Plato argues that Aeschylus’ theories have holes because of deception or death. While living the good life one can logically avoid obstacles such as deceit. Queen Clytaemntestra rule in Oresteia is an example of this. Plato addresses the exact ways to ultimately reach true happiness in the Republic and tells the audience specifically how to achieve the good life. Although there are vague similarities between both plays, we notice the path some characters chose do not lead to the good life no matter how wise they seem to be.
Huck is closest related to Montag because of the way that they want to break away from society and learn things on their own. Captain Beatty is like Miss Watson because they are both a hypocritical part of these two novels. There are other like character but the similarities are minor and thus might just be coincidental. But the aforementioned characters also stand as symbols for ideas. Huck and Montag stand for freedom and self-reliance because they search for what is right within themselves and not what the rest do.
Socrates questioned life and its values. He developed the Socratic Method, which was learning by asking questions. He encouraged people to analyze their answers to develop understanding. This analysis allowed people to strip away what they were taught by others, and get a new idea or truth. The Athenian government disapproved of Socrates' philosophies because they thought he corrupted the minds of the youth and that he didn't respect the Greek gods.
“The Allegory of the Cave” and “Qualities of the Prince” (Authored by Plato and Machiavelli, respectively) have different viewpoints in contrast to one another. Looking at the texts, it seems that Machiavelli would be critical of the views Plato expressed in The Allegory of the Cave for a number of reasons. Plato states that people are inherently good, although good can be “seen only with an effort” (35). Machiavelli, on the flipped side, states that “for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good” (7), suggesting that most people are by nature not good, and that pursuing the act of being good, will only lead to disaster. Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world.
Lawrence’s reading stresses how racist speech is a roadblock that still Lewis 2 exists today that we goes against that statement written in our countries declaration. He says part of the problem in trying to eliminate racism is that “we have abandoned those whose race, gender, or sexual preference continues to make them secondclass citizens.”(Lawrence 65 ). Lewis’s reading however discusses more of the pursuit of happiness part of the declaration. He says what is truly meant by this statement is “They meant "to pursue happiness by all lawful means”” (Lewis 795 ). These readings discuss happiness in two different views but ultimately it is the
the oral argument. He explains that both methods have different ways of communicating ideas to an audience, speech as the notable form in ancient Greece, where only philosophers were basically allowed an opinion on a subject. And writing as a new media where it can be directed to a certain audience instead of everybody and it can help lessen miscommunication. It does come across that Socrates prefers one, speech, over the other but regardless in today’s time written arguments is the more popular media. As stated above many of the rhetoric tools that we use today was also used back in Socrates time.
While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them. Just because of the good laws of the state benefited Socrates and helped him in his upbringing, it doesn't mean that he has to remain completely loyal to them for his entire life. His main point about never returning an unjust act with another makes sense to a degree, but only if you agree with his view that the soul is the only thing that matters and not the body. While I understand that point, I don' think every unjust act ruins the soul. Some acts such as telling a white lie in some situations are
This is supported by the Othello by William Shakespeare and A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams. Both literary works show theme of deception and characterization that convey the critical lens. If a person does a wrong thing he/she should try to fix it before it’s too late. If they will not take any steps to fix it, it will eventually affect them in a bad way. Both literary works showed how a person did a wrong thing and it has caught up to him/her.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
Paul Starita Pol Sci 201 10/26/12 Examining Justice and Education In The Apology, Socrates defends himself in a court of law after being accused of creating new deities and corrupting the youth. In this text, we find subtle opinions and explanations about the nature of justice. The Republic is a text written by Plato, where Socrates and several of his students deeply explore justice and how an ideal society might look. Especially present in The Republic, both texts have undertones of how education ought to be and why it is so important. These two texts define justice as an important virtue that every person should learn to possess through a balanced, self-discovering education.