Plato however sees that living in ignorance is living away from the truth and being a philosopher, argues that we should always question the world we live in. An example of this would be in Plato’s analogy of the cave because the prisoners were happy in their un-real world and playing their games but even though they were extremely ignorant to reality, they were very happy and content with their lives. Plato believes that this is wrong and that only philosophers are brave enough to become enlightened and see the world for what it is. Socrates also agrees with Plato on this and a quote to prove this would be that “a philosopher does not indulge in any pleasures of the body, he cannot gain wisdom through hearing or seeing they being finite” which applies to wise philosophers and not ignorant men. Contentment should be out of fullness and not laziness.
It was a few men who belittled Socrates that conducted the charge on Socrates. These men signified those that Socrates scrutinized in his exploration to find out just how true the Delphic Oracle really was. Regarding his studies, Socrates had come to realize that not one of the men supported their assumption on what they knew was true as it was indeed entirely false. Being proven wrong by Socrates made the men so annoyed and irritated at him that they grouped as one and indicted Socrates. Showing that he is full of knowledge and proving his own innocence is what made the men indict him as they also did not want to feel embarrassed by
|Socrates says, “Come then, let us examine our words. The thing and|Socrates has found a flaw in Euthyphro’s claim that whatever the gods like | |the person that are dear to the gods are holy, and the thing and |must be holy. Simply by stating that sometimes the gods disagree about what | |the person that are hateful to the gods are unholy; and the two |they like, Socrates has logically shown that this can’t be the way to judge
His position in life as being a good man and act as one, to live a proper and truthful life. The questioning attitude he thought Athens explaining that fundamentally there are logical reasons behind phenomena and events. Through his conversation with the jury, Socrates insists that he is no expert of any field whats so ever and he is not a wise man at all. Socrates follower Chaerphon visited the Oracle who spoke of Socrates being the wisest man in Greece. To prove the Oracle wrong Socrates went searching for a wiser man than he in Athens.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
Socrates also admits the obvious in the passage by saying because he has not experienced the after-life, he is not able to pass judgment on what is to come. After thoroughly defending himself against his first charge, Socrates takes a stab at bringing light to the second charge as well: Corrupting the
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
In #10 he asks us to ask ourselves what capacity we have within ourselves to deal with a particular situation, “If hardship comes to you, find endurance,” (p14) so that we might not let outside influences affect our own happiness, and that our happiness can be created only by our own judgments, perceptions, decisions and actions. Plato, on the other hand addresses happiness as attainable through the actions of the just man. Through Socrates he points out that the man who never falls sick is happier than the man who is cured from sickness, “Happiness surely does not consist in being delivered from evils, but in never having them,” which could be what Epictetus is suggesting – avoiding negativity all together – or at the very least, not perceiving these situations to be negative. All three of the Ancients address the function of human beings in some form or another. Aristotle says that we are considered to be good when we perform our function well, when we are excellent at our purpose in life.
In Plato's the Apology of Socrates, Socrates defends himself in front of the Athenian assembly for the allegedly failing to believe in the gods as well as harming the minds of young men of Athens by questioning those in authority and spreading false truths. His defense and explanation of his actions in the "service to the god" show that Athenians do not actually have the wisdom they claim to possess, that the absence of wisdom in government and society can harm a population and that while craft knowledge is valuable and explains the "how" of things, it lacks the ability to explain the "why" of things. He begins to refute the accusations against him by asking several questions of his prosecutor, Meletus, and comparing Meletus' answers to demonstrate