...
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”.
Creon does not learn a lesson from Oedipus' accusatory behavior. Instead he adapts this bad personality trait. Throughout Antigone, he accuses everyone who tries to give him advice of betraying him. Whereas, in Oedipus, he is falsely accused by Oedipus of trying to take over the throne. This paper will compare and contrast his behavior and evaluate if he learned anything from one play to the next.
Yaeger, Werner. "Sophocles' Master of Fate." In Readings on Sophocles, edited by Don Nardo. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.
Through the New American Standard Bible, the term righteousness, is used a total of 92 times. The word righteousness stems from the Greek word of “dikaiosynē” which literally translates of “equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification: —righteousness.” (Strong’s) Paul says that “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from