In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.
Socrates vs. Machiavelli: Different Political Perspectives de la Rosa, M. SOCU 450 18 November 2011 Socrates and Machiavelli are considered two of the world’s most influential political thinkers. Both Socrates and Machiavelli have left behind some convincing claims regarding political questions of justice and power. While information about Socrates is mostly “second hand,” he was well known mostly for his philosophy on personal liberty and morality (Nails, 2010). Machiavelli, on the other hand, “overtly rejected (the) philosophical inquiry” that Socrates was famous for (Nederman, 2009). His was a more straight-forward view.
Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good. People should think critically about their actions regardless of what a god would command. The other dialogue of Plato that we discussed was the book I, and II of The Republic. This books deals with the theme of justice. Plato concludes that there are four kinds of life.
Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil. My motivation for presenting my own definition stems from my frustration in Thrasymachus’s inability to see justice as something much more than a form of legalism Thrasymachus starts his definition by stating that justice is the interest or advantage of the stronger (338c). Immediately after being questioned by Socrates on this definition, Thrasymachus quickly clarifies that the stronger are in-fact the rulers and that justice is in the interest of them alone (339a). Socrates forces the examination of this definition, and results in Thrasymachus then defining interests as the laws that rulers make (338e). From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b).
Be sure your essay has a thesis statement Please underline your thesis statement Be sure that your essay refutes counter-arguments Please refer to the syllabus for additional essay writing guidelines Please refer to the six paragraph essay handout for argumentative essay guidelines Be sure that your essay engages Socrates’ and Machiavelli’s viewpoints Be sure that you quote Socrates and Machiavelli to back up your claim Be sure to edit your work Try to write with short and concise sentences • What is Socrates’ method of imparting knowledge? And then, answer the question: • Socratic Method is the method by which Socrates make people realize that they don’t know anything about the things that they thought they knew well. Machiavelli and Socrates Everyone has their own philosophies to deal with life as it is thrown at them. Machiavelli and Socrates offer guidance to societies so they may succeed, as noble rulers. Machiavelli gives his go get them attitude to help maintain power, which I agree with, and Socrates lays out his ideas of enlightenment to rule.
Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus Response While there are multiple common ideas that are concurrent amongst the texts of Plato, Aristotle and Epictetus, there are four common themes that appear to recur in The Republic, The Nicomachean Ethics and the Handbook of Epictetus. The most prominent idea, as is expected within such a class, is happiness and how one should go about attaining it. Epictetus focuses on the avoidance of pain as a measure to find happiness. In his argument, he advises us to care not of things that are external to us – that is, things that we cannot directly control. 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.
Kumar Bhattacharyya The Paradox of the Philosopher-King In this paper I shall delve into Plato’s The Republic and analyze his Just state, with particular interest in his assertion that the most ideal ruler would be a ‘Philosopher-King’. Plato hints at the impossibility of this Philosopher-King, yet sets strong arguments as to why a Philosopher King is the most appropriate ruler. He does this through his definitions of what it means to be a ‘Just’ state, and how a philosopher best embodies those qualities that would maintain the Justice, and prevent any Injustice from seeping in. Plato also supports his assertion through his epistemology and metaphysics, which serve to further strengthen his argument. I will begin by recounting the demographic structures that are present in Plato’s “Just” state, and by exploring his epistemological and metaphysical claims, highlight the impossibility of such a ruler.
The penultimate sentence in this paragraph speaks of “Influencers disconnected from the seasoned wisdom of friends and mentors” (emphasis added). This wordplay relating the “connectedness” of social media to the reality of disconnection from people not only tickles the funny bone of literarily minded readers, but also adds to his logical case against the overuse of social media. Hansen also appeals to the credibility of others by referencing books and authors. This helps us see his intended audience more clearly as he does this. First he references a quote about the middle class from Alexis de Tocqueville “in his famous book Democracy in America” (emphasis added).
By engaging in dialectic with two of his friends, the Thebans Cebes and Simmias, Socrates explores various arguments for the soul's immortality in order to show that there is an afterlife in which the soul will dwell following death. In total, Socrates presents four arguments for the immortality of the soul. The first three, though convincing, are insubstantial. These may be referred to as the cyclical, recollective, and affinity arguments. While valuable to the reader as examples of both invalid arguments and the difficulty of proving such a claim as the soul's
Much is discussed of what ‘the good life’ is to Aristotle: to achieve happiness and pursue virtue. The polis, or Greek city-state, according to Aristotle, is the highest form of political association. Only by being a citizen of a polis can a person fully pursue a life of good quality, which is the end goal of human existence. In the excerpts from Book 3, Aristotle begins by defining the state and the citizen. He then describes various forms of government, arguing that any form of government is vulnerable to corruption, which prevents the government from advancing the public good.