Epicurus fails to define the boundaries of moral virtue, merely stating there could be harmful consequences without specific definition, Epicurus ultimately fails to develop a strong moral program. Aristotle questions the morality of pleasure and peoples’ intentions. He insists that there are other pleasures besides those of the senses, and that the best pleasures are the ones experienced by virtuous people who have sufficient resources for excellent activity such as the “man who has been educated in a subject and there for her is a good judge of that subject” (25). The philosopher states that pleasure is not to be desired for its own sake but rather that it stimulate the action of a healthy nature. He specifically argues that, “happiness must be explained in terms of reason…happiness depends on the actualization—the full realization—of one’s rationality” (22).
Was Socrates a Sophist or was he the philosopher that we read about. The definition of a sophist is a person who teaches his knowledge and does it only for money, wealth, or power. A sophist will do his job for his own satisfaction and not for the greater good of the people, voluntarily. He will not freely teach what he knows. There must be something in it for him.
The categorical notion of 'virtue' has a long history in moralistic philosophy. It’s first cogent exposition was offered by Aristotle, and it is thought by some that it has never since been expostulated better. Nevertheless, thinking about virtue did not stop with Aristotle, and his ideas are not believed to be unerring truth to everyone. I wish to focus on one central respect in which some moral philosophers, chiefly Immanuel Kant, have had doubts about Aristotle's account of virtue. I think that to a large extent the conflict is misunderstood, but it is also illustrative of some larger, more glaring issues in philosophy.
Sophists were skilled in elaborate argumentation; were they would try and make the argument they were focusing on the stronger side, even if it was wrong or weaker. This often made them seem devious as they were working only for the benefit of themselves and their students, who were aiming to become high profile speakers or politicians. Socrates was unlike this in that his main focus was not on argumentation or speaking, he rather focused on questioning virtues to understand morals and ethics. He believed that all opinions were valid which also opposed the views of the Sophists who assumed that the wisest of people were genuinely correct and only they had the ability to teach. The main goal of socrates was unlike that of the sophists.
While trying to cause the mass of people to get rid of the bias it has against Antony, who is Caesar’s best friend, and also to convince it that, what he says is done with the permission of Brutus, he develops his rationale that Caesar was not ambitious as alleged by Brutus. He uses his fine art of speaking not to show that he is violating the undertaking made to Brutus that he would not blame him. He knows if the pro-Brutus crowd sees that he is finding fault with Brutus, it will raise objections and will not allow him to continue with his speech. At the commencement of his speech, Antony is very tactful, patient, humble and has the presence of mind not to do anything that will antagonize the pro-Brutus feeling. He also tries to convince the people there that he too is
The ancient text Crito by Plato is a staged dialogue between Socrates and Crito in which is attempting Crito offers numerous arguments to encourage Socrates escape imprisonment. Crito emphasizes that if Socrates does not escape, no one would believe that he had cooperatively faced execution. That the people of Athens would fault Crito for not helping Socrates, assuming that he values his money more than the life of his close friend. Crito argues that there are other states in which Socrates has allies that will keep him safe and continues to emphasis that he should not easily give in to his enemies. However, Socrates argues against Crito’s proposal to help using few arguments.
He placed importance on advancing philosophical thought and self-examination, which differed from the active political involvement and unity that Greeks strongly identified with. He undermined the importance of owning land and gaining social prominence, which were integral components that came with the privilege of being a citizen. This threatened many who relied upon material wealth and societal exclusivity as a source of their identity. Socrates strove to spread the power of knowledge to everyone by showing every person he met how to be an active thinker. While his contemporaries consented to his death, Socrates planted seeds of knowledge in his followers who were able to spread his powerful message for generations to
First I have to say that I hold Philosophers in general including Plato in the highest regard, and I do agree with Plato on that Philosophers would make the best rulers. Having that said, I do find his ideas on “morality” and more specifically who the “moral” person is, very much unrealistic. In the world Plato paints with his analogies in The Republic, such “moral” persons might exist, but in reality I find it hard to believe. I do however agree with him on one point and that is: it is better to be moral than immoral; on everything else I lean more in favor with Glaucon. In The Republic, Glaucon Plato’s brother plays the “devil’s advocate” and claims that being “immoral” is more beneficial than being “moral”.
Yet, even though it seems as if it may be a term of praise, it has indeed acquired derogative connotations. Although, it’s best to bring light to their actual meaning in simple terms: Freelance, independent teachers who travelled throughout Ancient Greece from city to city making their living out of the new demand for education. This demand in Athens came about mainly as a result of changing social circumstances, i.e. when Athens slowly progressed towards turning into a democracy. Every citizen could participate in politics, and so it became necessary for them to be able to compose speech, deliver it well, build cases, and defend own self against charges.
Epictetus states that, “We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible. The former include our judgment, our desire, aversion and our mental faculties in general; the latter include the body, material possessions, our reputation, status – in a word, anything not in our power to control ”( Epictetus 221). This is the main force behind the solution given by Epictetus. Aristotle also has his own solutions for weakness of will, but I believe his response is contradictory. Aristotle says that incontinence is brought forth by lack of knowledge of particulars due to being taken over by passions.