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.
In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
He does, however, agree to the idea that rhetoric is a form of persuasion in which it is broken down into three modes: ethos - the speaker, pathos – the audience, and logos – the speech. He insinuates the idea of one’s failing of unjust is equal to the idea of failing as a speaker, and believes rhetoricians must know how to argument in both ways to be a strong persuader. Socrates and Gorgias believe that human’s have a natural need to instruct and deceive disciplines, while Aristotle defines humans as good-natured whom have no need to convince others through persuasion. Aristotle also disagrees to Socrates’ definition that rhetoric is to soul as cookery is to body. Instead, he views rhetoric as the method of creating the truth without deception and creating truth with people’s own view.
Socrates is supposed to be in a different | | |position since there is a jury to be convinced, and he believes he has a | | |strong argument since everyone present who is related to those who may have | | |been corrupted is there to defend, not accuse, him. | |Socrates says, “but either I do not corrupt them, or if I corrupt |Socrates admits that there is a chance that he is corrupting the youth, but | |them, I do it involuntarily, so that you are lying in both events.|that would only be if it is happening as an unintended effect. If, in asking | |But if I corrupt them involuntarily, for such involuntary errors |questions to seek out wisdom he has somehow corrupted the young men of | |the law is not to hale people into court, but to take them and |Athens, then he says he should have been told that what he was doing was
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 did not take enough action while Malcom X may have wanted to take too much action which is why I have concluded that Dr. King is the best choice of the three. He did achieve his purpose of removing unjust laws and help black America gain equal rights by using his method of non-violent direct
What is Rhetoric? If you asked one hundred people, you would most likely get one hundred different answers, but each definition, with the help of a little rhetoric, would be considered correct. Miriam Webster defines the word as “the aft of effective or persuasive speaking or writing,” yet greek philosopher Plato, in his Socratic Dialogue entitled “Gorgias,” argued that it is merely “the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies.” Whereas, theoretically speaking, both Plato and Miriam Webster cannot possibly be correct, it is the persuasive argument that each gives to back up their assertion that creates this paradox. That is rhetoric: the art of using language to persuade peers into sharing the views of the speaker, be it philosophical, political, social or other.
Essay 1 In the Apology, the readers learn about Socrates trial and how he attempts to prove himself innocent from corrupting the youth. The clarification of Socrates’ argument will later be presented. By Zeus, Meletus, tell us what is better. Is it better for people to live among criminals, evil hearted people or is it better for the people to live among good civilians who have no intent of harm? Don’t bad people harm those whom they are closest to whereas good civilians or friends benefit from those whom they are closest to?
There are three distinct routes one can elect to take in the reading of Thrasymachus’ definition of the nature of justice and injustice in Book I of The Republic: Thrasymachus the realist; Thrasymachus the pseudo-Marxist; and Thrasymachus the nihilist. (To be certain, each contains its own unique set of inconsistencies and contradictory elements, but the extent to which this may be a deliberate technique on the part of Plato to depict his master’s opponent as flustered and misled is a topic deserving of an entirely separate analysis). In keeping with each of the various accounts of justice offered in Book I of The Republic – from Cephalus, who proposes that justice consists of telling the truth and returning material debt, and from Polemarchus, who envisions justice as helping one’s friends and destroying one’s enemies – Thrasymachus’ own account is one that is founded on the matter of just actions. According to Thrasymachus, the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger (338c). It follows, then, that the ruled would be acting justly if they were to act in the interest of the stronger.
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.