While the political element takes place within opinions about political life, Socrates asks the question "What is the best regime and how should I live?" Ancient thought is riddled with unknowns and can make no such statement as "how should I live." The Socratic philosophy offers an alternative and prepares the way for the alternative of absolutes. This alternative is not without its faults. Socratic philosophy is plagued by a destructive element.
Socrates and Properties By Characterizing himself –Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous?
Both Socrates and Aristotle strove to better understand the world around them using epistemological approaches they derived on their own. Aristotle disagreed with much of his predecessors' beliefs thus provoking him to create his own methods of understanding. Socrates would walk the streets of Athens barefoot and question anyone willing to listen and search for truth using his Socratic method. If the person was fully engaged with their conversation Socrates would try to lead them both down the path of understanding by constantly asking questions that might get them to the answer they need to be at. Further and further Socrates would prod the bystanders to either prove him wrong or explain their thinking by using definitions.
Epistemology is a word philosophers use to define knowledge. Nevertheless, Plato and Aristotle’s theory of knowledge led our generation to visualize and interpret ourselves in a defined way. Their two different views in knowledge share a common idea, which is that knowledge must be based on a systematic method. Without their guidance, our ability to grasp our doubts would become untenable. I will present their theories of knowledge by comparing and contrasting Plato and Aristotle’s theory of knowledge.
This can be highlighted in a quote by him stating, "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Cole 84). Here, Socrates stresses that those who do not have a concern of how they live their life in respect to themselves and to others, do not live a meaningful life. After his unfortunate execution for "corrupting the youth" Socrates' legacy and ideals were then continued through the life of Plato (Cole 84). Years after, Plato became most known for his dialogues regarding ethics and his challenging of current politics. It was these two classical thinkers who were the spotlight of the Renaissance.
To be human is to have choice and it is evident throughout the play that Oedipus’s reckless decisions are to blame for the violations against his parents. Due to Oedipus’s choices concerning his interactions with the oracle at Delphi, his shameful attack of a man on the road to Thebes, and predominantly his allowance of stubborn pride and blindness to overshadow the truth make him alone accountable for his crimes. QUESTIONS THUS FAR: Citations in introduction? CHECK ON CITATIONS!!!! And check on how well the ideas flow and if I am really answering the question properly, Oedipus’s response to the oracle’s prophecy thrust him on to the tumultuous course of brutally murdering his father and sharing a bed with his mother.
Another ancient Greek philosopher was Socrates. Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living." I agree with this in a sense that if you can't look back at your life and be proud of your accomplishments, then everything that you ever did was in vain. You have to be able to look at the mistakes you have made and be able to learn from that or you are doomed to repeat those mistakes. Maybe on a deeper level Socrates might have been talking about analyizing the purpose of one's life.
First of all, Oedipus is determined to discover who he is, just like any person who is having problems. One explores the reason behind the problem to set their mind free and feel relief. They try to explore what is causing the problem and when it is discovered it is better left unknown. Oedipus can not accept things as they are and by investigating his past, he is his own worst enemy by destroying his relationships and himself. When he was a young man he heard that his parents were not his real paternal parents, from the oracle.
Something which many thinkers, from Plato and Aristotle to Nietzsche and Freud, have all contended with is the problem of living rationally. Where earlier Greek philosophers might have espoused a rational program for living, whether to build the just city of the Republic, or to lead the good life (as promised by Aristotle, who saw reason as a means of discerning virtue), it seems that this pursuit of living a life in pursuit, or even with the attainment of these higher truths for living becomes suspect in time of Nietzsche and Freud. Whereas Nietzsche might view such attempts as horrifically one-sided, ignorant of the influences of power and socially accepted values upon the employment of reason, and the ‘truths’ it discovers, Freud might
I feel The Brahmin (like Socrates) is casting judgment down on these people for what he ASSUMES to be the case. Much of this is an assumption on how more or less knowledge has a direct effect on happiness. I suppose this story (The Good Brahmin) illustrates a possible benefit of ignorance, while Plato’s work ‘The Cave’ shows us the danger. I sense The Brahmin to have settled on a reality where he will never have all the answers. That we (humans) are a part of the grand mystery known as Life.