Plato’s theory of forms is unconvincing discuss Plato was a duellist and thus believed that there are two worlds; the material world and the world of ideas/Forms. The world of ideas or Forms is the true reality and the world of appearances is just reflections of world of Forms. Plato believed that our knowledge of the Forms was a priori which means that our souls knew the Forms before it was inside us, therefore we have knowledge prior to experiencing the objects with our senses. Plato believes everyone is born with an intuitive but imperfect understanding of the Forms. He also believes the philosopher is able, through using his intellect, to achieve true knowledge of the abstract Forms without using his senses.
Plato’s views on the soul are more convincing than Aristotle’s – discuss. Plato and Aristotle were both Greek philosophers who wrote alternate views upon the soul. When discussing Plato and Aristotle we must deduce that Aristotle’s views are likely to revolve around empirical matters whereas Plato’s will be mostly based upon The World of the Forms. Plato wrote about his dualist views upon the soul that state that the soul is ‘imprisoned’ in a body waiting to be freed by knowledge, to Plato, the soul is immortal and lives on when the body dies. Aristotle has a monist approach to the soul, unlike Plato he says that the soul cannot exist without the body.
In the platonic theory of Forms, there is a hierarchy of the Forms. In The Republic, Plato states that the highest and most important Form to learn about is The Good. Underneath that are the other forms which are: universal qualities, concepts and ideals, physical living objects and physical inanimate objects. For example Justice, Wisdom and Beauty are aspects of Goodness. However, Goodness is something that Plato has never properly established what The Form of the Good exactly is but we recognise it because we understand how they correspond to our intuitive knowledge of the Form of the Good.
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.
The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that. However, things begin to complicate when we begin to answer questions, such as ‘why are Gods commands intrinsically good?’. The Euthyphro dilemma outlines the problems with asserting the goodness of God. In the great philosopher Plato’s text, ‘The Last Days of Socrates’, Socrates questions Euthyphro over the piety of the Gods. Which follows on from which?
Those that would argue against Dawkins’ ideas may consider themselves dualists; the most famous dualist would be Plato. Following on from his Theory of the World of the Forms, he argued that the soul is, in fact, more important than the body. This is because the body is a part of the physical and empirical world, and will eventually decay; whereas the soul is a separate entity, and is eternal, immortal and unchanging – like those things which belong in the World of the Forms. Plato uses two arguments to suggest why the soul must exist outside of our bodies: firstly, the argument of knowledge: many mathematical problems are true in all circumstances, whether this is in the physical world or the World of the Forms. Therefore, learning is actually only remembering what the soul already knew from the World of the Forms.
Be sure your essay has a thesis statement Please underline your thesis statement Be sure that your essay refutes counter-arguments Please refer to the syllabus for additional essay writing guidelines Please refer to the six paragraph essay handout for argumentative essay guidelines Be sure that your essay engages Socrates’ and Machiavelli’s viewpoints Be sure that you quote Socrates and Machiavelli to back up your claim Be sure to edit your work Try to write with short and concise sentences • What is Socrates’ method of imparting knowledge? And then, answer the question: • Socratic Method is the method by which Socrates make people realize that they don’t know anything about the things that they thought they knew well. Machiavelli and Socrates Everyone has their own philosophies to deal with life as it is thrown at them. Machiavelli and Socrates offer guidance to societies so they may succeed, as noble rulers. Machiavelli gives his go get them attitude to help maintain power, which I agree with, and Socrates lays out his ideas of enlightenment to rule.
His was a more straight-forward view. Although both seem to possess logical arguments, there can be no gainsaying of the fact that they have two fundamentally different concepts about politics. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different perspectives of Socrates and Machiavelli. Socrates and Machiavelli introduce unique theories in the area of justice and politics in an attempt to influence the importance of social relationships in politics. Socrates believed in morality and ethics pertaining to politics and politics pertaining to the maintenance and purity of a person’s soul.
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.
(Utilitarian Philosophy, 2010). The largest or biggest happiness that every human being is in search for can be described as utilitarian happiness. In addition, with respect to the concept of utilitarianism, everything useful or relevant to happiness is good (Utilitarian Philosophy, 2010). Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility. “Utility is found in everything which contributes to the happiness of every rational being” (Utilitarian Philosophy, 2010).