Plato
The first degree of belief are physical objects, as the second degree of belief are shadows and images of the physical objects. In the last book, Plato criticizes poetry and the fine arts. Plato feels that art is merely the imitation of the imitation of reality, and that poetry corrupts the soul. Socrates says that artists merely create things. As an example, if a painter draws a couch on his canvas, he is creating a couch. But the couch he creates is not the real couch, it is nothing but a copy of an ordinary, physical couch which was created by a craftsman. But the ordinary, physical couch is nothing more than an imperfect copy, or image of the Form of Couch. So, the couch on the canvas is nothing but a copy of a copy of the real couch and is therefore three times removed from reality. Socrates then goes on to explain that an artist's knowledge is also third-rate. If an artist is painting a picture of a table, for example, he is copying a table that has been manufactured by a furniture-maker, and this furniture-maker has more knowledge of the table than the painter does. But there is someone who has ever more knowledge about the table, the person who wants to have the table made. He is the one who gives the furniture-maker instructions to follow when making the table, according to its purpose for the buyer. So, the buyer of the table knows more about the table than the furniture-maker, and the furniture-maker knows more about the table than the painter. Socrates believes that only philosophers have the first-hand knowledge of things, since they believe in The Forms. Socrates also denounces Homer. Socrates feels that in his writing, Homer has pretended to be people he is not, such as a politician, general, businessman, teacher, and philosopher. Socrates feels this is wrong because Homer is claiming to be able to perform these functions that he has written about, but never really performed himself. He feels that Homer is abandoning "reality". Plato feels that poetry has no place in his Ideal State, and should be banished until it can show itself to be a friend of philosophy. Socrates also mentions about the existence of an immortal soul. With this concession, 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 w...
... middle of paper ...
... strive fore, it is my belief that all people are immoral, and strives to become less immoral. So which is more beneficial Morality or immorality? A just person is happier than the unjust person for this reason, which the just person's soul is in order, whereas the unjust person's soul is in decay and disorder. Secondly, the just person's desires are satisfied, since their rational parts limits their desires, whereas the unjust person's desires are rampant and out of control. In conclusion, I would have to agree and disagree with Socrates, for all people are immoral and they strive to become moral, but no one person is ever truly moral, although it is favorable for a person to strive towards morality and value it. On one point I would have to agree with Thrasymacus, on the basis that all people are hypocrites and many only give the illusion of morality, but in reality they are immoral. Overall, a person who strives for morality is superior to anyone who is immoral. Morality is both instrumentally and intrinsically valuable and when it’s compared to immorality, we learn that morality is a conduct of happiness, because morality is a personal choice, to do the things that are just.
According to Pierre Hadot, “Thus philosophy was a way of life, both in its exercise and effort to achieve wisdom, and its goal, wisdom itself. For real wisdom does not merely cause us to know: it makes us “be” in a different way” ( Pierre 265) This explanation of a philosophical way of life is in all ways the definition of Socrates’ life. Socrates made his way through his entire life living in this way, seeking out wisdom, seeking out answers and never once got in trouble with the court until the age of seventy years old. He believed that by telling people about ignorance and wisdom, that he was only doing so for the good of the people. Socrates even goes as far as saying, “I am that Gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you”(Plato 9). Socrates believes that he was sent from God to show people a different way of life, a life of questioning and reason to which he should teach to all people. When asked if he was ashamed of a course of life of which would likely bring him to an untimely end Socrates says, “you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong” (Plato 7).
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
In the book Republic, Plato is on a quest to define Justice as he builds the ideal city. His city is ruled by philosopher kings, the true rulers. Philosophers, in Plato’s opinion, are best fit to rule and judge because of their love of knowledge and wisdom. When arguing philosophers have the experiences of all regimes Plato says, “The philosopher to have tasted the kind of pleasure that comes from the sight of things as they truly are. ‘so far as experiences goes, then,’ I said, ‘he is the one who is in the best position to judge” (325). Plato believes, that because philosophers have all the parts of the soul that other types of rulers contain, plus the ability to be able to see the world for what is, they then have
The questions of what exactly knowledge, virtue and the soul are, are among the most important problems of philosophy The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and exist. If there is life after death, the soul must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep, even the most common operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake; all such facts suggest the existence of something other. The quest to put a solid definition on what exactly knowledge and virtue was the basis of Socrates' life. Socrates discusses these things all the time but they seemed to be better explained in two specific dialogues The Meno and The Republic.
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
The wise and inquisitive Socrates was both a philosopher and a martyr, not just in his words but in his actions as well. Socrates was so adamant about his principles that he wouldn’t deny them to save his own life. A lesser man left in his shoes would have done anything to stop the fate that he faced. Socrates practiced what he preached through and through and for the most part only taught good morals.
Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and with corrupting the youth. The charge of being impious was completely absurd because Socrates talked about the gods quite frequently and never stated to anyone that he was an atheist so it would be impossible for him to be an atheist. The charge of corrupting the youth is unjust because Socrates did not tell the youth to copy him and he is not responsible for their actions. The charges against Socrates were merely excuses by his enemies to murder him in a legal way. Socrates made his enemies by going on a search to find someone wiser than he was. Socrates went on this search because the Oracle at Delphi said he was the wisest man there was but Socrates believed that to be false (5). This lead to a futile search for a person who did have wisdom so Socrates could prove the oracle wrong. Socrates went to people who had a reputation of wisdom and then he would question and talk to them to find out if they in fact were wise. When he met someone who thought they were wise, Socrates would come "to the ass...
Confusion plagues everyone in the world. Daily people are subject to struggles that involve them being confused and allow them to not fully take in what the world has to offer. Confusion simply put is the "impaired orientation with respect to time, place, or person; a disturbed mental state." With that said it is evident that many things a susceptible to confusion, and being confused. When reading Plato one cannot
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
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.
The philosopher longs for the purification of the soul from the body which can be hoped for in death. “If we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself of herself must behold all things in themselves.” That is why Socrates is not complaining at his impending death. He has spent his life preparing for it, in the hope that in the next world he will attain the wisdom and absolute truth he has sought in this life. Processes of thought are at its best when the mind is no longer troubled by distr...
Socrates also believed that the greatest benefit lay not in material riches, but in the "improvement of the soul". He sought to understand the difference between acting good and being good. He saw that those who strive for other pleasures, such as wealth an dpower did not know where their true interest lies. All wrong doing is the result of a lack of understanding rather than the intention to do
In part 10 of his book, it enables us to see how Socrates feels about artists—specifically how their creations are stretched from the truth. Art manipulates the truth which pushes it to the area of becoming what is real. For instance, there is one
Socratic philosophy that, “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing” (The Republic), is contradictory to Athenians’ definition of being wise. Socrates inquires knowledge, life and virtue; he says, “the unexamined life is not with living for a human being” (Apology 38a-b). Socrates’s inquiry of moral and political authority of Athenians directly challenges the city’s law and value that individuals, family and the city depend on. Therefore, the Socratic skepticism incurs hatred and enmity from people who are angry and envious of Socrates. Socrates implies at the beginning of his speech that his fate is doomed because the people who judge him believe in the persuasive falsehoods and won’t be willing to listen to the truth. The death of Socrates also reveals the internal fallacy in Athenian democracy. The consequence of a recalcitrant philosophy stands against the whole city is written, because the gulf between the belief of the society and the philosophy is impassible. Socrates’s way of living seems to be unreasonable for most people, and as the same time is not suitable for the proper operation of society which doesn’t want civilians to question the essence of life. However, Socrates shifts the focus of philosophy from the heaven to the earth. Before Socrates, natural