According to my judgment, one of the most important things about Socrates' quest was, indeed, the unceasing habit and practice of being critical and thoughtful- of not being truly blind to one's own groundless convictions and presuppositions. Contemplation and critical self-awareness as a way of worthy life is what Socrates stands for. So, therefore, he adopted questioning people about their knowledge as the foremost maxim for his life, and that is why he ultimately believed that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Real life, according to Socrates, is not something that is just to be lived- lived by adapting blindly and headlong primal instincts, popular convictions, or time-honored customs. The good life is a life that questions and thinks about things; it is a life of observation, contemplation, self-examination, and open-minded wondering.
Socrates begins by asking t... ... middle of paper ... ...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates. 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.
An Intellectual Knowledge of Good in Plato’s Republic Socrates might be a wise philosopher but one of his ideas strikes me as particularly naive. In the allegory of the cave, he tells Glaucon that "in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort [·] and that this is the power upon which he [the intellectual] would act rationally" (517b-c). In other words, he seems to be implying that knowledge of goodness is a sufficient condition for being good. A person who has seen what goodness is will henceforth act in a way that is good. Is this belief justified?
Plato’s intellectual approach to the good life departs from the more common dependence on experience to acquire the knowledge involved in living a good life and finding happiness. His reserve about this idea, despite its significance in his metaphysics and ethics, is principally accountable for the vagueness of his notion of happiness and what it is to lead a good life, excepting the assertion that people are best off if they do what they want and according to self-preservation. In just what way the thinkers' knowledge offers a concrete foundation for the good life of the public and the however vacuous bulk of the citizens remains an open question; beyond the notion that ... ... middle of paper ... ... being content with ourselves. If we are constantly fighting our urges because some supreme being told us to, we are not fighting those urges for the right reason and we’re also less likely to follow the commands, however righteous they may be. Even if we are fighting urges, we’re still not content, and that means we are not at peace.
Socrates states after establishing his own agreement with his city’s virtues that he believes in the validity of the decision imposed upon himse... ... middle of paper ... ...rs, such as Crito, that there is a certain satisfaction in maintaining one’s own innocence rather than accepting a hollow victory, and as a result compromising one’s integrity. By maintaining a harmony between what is right and the expression of a person’s own opinion he has made possible the ultimate truth, the belief in what has worked and staying within the boundaries of decent and god-fearing society. The laws of the society in which Socrates lived condemned him to die for his own conviction and the reasons for Socrates to remain and accept the punishments of that society have proved to be wise and justified. In consideration of those beliefs, I feel it is safe to conclude that Socrates would be no more in favor of "civil disobedience" than he was in disobeying the judgement that was brought down against him. Socrates holds incredible respect for the laws which govern him and no deviance, be it great or small, would he permit.
Within Book X, In The Republic, Socrates argues for the existence of an immortal soul. With this plead, he makes the point that good is that which preserves and benefits. Justice is good, so it therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave badly when no one is looking, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, according to Socrates, by behaving justly we will have the most rewards. Eventually, the difficulty with Socrates' arguments is that they rely on associating things on to the next in a chain that eventually leads back to the original proposition.
Justice is a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reason guides the spirit and appetite. Justice is good in itself and good in its practical ends. Justice is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason. A just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue. This is to what Plato ponders throughout the opening of The Republic and considers the great question amongst his peers.
He leads discussions with youth to help them find the distinction between justice and injustice, which can lead to a better life. Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth and not believing in the Gods of the state. However ,he is a lover of wisdom ,a seeker of truth and his essential mission is to teach. He wants only to discover what is true and good about human nature. He roams the streets of Athens questioning the prominent citizens on theirs beliefs.
There is a clear difference between philosophers and sophists, and I think it is better to be a philosophist. Protagoras is a sophist, he is a teacher of wisdom knowledge and virtue and persuades his students that what he is saying is believable. While Protagoras and Socrates get into an argument
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” essay is one of his most compelling and thought provoking pieces of work. It is compelling in the sense of its lyrical condonation as he writes his feelings in an infinitesimal usage of time. It is thought provoking in that it drives the reader to believe in their own intuition and common sense rather than conforming to the comfortable and easy agreeability of popular opinion. “A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages” (Emerson, pp. 1).