Part I
With a philosophical question at hand one question that has puzzled the minds of many religious figures for decades is Socrates with his writings on “does god love it because its holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by god?” The significance of his question is that that does the object have value within itself or is the value given by the seeker of that item. Many of the conundrums presented today are also trying to give value based on one or the other. When it’s understandable to choose one or the other. Many people believe it is holy because god loves it but if you think god loves all and that would make all holy. It is a double edge sword that it brought up because many of the outcomes to both sides gives only face value. Many of today’s society will never truly understand this quote since most by now understands that value is always given never determined we let others determine the value of
…show more content…
But then would there really be any reason for that person to act within societies standards of morality? Plato brings this to light as it is meant to show that if any man, even the common man/women were given the power to act unjustly and not suffer the consequences of his/her actions, they would abuse their power, and act as unjustly as they can. All adults and most children by nature, are purely self-interested and concerned only with personal gain. “Again, truth should be highly valued; if, as we were saying, a lie is useless to the gods, and useful only as a medicine to men, then the use of such medicines should be restricted to physicians; private individuals have no business with them.” (Jowett1892: 389) he is basically saying to sum his words, youth should be truthful and raised in light and love, justice and truth not greed and anger or to be
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
Plato felt that we have a debt to society and its laws, which we do. but do we have a debt to owe to immoral or unjust laws that harm other people or groups of people. So to restate myself it is completely justifiable to break a law if it can be seen as unjust or destructive to many people. Dr. King would have been more than right by helping a Jew in Nazi Germany even though it was to be considered to be illegal. Works Cited Huston, Tim.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
By Christ doing God’s will and dying for us on the cross, we are made holy. The author put it like this, “Holiness, then, is not necessary as a condition of salvation – that would be salvation by works – but as a part of salvation that is received by faith in Christ” (p. 34). While Jesus was here on earth, he lived a life that was perfectly holy. His holiness was not just attributed to the fact that he had no sin, but that he conformed perfectly to the will of God.
Plato’s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death. In short, the ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice. Plato, nonetheless neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention it in the ideal state or ruler. However, the state and ruler was made up mainly to better understand the meaning of justice and was not made up so that it might be practiced.
Socrates, according to Plato challenged the norms of society by questioning life and having others question it as well. He was labeled of “corrupting the youth” and for not believing in the Athenians gods. “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (The Apology, pp 654) Although, he was cast by being “corrupt”, Socrates had many followers that saw him as a wise man. Socrates trial was made up of thirty jurors, who were later known as “The Thirty.” The “Thirty” really wanted was to silence Socrates, rather than taking his life. However, Socrates did not want to disobey the laws, he did not want to be violated of his right to freedom of speech, nor did he did he want to be undermine his moral position. (The Apology, pp. 647) He stood against injustice acts several times while he was in counsel. “I was the sort...
While Plato is writing to prove Socrates a good or respectable person, he allows the modern reader a glimpse into Athenian culture. We see that religion is held in very high regard and failing to serve a religion is punishable by death, no matter what one’s social or political stature. In “Euthyphro,” the reader learns that sometimes an Interpreter is consulted when dealing with certain criminal behavior. Also, we realize that the Athenians regard a son accusing a father of a crime, no matter what the charge, as very odd and of great annoyance to the family. I believe this is still true today. Family loyalty is considered, in some cases, more important than the laws of the country. One example is the crime families that operate in the country. These families are known to be patriotic, but their patriotism stops when family and money are involved. In “The Apology,” the reader sees some of the Athenian court system in action. Researchers can guess that prosecution and defense are allowed only certain amounts of...
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
There really is no logical stance for opposition. It makes sense; it clicks. Piety, holiness, is undoubtedly related to a mans service to god and his social implications because of it. It is a universal truth that cannot be disputed. Holiness is not only the general acceptance of a higher being- it is the acknowledgement of god in such a way that it exceeds the shallow affirmations of the common man, usually by acts which displace one from indulgences of society. Religious officials strive to achieve this true definition of holiness, which is made evident in their lifestyles.
The ideas that Plato instills are both detailed and distinctive, on the other hand he believes that actions do not necessarily justify a person but rather, he states that justness is more of an internal virtue. The idea he is trying to convey is that justness comes from the interpretation of the soul rather than the physical functions. The reasoning behind this is that if the soul remains just, then the resulting actions will reflect just ends. Once the fact that the soul must be just is accepted, the question arises of what qualifies the soul as just will need to be answered.
Socrates’s argument that what is holy and what is approved of by the gods are not the same thing is convincing because they both are two different things. Like Socrates stated in EUTHYPHRO, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” This connects back to Socrates argument because it states that the gods choose what is pious because they love it or is it pious because it being loved be the gods. The gods are determining the definition of pious instead of letting it be defined. In a way they are changing the definition of it because their peers will look up to them and follow what they have to say. Socrates arguments relate to this because if the gods don’t approve of something
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.
philosopher that he was, he had quite a different take on the issue. Socrates strove
According to the O.T. things or places were holy that were set apart for a sacred purpose; the opposite of holy is therefore common or profane. Similarly a holy person meant one who held a sacred office. The Israelites were a holy people because they stood in a special relationship to Jehovah. under the guidance of the Prophets it was seen that what distinguished Jehovah from the gods of the heathen was his personal character. The word HOLY therefore came to refer to moral character. Israel must be holy in character because the God of Israel was holy. The Law of Holiness shows how the attempt was made by means of ceremonial observance to secure this holiness of character. The attempt failed because the later Jews observed the letter and neglected the spirit; they attached more importance to the ceremonial than to the moral; and the result was a lapse into formalism. But in the writings of the Prophets it is clearly laid down that the value of worship in the eyes of God depends upon the personal character of the worshipper.