Dillon Martinez Phil 206 Weakness of will. Aristotle and Epictetus both have their own way of dealing with weakness of will. The better of the two responses is the one put forward by Epictetus. Epictetus had the superior response due to the fact that he deals with weakness of will by saying that the only things that make a person weak are completely in that person's control. Epictetus states that, “We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible.
Alma Askins Rowe Professor Nathan Poage Philosophy 1301 January 25, 2013 The Charges against Socrates Socrates is described as having neglected his own affairs, instead he was spending his time discussing virtue, justice, and piety wherever his fellow citizens congregated, seeking wisdom about right conduct so that he might guide the moral and intellectual improvement of Athens (Perel). Using a method now known as the Socratic dialogue, or dialectic, he drew forth knowledge from his students by pursuing a series of questions and examining the implications of their answers. Socrates had charges brought against him by a man named Meletus, who was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges that were brought against him caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is an evil doer "corrupting the youth" (Grube).
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
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
Socrates in Crito refutes this idea of the importance of a good reputation and honor. In response to Crito’s statement inquiring what could be worse than a bad reputation, Socrates declares, “what matters to us what the many think?” (534). Socrates goes on to say that the public’s opinion has no effect on a person’s true character. He asserts that, “they do things quite at random” (534). The position of wisdom being imperative in the pursuit of the
Therefore he believes that doubt should exist, but should be momentary, to be replaced by a decision. Although Pi seems to be so against agnostics in part one, it is shown that Pi, has the characteristics of an agnostic. In part one his hatred for agnostics is heavily stressed upon. However, in the rest of the book there is little mention of agnostics again. This is because Pi not intentionally has the values of an agnostic when he is confronted with his dramatic experience of the ship sinking.
Much of what Socrates uses to defend himself proves otherwise; this is proven in the story of the Oracle from Delphi. What does Socrates think of the gods? Socrates seems to contradict himself on several occasions on this issue. As Socrates defends his charge of atheism proposed by his accusers, he is able to prove to one of his accusers, Meletus, that he believes in the gods. In this essay I will prove that Socrates is in fact not a religious person, but he has had to act religious all his life as so he wouldn’t ever be accused for something such as this and uses this act to completely disprove the accusations made against him.
But yet have I a mind/That fears him much, and my misgiving still /Falls shrewdly to the purpose”, from this we can see how he still shows some signs of uneasiness about them giving Antony a chance but is still not able to bring his point across to Brutus and the other conspirators as they all reason with Brutus and later on even submits himself to accepting Antony and even trying to convince him to join them. -Lack of foresight/ambition(1) With the exception of wanting to remove Antony, he shows a lack of foresight towards other aspects of conspiracy. As his primary motive of the conspiracy is to get rid of Caesar because of jealousy towards his power, he fails to plan for what happens after. This can be
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. First of all in this excerpt, Socrates addressed a counter-argument to his self-proclaimed innocence, in which his fellow civilians questioned his occupation. It was common knowledge that Socrates spent most of his time around the marketplace discussing a plethora of concepts and questioning people on whichever topic he desired. Thus, the public believed that he was nothing more than a traveling sophist, trying to obtain money in exchange for his knowledge; such activities were not deemed completely reputable or acceptable in common Athenian society and were characteristic of sophists. He continued to refute this assertion by making a slightly sarcastic, presumptuous joke at the public’s expense, “Listen then...some of you will think I am jesting, but be sure that all I say is true.” This quote can be perceived as a stab at the ‘inferior argument’ strategy, for which sophists are famous.
6) The subject produces another definition, one that improves on the earlier one. 7) The subject is made to face his own ignorance. This method was used to target fallacies and contradictions within his opponent’s argument and make his opponent aware of the inconsistencies. Socrates’ method was intended to reach a greater understanding of the truth, but not everybody appreciated and shared Socrates’ enthusiasm about his method. Law School is one of the most known platforms for the Socratic method.