Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes. Thrasymachus is referring to the notion that the weaker class is exploited constantly by the stronger class; laws are put into place to benefit the selfish and greedy. However, as Thrasymachus continues to deliberate what justice is, he agrees that what is right can not always be just. As rulers also make mistakes, act out of emotion, and could put laws in place which can be harmful to those it should protect. Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates’ conclusion that a ruler does not exercise his authority with his own interest but
One of them concerns the ideal leaders whereas the other considers the effective management of the state. However, Plato is stronger in many aspects than Machiavelli because he tends to the topics of ethics and education although Machiavelli gives more concrete strategies on politics through his realism. To begin with, there are many claims of Machiavelli about the effective leadership throughout his work, The Prince. They can be perceived as unnecessarily inhuman. Many of them are about being aware of the impact of decisions on one’s own feeling of protection.
His stance is against this proposition and feels Philonous would agree with him. However Philonous disagrees and a battle of wits ensues in which Philonous systematically destroys Hylas’s views of materialism. Philonous spends the rest of the Dialogues making the case that his idealist view is the most commonsensical view in the world. His goal is to prove that, not only is his theory simpler and better supported by the evidence, but it is even immune to
Raphael refutes that there is high risk in giving the information he has to other kings due to the fact that kings prefer to maintain their superior image, which would be damaged should they listen to a man of lower social status. “Utopia” highlights certain characteristics that separate the island from modern government and make it an ideal way of life, yet there are points that could be argued by other philosophers to make this false. Therefore, More portrays an impractical outline that could never be achieved. Utopia has an abundance of characteristics that describes its government and society that make it the most ideal and perfect way of life. According to Raphael, not one person in the Utopian society puts themselves before others.
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”.
Mill later struggled with the concepts of utilitarianism because it was too unemotional and failed to capture or understand the ‘higher’ pleasure of happiness without pain. Bentham’s theory failed to acknowledge the complexities like emotion. However, Mill did not reject Bentham’s ideas of pleasure fulfillment; he created a more complex version of utilitarianism, yet one that still embraces the most basic premises of Bentham and of his father, James Mill. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain.
Not that life is bad, but that the physical pleasures and physical reality are less than divine. The best conditions include those that are free from distraction. While the ascetic priest is essentially denying life, he is actually preserving the life that he cherishes so much. The ascetic priest desires power and believes that “this life is an illusion”. Nietzsche says, in his second essay, the primary objection to ascetic ideals is that ascetic priests must deny the value of this life; he portrays it as a link to the next life, rather than appreciating life as an end in itself.
“Don’t force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever is not good to be bad. It’s the same with Love: when you agree he neither good nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly or and bad; he could be something in between.”(46, Symposium) Socrates said this because he knew that Love cannot possibly be a god since he lacks beauty but he must be something between mortal and immortal. Socrates believes that Love is rather a great spirit who is in search of more than just beauty on the outside. The beauty that Socrates speaks of is an internal beauty that he believes is one of the main goals of love. Socrates said,” After this he think that beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the of their bodies.”(58, Symposium) For Socrates the highest point of madness is that people constantly want what they don’t have.
He may be an advocate for communism and then switch over to rallies for democracy. The problem with “Nowhere Man”, Kazez states, is that it signifies an underlying weak self, without a purpose for doing the things you do. In order to have a happy and good life, Kazez argues you need to have strong convictions and consistent reasoning for why you do something. Mill would disagree with Kazez, he supports the greatest happiness principle, which states that “actions are morally right insofar as they produce happiness, wrong insofar as they produce suffering.” I agree with Mill, I think if someone wants to be an oil lobbyist one week, and decides he wants to see how the other side is and advocate green peace, that they should be able to do so as long as they get pleasure from it. If one was to agree with Kazez, even though it may be an extreme example, one could look at the life of a dictator such as Stalin or Hitler.