More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical responses to Plato's allegory of the cave
Plato's "Allegory of the Cave
Plato's "Allegory of the Cave
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Socrates and Rhapsode
Socrates thought is that a rhapsode speaks not from knowledge but from inspiration, his thoughts being ‘breathed into’ him without the use of his own understanding at all. Using the analogy of a magnet, with the power to draw one rhapsode ring to itself, and through that another, and another, Socrates says that Homer himself had no knowledge of his own writing his poetry, but was divinely possessed. Every rhapsodes are also divinely possessed both when they recite poetry and when they speak. Their work, is the product of the gods working throught them, not of any human intelligence and skill.
Socrates demonstrates to Ion that rhapsodes have no knowledge. Socrates tells Ion that if his ability came by mastery, he would be able to speak about all the other poets as well. The whole of any other subject won’t have same discipline throughout and this goes for every subject that can be mastered. It’s a divine power that moves Ion, as a “Magnetic” stone moves iron rings. This stone not only pulls those rings, if they’re iron, it also puts power in the rings, so that they in turn can do just what the stone does, pull other rings, so that there’s sometimes a very long chain of iron pieces and rings hanging from one another. And the power in all of them depends on this stone. None of the epic poets, if they’re good, are masters of their subject; they are inspired, possessed, and that is how thy utter all those beautiful poems.
Socrates has several examples and argument to prove his point of view. Like he said for a poet is an airy thing, winged and holy, and he is not able to make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind and his intellect is no longer in him. As long as a human being has his intellect in his possession he will always lack the power to make poetry or sing prophecy. So it’s not by mastery, it’s by a divine gift.
The spectator is the last ring, the middle ring is Ion, the rhapsode or actor, and the first one is the poet himself. The god pulls people’s souls throught all these wherever he want, looping the power down from one to another. So if Ion tell a sad story, his eyes are full of tears and when he tell a story that’s frightening, or awful, his hair stands on end with fear and his heart jumps and same effects on most of his spectators too.
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own but rather aimed at bringing out the worst in his interlocutors.
In order to understand the “center” of the Iliad, one must first recognize that the Iliad started as a “Lyrical,” or oral poem and was written down much later in history, becoming a “Narrative,” or literate poem. The Iliad began as a poem that was strictly part of an oral culture, its transition into a written work for a literate culture brought complexities and complications that are often overlooked when examining this poem on its surface. Walter J. Ong explained this phenomenon best when he described the psychodynamics of an oral society. His explanations concerning these particular societies’ psychologies and social dynamics are often times lost on the Iliad’s modern-day reader. Therefore, when reading a piece of literature, one must first take into account how the text has arrived to him through the passage of time and history. So, before we are to examine the modern critics’ interpretations and analyses of Homer’s Iliad, we must first look to Ong’s claims concerning oral societies.
Nails, Debra. “Socrates”. Stanford University. Jan 29, 2014. Web. Feb 16, 2014. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/#SocStr
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
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-...
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning politicians, poets, and artisans, he found that they claimed to know of matters they did not know about. Socrates considered this to be a serious flaw, and, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. put it: that “true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”
When Strepsiades first arrives at the thinkery, he is met by the student who tells him the sort of things pondered in the thinkery. He told Strepsiades, “Just now Socrates was asking Chaerephon how many of its own feet a flea could leap” (Aristophanes, 144-145). Aristophanes’ goal is to mock Socrates and his followers, but he knows that a true philosopher is constantly pondering new things and questioning everything he examines. One of Socrates’ friends went to the Oracle, and “he asked if there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser” (Plato, 21a). Due to his knack of questioning everything, Socrates wonders what it could mean since so many people throughout Athens were considered to be wiser than he was. He tells his jury that “when I heard these things, I pondered them like this: ‘What ever is the god saying, and what riddle is he posing?’” (Plato, 21b). A philosopher believes nothing from faith, but only through reason. Therefore, Socrates had to figure out the meaning of what the Oracle said by his
“Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realms of creative analysis and objective appraisal.” (King, 1963).
First, Plato shows that the philosophy of Socrates started from an event that seems to have the arrangements of destiny – when he was middle-aged, Socrates’ friend, Chaerephone, strongly went to the temple Delphi at Athens to see if there was anyone wiser than Socrates? Immediately prophetic goddess Phithia replied that no one is wiser than Socrates. When Socrates heard this story and felt confused because he knew that he is not the wisest. Socrates thought and asked question himself, “What can the god mean? And what is the interpretation of his riddle?”, “he is a god, and cannot lie”. After some thought, Socrates found the way to try the questions. He said:” If I could only find a man wiser than myself,
It seems that this point becomes evident in section (455 a), when Socrates claims within his example of justice system, that an orator isn’t teaching the public in order to persuade them; the orator is solely using methods of persuasion in order to gain conviction. Socrates attempts to credit his initial point of which he is trying to make obvious to Gorgias, by speaking of specialty crafts and expertise mentioned during section
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
As George Eliot once said, “It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.” Whether viewing a piece of artwork or another person, there are often many points of view to evaluate in order to find the true core of the subject. In great works of literature, authors often create complex and dynamic characters to add depth and meaning into the story. In the Iliad, Homer beautifully depicts the multifaceted character of Achilles as an epic hero. As readers look closely at Achilles, he reveals different sides of himself as the epic poem develops. Representing the struggle between his dominant, selfish, and Dionysian nature as an epic hero and his hidden empathetic Apollonian core, Achilles reveals the mythos of the Iliad which states that war degrades mankind into objects and only the pursuit of Apollonian regard for others renews their humanity.
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
Have you ever thought what would be like if the gods get involve in our life? What would be of us if they do? In the story of Homer 's Iliad, we see how the gods gets involve in people life quite often, and what effect it have on the person when they do. In this paper I will be arguing the differences and the similarities of books 3 and 22 from Homer 's Iliad. I will be talking about the issue of human free will vs. the role of gods in our life. In particular, in book 3 we see how our free will can have the gods get involve in our life’s, where in book 22 we see how free will can decide our destiny without any help from the gods.
Nails, Debra, N. (2005, September 16). Socrates. Stanford University. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/