Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on plato's gorgias
Gorgias plato essay
Plato dialogue gorgias essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Plato’s Gorgias Callicles states that “the stronger sort of man” can take advantage of the weaker. When he states this I believe he was talking about himself in general because in his eyes he saw himself as strong. He also states “Natural justice is that the better and wiser man should rule over and have more than the inferior.” He states it this way because Socrates gives him an example of how a slave can be stronger physically than his master, and therefore can be considered stronger and take advantage of his master, in which Callicles disagrees with. Thrasymachus states “…justice is nothing else than the interest of the strong…” which goes hand in hand with what Callicles states, and I believe they are both are in agreement towards the stronger being better. However, Thrasymachus believes in the benefit of the stronger “people” as in the society, because he states “stronger” while Callicles believes in the “stronger man.” Thrasymachus explains that the rules benefit the people, it is unjustly to just benefit oneself, but those are the people who can take over the people who act justly. To act just, is to sacrifice your desires, and be taken advantage of indefinitely. …show more content…
Second he states that a person that acts so unjustly will be poor, and friendless. If he is poor he cannot satisfy his appetite, and the reason he is poor because he has such a large apatite that cannot be sated. He will be friendless, so there will be no one he can take advantage of, and he will be bound to satisfy his desires, which leaves him without any freedom or will of his own. With this argument in mind Socrates is stating that this unjustly person is not strong because he left miserable. Socrates argument is clever, and completely breaks down Thrasymachus’
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Callicles comes with a hedonistic belief that pleasure is to be associated with “good” and that pain is to be associated with “bad”, which means a good life is the one full of many pleasures. To refute Callicles belief, Socrates first uses the example of health and disease to explain to Callicles that good and bad cannot happen with a person at the same time, yet pain and pleasure can happen simultaneously. To further enforce his point, Socrates uses the concept of a coward and the brave to provide another argument that pain and pleasure cannot be the deciding factors for what is a good life. In both of his arguments, I believe Socrates is successful based on my personal belief that if someone or something is result in pain, it doesn’t mean that it is bad, and that everyone, good or bad, is capable of feeling both pain an pleasure.
Oedipus as the Hero Archetype. The character Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus the King follows a literary pattern known as the hero archetype. The hero archetype is a pattern involved in transformation and redemption. Manifested in three stages called the quest, the initiation, and the sacrifice, Oedipus is transformed from the redeemer of the city to the cause of its downfall.
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
The name “Oedipus” means “swollen feet” in Latinized Greek. His parents, Laius and Jocasta, gave him this name while piercing a metal rod through the ankles of his feet, in order to prevent the fulfilment of the oracle’s prophecy. Despite this heinous act, their efforts were in vain as Oedipus’ free will conquered the theme of fate. In the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, the tragic hero, Oedipus, demonstrates hamartia, a fatal error in judgement, which brings about his own downfall. It was Oedipus’ hubris that was responsible for the tragic ending of this play. Evidence of this statement occurs when Oedipus’ determination towards solving the mystery behind Laius’ death ironically lead to the truth behind the oracle’s prophecies. Additionally, Oedipus’ overweening pride and ego resulted in the murder of Laius, which was a major stepping-stone in the prophecy. He illustrates his error in judgment through his pride, blindness, and foolishness and therefore is at fault.
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.
Oedipus the King: Reason and Passion In the play, Oedipus the King, there are dual parts of reason and passion. Oedipus primarily acts with both reason and passion at different stages in the play. There are several points in the play where Oedipus acts with reason. The first such point occurs when he is asked by his followers to help save Thebes. He acts with reason when he immediately decides to heed to their demands and find help for them.
The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle outlined the requirements for a good tragedy, and he based his ideals on the classic Greek play Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles. As Aristotle stated, the perfect tragedy must be an imitation of one’s life, realistic and narrow in its aspects. Such is the case with the play Oedipus Rex, a Greek play revolving around the tragedies of the life of King Oedipus. Oedipus Rex, the protagonist of the first of the three Oedipus plays, has a life of luxury and promise. However, because of the life fate has dictated him and the obstacles he has faced, Oedipus has been proven to have three hamartias, or tragic flaws. His attributes of determination, impatience/disrespect, and hubris greatly contribute to his downfall.
Set ages apart, Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex provide different perspectives on the topic of tragedy and what is defined as a tragic hero. Although Oedipus would be thought of as better representing the tragic hero archetype due to tradition and time period, the modern tragic hero of Oedipus Rex is more of a dismal one. Through analysis of their respective hamartias, it is exemplified that the New York businessman with his humble story proves to be more thought provoking than the King of Thebes and his melancholic tale. **By incorporating a more relatable character and plot, Arthur Miller lends help to making Willy Lowman spiral toward his own downfall while building more emotion and response from the audience than with Oedipus. When Oedipus learns of his awful actions, this invokes shock and desperation. With Willy Lowman, the audience goes for a bumpy ride until the eventual, but expected, crash. ** (NEEDS WORK)
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
Oedipus did not have a fair start in life. His father, Laius, heard prophecy that Oedipus would one day kill his father and sleep with his mother. In order to prevent this, Laius gave Oedipus to a shepherd to be killed. Fortunately, through a string of events, Oedipus's life was saved, and he even went on to become the honored king of Thebes. Despite this feat, Oedipus still managed to make several decisions that ultimately fulfilled the original prophecy told to Laius, and inevitably sealed Oedipus?s fate.
Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.
Here is a story where Oedipus the King, who has accomplished great things in his life, discovers that the gods were only playing with him. He has everything a man of that time could want; he is king of Thebes, he has a wonderful wife and children, and great fame through out the lands. He has lived a good life, but in the end everything is taken from him.
Elizabeth Kubler Ross, in Death and Dying, discusses the stages one goes through when he or she comes to terms with his or her own fate. These stages include Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, and the medieval morality play, Everyman, by and anonymous author, both the title characters travel through these stages throughout the plot when they come to meet their fates or misfortunes.