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
Patriots are people who do not follow blindly. On the other hand, Nationalism is virtually opposite. Nationalist believe their life style is the best, and wish to spread it apon others. They blindly follow institutions claiming to do what's right for their cause. The majority of people in the world, very unfortunatley, have become Nationalist; Assagn is a democratic patriot.
He believed he was on the position to serve his country and his people without any expectation. Aristides handled any contradictions against him peacefully, and he believed in his duty as a citizen, of autocratic politicization, he would give his service to Greek at all times freely and without reward of any compensation or even popularity (112). In general the two leaders, Themistocles and Aristides, had contributed their role to Greek. Based on Plutarch’s written, Aristides became a sturdy champion of justice who was a little swayed by personal sympathy. On the other hand, Themistocles became champion of people; he was not swayed by any desire to take revenge on his countrymen, nor was he elated by the great power position which he would enjoy in the war
Anyone can make his or her dream. If there is no racism, there will be no problem achieving the dream (58). C.P. Ellis says his views of this nation are pretty great, but as he abides by their rules, it got him nowhere and made his life
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.
The youth are very positive thinkers who do not care about tomorrow or even the youth are starting to become very creative, not just towards art work, but towards their own lives. I personally believe that all these assumptions are partly true, but in a way they are still forms of stereotyping. To some extent, these assumptions are true, but not every youth is a druggie or a know it all and so on. As I have stated before, every individual is different in their own unique way and should be treated with respect. The reason to why I think this way is because, I know personally if I were to be treated as if I was the same as someone else, I would not be very happy and would be very upset.
It was not simply knowledge about the world, but wisdom about right relationships within the world, that propelled many agents for change in our own time. to challenge the dominant culture in their efforts to make the world a more just and caring place for everyone to enjoy. We often know a lot about these and other important persons -- that is, we know something about their politics, their moral vision, and their impact on society -- but we generally know little if anything about the spiritual sources that animated (and animate) their commitments to a larger good. Progressive educators have generally abandoned the so-called IQ measurement as the gold standard of educational success. The current
Unfortunately, since the ideal of a utopia doesn’t exist, there are the citizens of a nation, and then there are the citizens of that nation who are “more equal,” or have better rights and more freedoms such as suffrage and equality that the rest of the populace can only dream of. Separated by millennia of human experience, Socrates and Marin Luther King Jr. were each men who realized that their respective nations were tantalizingly close to reaching the ideal of a truly great society, but were hindered by but a few glaring disparities. These were men who accepted their government with its strengths and its flaws and were proactive enough to instigate powerful and meaningful change. They each attempted to correct the system in which they lived, wishing not to completely redirect its path but to alter its direction towards the narrow lane of righteousness and just action. As is evident in the Apology, Socrates believes that for a government to properly function and provide for the basic freedoms of
Aristotle advanced the philosophy of ethics, where he demonstrated that it is a means of achieving an end to happiness. However, happiness means many things to different people. To Aristotle, the most adequate way to pursue happiness is through the virtue of excellence. In his writings, Aristotle connected his therory of virtue to economics, and leadership as well. It is a matter of connecting ones personal ethics to that of ones business ethics., simply because Aristotle made no disticntion between ethics and politics.
We are told that democracy thrives all around us and that it does everything for us. It keeps us fed, protected, clothed, sheltered, and (supposedly) safer than any other form of government around. We are told a great many things about democracy; how it keeps us free, how it allows us the best possible life, and how we would be worse off any other way. However, C. B. Macpherson describes a totally different view of democracy chronologically in his book The Real World of Democracy. The realm of democracy has become so indefinite that even we do not know what it stands for.