Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul One of the most thought provoking philosophers in history was Socrates. In the Phaedo, Plato used him as a tool to convey his own thoughts. One of his most engaging topics of contemplation was of the immortality of the soul. Using his reasoning skills he formulated revolutionary theory on what the concept of a ‘soul’ was and all that it entails. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates argued that the soul was immortal and that we must rise above our physical nature in order to attain true knowledge.
Speaking with the Messengers: Socrates and Arjuna The well-known Athenian philosopher Socrates, arguably the most famous philosopher and generally regarded as one of the wisest people of all time (Marvin) and Prince Arjuna of the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita each share a unique character quality that defined their philosophies and moved them to action. In a sense, one could argue that they both spoke to a strange voice in their head that guided them on their respective paths through enlightening inner-dialogue. Socrates called this phenomenon the daimonion, while Prince Arjuna was guided by what he perceived as the God Krishna. The purpose of this essay will be to compare and contrast an aspect of Krishna’s advice to Arjuna in the Bhagavad
Steinbeck shows Slim to be the most authoritative of the pair when he says “Slim sat down on a box and George took his place opposite.” This quote suggests that Slim is dominant because he takes his seat first; meaning that he is the more important and that George respects him. George is shown to be inferior because he “took his place” like an insolent child. The author is showing that Slim is in charge of the relationship and that George is the follower. Steinbeck is giving this view to the reader because he wants the reader to realise that the relationship mirrors that of George and Lennie, as one man is dominant. George describes Lennie as making him “seem God damn smart”; just as George makes Slim seem smarter, due to Steinbeck belittling George throughout the
In Books Five through Seven, he addresses this challenge, arguing (in effect) that the just city and the just human being as he has sketched them are in fact good and are in principle possible. After this long digression, Socrates in Books Eight and Nine finally delivers three “proofs” that it is always better to be just than unjust. Then, because Socrates wants not only to show that it is always better to be just but also to convince Glaucon and Adeimantus of this point, and because Socrates' proofs are opposed by the teachings of poets, he bolsters his case in Book Ten by indicting the poets' claims to represent the truth and by offering a new myth that is consonant with his proofs. As this overview makes clear, the center of Plato's Republic is a contribution to ethics: a discussion of what the virtue justice is and why a person should be just. Yet because Socrates links his discussion of personal justice to an account of justice in the city and makes claims about how good and bad cities are arranged, the Republic sustains reflections on political questions, as well.
The first two scenes of the first act of Hamlet highlight Horatio as the character who is most in touch with reality. When Horatio is first introduced into the story, he refuses to believe in these sights that Bernardo and Marcellus claim that have witnessed. His loyalty to the age-old adage “I’ll believe when I see it” is a testament to his awareness of reality. Moreover, when the figure does appear Marcellus tells Horatio to talk to it because he is a “scholar” (I.I.42). His recognition as an educated individual reinforces the claim that he is the most in touch character with reality.
Aristotle’s Perception of Oedipus Sophocles's Oedipus Rex is probably the most famous tragedy ever written. Aristotle’s analysis of Sophocles’, Oedipus The King, can be considered a guideline for a true epic tragedy. In contrast to most of Aristotle’s work, Poetics contains little argument. Instead, it simply examines poetic technique as it is created in Aristotle’s time and as he understood it. The influence and longevity of Aristotle’s work verifies the value of his opinions.
Ashley Stallings September 1, 2014 Intro to Philosophy 2010-01 Professor Rodgers Reaction Paper Socrates View of Evil Socrates, born 470 B.C was one of the most powerful, inspiring but misunderstood figures in the history of philosophy. Socrates has made a great impact to this day in our minds through wisdom, thinking and intelligence. Not only did he try to develop the understanding of life, he also tried to get those around him to do the same. With his philosophy, all he’d wanted to do was try to understand life and the elements of what makes life so good. Instead of focusing more on teaching his Socratic Method, also known as dialectics, to the adults who didn’t really care to much about them, he decided to teach younger children because they were willing to learn and their minds were still open to learning and he really enjoyed teaching them.
The sophists taught for money. Socrates did not. For another, the sophists used language to win arguments and to sway people's opinion regardless of the truth. Socrates used language to attain the truth. Compare Socrates with the Sophists.
20/07/04 Aristotle is still one of the most famous philosophers, theme of discussion and debates, and roots of all philosophy. His book “Nichomachean Ethics”, from which I’ve taken my arguments, was considered one, to be exact the second, of the fundamental books in which the west ethics were based on, written on the IV century BCE. He bases almost all his work and theories on ‘eudamonia’, term that refers to happiness, as Plato based on ‘the good’ that has another significance for Aristotle, which is a way of living, a kind of life, not a sentimental state, that has a connection to goodness and is only possible in a political community. First of all, I do agree with him that happiness could be the goal of human life, for having a good, complete, and self sufficient life, by directing our actions toward good things. In this essay I want to prove that for achieving eudamonia one must not only look toward our natural end by which life is directed but we have to live with the eleven virtues.
Short Paper II – Passage 1, Apology of Socrates, 20: C-D The Apology is a fictional interpretation of Socrates’ trial and defense against the charges of impiety, written by Plato. Therefore, although the main character in this dialogue is in fact Socrates, his voice is inevitably resounding from Plato’s perspective. Plato revered Socrates to the nth degree, and provided the audience with a distinguished, admirable, although slightly pompous version of Socrates. The purpose of this passage is used to establish the fact that Socrates was not and did not consider himself to be a sophist, and such a role was deemed to be almost insulting. Essentially, Socrates stated that he did not possess wisdom, like sophists believe they possess, but only human wisdom, which implies the fact that he knew that he knew nothing at all.