Plato's point of view is different from many other peoples. He says that people do wrong not because they are inherently evil, but because they are unclear about what is best for them. While the good truly is good, the pleasant do not know good and therefore have the incorrect belief of good. He is saying someone who is good knows what good is and those who do not do good do not know good itself. Plato believes that the contemporary society is mistaken about their interpretations of good and pleasant. Society believes that good is pleasant. Plato portrays this message through the mouth piece of Socrates. The philosopher Polus argues that good is made by the possessor. He says one can achieve good through their actions. Good is achievable by all, different to all and can be attained by the possessor through good actions. Socrates argues that his definition is correct. He says civilization does good not for good itself but for other reasons. He says, humans do make the medicine for the sake of medicine but they make this to improve the health and well-being of someone. People are concerned about the results of the good they are doing rather than the action of doing good itself. Socrates mentions that a long distance runner does not run incredibly long distances just for the thrill of running, but the runner runs these long distances to maintain his health and to stay fit. Socrates gives Polus an example as to how his definition of good is wrong. Kings are faced with criminals everyday that must be punished for their wrongful actions. The criminals must be put to death supposedly for the "good of the state." This is one example of how a ruler or possessor does what he does he thinks is good. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...in of thirst from ourselves and pleasuring ourselves with drink. I also question what Socrates says about wrong being an individuals opinion rather than a standard by which we live. It seems like Socrates is saying that no one has morals and society can do wrong and not even realize it. It sounds like humans do not know the difference between right and wrong. He seems as though he knows all and has all the right answers. There is also another way at looking at what Socrates says here. Everybody lives a different lifestyle. Some people live a life dedicated to a certain religion and some people are part of the mafia or live in street alleys. Everyone is going to have their own position on what is wrong and what is not. Even though stealing is wrong homeless people may argue that they needs food to survive and stealing it is the only way they can get it.
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
Plato's best-known distinction between knowledge and opinion occurs in the Meno. The distinction rests on an analogy that compares the acquisition and retention of knowledge to the acquisition and retention of valuable material goods. But Plato saw the limitations of the analogy and took pains to warn against learning the wrong lessons from it. In the next few pages I will revisit this familiar analogy with a view to seeing how Plato both uses and distances himself from it.
Plato’s thought has two axes: thematical and formal. Thematically it moves around the Good, and formally, around the dialectic. Both themes are the ground of his whole work and the ideas are not more than the attempt of joining them. The dialectical access to ideas is fully congruous with the question of the Good, at all levels. This is clearly exposed in the beginning of Philebus, (4) where it is necessary to reach the truth about the good through dialogue, with all required efforts. But dialogue is not a combat between enemies to win one position, but the battle between allies supporting the truth.
When speaking to Crito about if we are mutilated by wrong actions and benefited by right ones, Socrates says, “What we ought to consider is not so much what people in general will say about us but how we stand with the expert in right and wrong, the one authority, who represents the actual truth.” (267, 68-71). Socrates believes we shouldn’t care about what people’s opinions are about our beliefs. We should focus on standing up to the authorities if they are going against our morals . I agree with Socrates that a person should stand up for justice because everyone is created with equal rights, and if authority abuses one’s right we should speak up. His statement will have a significant application when an authority imposes an immoral law or rule because in that moment one will have to stand up against the unjust action . Socrates thinks if authority treats an individual or group unequally, it is immoral because he thinks that people aren’t equal, however, he thinks people should be treated equally. In this case standing up to immorality is the right thing to do if the person thinks the higher power is wrong. Similarly, Antigone agrees with Socrates’s claim of people being treated equally because of her experience with one of her brothers, Polyneices, not having a burial while the other brother, Eteocles, did have a
...ity is created by those in power, and thus, there is no absolute true morality, he concludes that the best way to satisfy his human desire is to acquire as much power as possible, and take from others as much as he can. Because his view of morality is not fixed but created by those in power, he defines words like "moral", "just", and "right" based on one's compliance with the rules of the ruling party. He claims that acting "morally" serves the ruling party because the ruling party designed the legal structure for its own benefit. Socrates raises some criticisms, especially the criticism showing that people behaving immorally would not be able to act in concert with others and would fall out with others, which are compelling and discredit Thrasymachus' position. From this it is conclusive that Thrasymachus has not entirely captured the essence of human nature.
Socrates’ philosophical beliefs and life isn’t accurately represented in the modern world. Since there aren’t any writings from Socrates himself, his life, beliefs, and philosophy has to be depicted through the writings of Plato, Aristophanes, Aristotle and Xenophon, with Plato being the most informational and dependable source. These writers that do mention Socrates in their writings aren’t always accurate and are sometimes very contradicting and inconsistent. In Plato’s writing, it is difficult to distinguish the ideas and beliefs of Socrates from Plato’s. Some historians believe that the beliefs of Plato were based upon Socrates. Some believe that the beliefs of Socrates were interpreted by Plato in his writings. Others believe Socrates didn’t have any ideas of his own. This unclear representation of Socrates is known as the Socratic Problem. Due to the S...
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Plato does not argue whether it is more moral to live justly, but rather whether it is more beneficial, whether the just life will make one happier.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
... not only to listen to the ideas of others, but to make a judgment about those ideas after they have been heard. In offering the judgment of the philospher's good life being the best one, Plato enticed his readers to attend his academy, one goal of his book. The ultimate idea of the passage, and indeed the book as a whole, is to for one to keep an open mind to hear the opinions of others, and for one to divulge one's own opinions for the betterment of society. After these opinions have been heard, thought through, and fully realized, individuals have the capacity to make decisions for the good of themselves and those around them. When these intellectual, spiritual decisions are made correctly, human beings can begin to live the good life.
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
Socrates states to the jurors in his trail, “No evil can happen to a good man” (48). Socrates is examining the moral center of the man. Evil can occur to an individual from the outside. Socrates a good, even innocent, man was sentenced to death. Other characters in history and even today are identified as good, but they still have evil occur to them. Socrates is not talking about an outside evil or harm occurring to a good person. He is examining the soul and what is morally evil and morally good.
Socrates says that God determines what is right and wrong. “I owe a greater obedience to God then to you and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and indicating truth to everyone I meet” (Apology, 29d). God’s rules and commandments are what you need to follow in order to assure a good life after death. God and his commandments come first over everything else. Socrates believes in the divine command theory and how you must listen to Gods commandments. God decides what is moral and obedience to God is how you live justly. Socrates also says he will never stop practicing philosophy because in his eyes philosophy is the way to live life. He has said that living without examining life is a life not worth living. Questioning and indicating truth to others by pointing out their ignorance is what he saw as an essential part of being moral. Morality ties in to the question of solution by asking questions and seeking wisdom you are doing what is just and fixing the condition of humanity. Morality also relates to condition because the soul must be more important than material objects in order to be moral. He says you must follow cities laws and obedience to Gods laws as well in order to be just. On top of that you should be self-examining yourself so that you can better the soul as much as
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.