In the Aristophanes play The Clouds the exchange between the Just and the Unjust over the education of Phidipidies and which of the arguments that shall be his teacher. Throughout the play you see a contrast of old and new, the old- Stepciaties, and the new-phidipidies, but here it can be seen as well with the old –or the just, based on morality, honor, fitness, and strength; and the new, or the unjust based on knowledge, progress, questioning, excess, exchange of ideas and rhetoric. The just speech is the first to present his side, and this is necessary for the unjust be able to refute everything that the just considers to be valuable. The Just opens with a line that once again goes with the old and the new, by calling the Just education the “ancient education” and begins its argument by saying that those the Just educated will be obedient and were not …show more content…
Here, Aristophanes shows the Just argument lacking in persuasion, with this only befits being attributes based on perception but nothing based on knowledge. The Just argument does not leave any room for questioning, for testing, for explanation. As the Unjust begins his cross examination of the Just beliefs, he begins with the negative opinion that the Just has for those who enjoy the pleasure of a warm bath. When the time comes for the unjust to speak he begins by questioning the very things that the Just argument held to be true and virtuous. The Unjust actually needs for the Just to go first because he needs the material in which to refute. The first of the subjects the Unjust examines is the Just objection to men taking warm baths. The warmth of the water is thought to make the men soft. To refute this, the Unjust asks the Just which of the sons of Zeus the thought to be most honorable. The Just replied with Hercules as having the most
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
Without it, the colonies would not have unified sufficiently to fight Britain. There would have been a United States of Great Britain instead of the United States of America! Henry’s successful ability to persuade the audience was why his speech lives on as the epitome of persuasive writing. As seen throughout the oration, he creates an emotional bond with the crowd and isolates the key points that the audience should remember. His work exemplifies the everlasting importance of rhetoric. The art of persuasion, developed since Ancient Greek times, is a valuable skill that can catalyze advancement in the workforce, which is why it has such a profound historical importance. As the saying goes, “It's not what you say, but how you say
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
How do we define reason as just? When asked this question, it really makes you begin to wonder how to depict what one might think is just. In the story of Medea, reason is what drives many of the characters actions. For example, the reason that Jason leaves Medea for Creon's daughter is for his own benefit. Is that just? Medea then kills Creon and his daughter for revenge against Jason. Is that just?.
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.
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.
Justice in Oedipus the King & nbsp; After reading Oedipus the King, one may think that in this story, there was no justice, and nobody could avoid their fate. King Laius and Queen Jocasta. fearing the prophecy of the Delphic oracle, had the young Oedipus left on Mount. Cithaeron dies, but the father dies and the son marries the mother anyway. Oedipus, seemingly a good person, also tries to avoid the second prophecy, only to be resurrected. to fulfill the first. But even through all this, I have done some research and feel that there was justice in Oedipus, The King, and their fate wasn't.
Aristophane’s Lysistrata is a flawed classic filled with the power struggle between man vs. woman. It is entirely focused and written from the male perspective, in which male-privilege dominated and disregarded the women’s outlook entirely. This “classic” is full of misogynistic perspectives, and should be disregarded as a great piece in Athenian literature.
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.
At the elderly age of seventy, Socrates found himself fighting against an indictment of impiety. He was unsuccessful at trial in the year 399 B.C. The charges were corrupting the youth of Athens, not believing in the traditional gods in whom the city believed, and finally, that he believed in other new divinities. In Plato's Apology, Socrates defends himself against these charges. He claims that the jurors' opinions are biased because they had probably all seen Aristophanes' comedy The Clouds. The Socrates portrayed in Aristophanes' Clouds is an altogether different character than that of the Apology. The two different impressions of Socrates lead to quite opposite opinions with regard to his guilt. In The Clouds, Socrates' actions provide evidence of his guilt on all three charges. However, in the Apology, Socrates is fairly convincing in defending his innocence on the first two charges, but falls short on the third charge. Socrates, in The Clouds, is portrayed as an idiot who thinks he's walking on air and is interested primarily in gnats' rumps. He is delineated as a natural philosopher/sophist. He is hired to teach Pheidippides to make the "worse argument", the argument that is really incorrect and unjust the "better"—to his father's creditors— so that Strepsiades, Pheidippides' father, will not have to pay his debts. While this in itself is corrupt, it was that he changed Pheidippides from the time he entered Socrates' "Thinkery" into a corrupt scoundrel, completely devoid of morality that was even more deplorable. At the beginning, Pheidippides is a respectful son who loves his father, but after "graduating" from the Thinkery he is beating his father with a stick (lines 1321-1333). Socrates ...
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
Throughout all of history, a just man has been considered an individual who lives a life of excellence. However, as time has progressed, so has the definition of a “life of excellence” itself. Thus, an individual who was considered just in the 5th century BCE would possess very different characteristics than a just man today, despite the fact that both were considered to be men who achieved areté: the life of excellence.