There is a Form of everything we know. Forms are perfect which means that they are unchanging, eternal and therefore cannot exist in this world. Forms give us knowledge and exist in the Realm of the Forms. Forms must exist because we know things without seeing them or being told what they are. For example there is a form of beauty, which explains why we can all understand and know what beauty is, without the need to be told every time.
He now tells that piety is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety that which is not dear (6). Socrates then praises Euthyphro for this new definition, but still is not satisfied, and so begins to further question this definition until he can turn it into one that he can use in his own practice (6). He begins with telling of how people can have differences of opinions, and how these differences can lead into feelings of hatred, in which Euthyphro agrees (6). Socrates then go's into how the gods themselves can also have there own differences of opinions, which can also lead into unrest amongst them, which they also agree upon (6). He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7).
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.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
A distinctive quality is tat culture can play a major role in determining beauty. As advocated by the same author, ".. The best definition of beauty ever given.. a certain je ne sais quoi." (Montez 26). Beauty can vary depending on our beliefs, there is no one standard of
Small though it be, it will make many mistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there” (Democracy, Voltaire). His opinions on the pursuit of progress with abandon were that progress should be sought after but not without humanity and rationale in mind. He would not have wanted progress to be had on the sacrifice of human rights or the loss of rationality. He was somebody who “believed in progress and in the virtues of civilization, contrary to Rousseau’s belief that civilization corrupts man” (Voltaire, New World Encyclopedia).
Explain what Aristotle meant by Final Cause: [25] Aristotle’s Final Cause is his theory that all objects have a fundamental reason or purpose for its existence. He questioned why material was the way it was and looked beyond its physicality to what was its purpose and why it exists in our material world. Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed in only the material world and opposed Plato’s world of the Forms. To him, the final cause was important as the material efficient and formal causes would be pointless without the end product. This is the final cause.
This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the idea process, but it was an interesting outlook I stumbled upon whilst brooding. That Aristotle's made his views of rhetoric appeal to the greats in order for it to be passed along, not that he though only the greats should be privy to his ideas. Whether this is the case or not stands to be disputed, but why
Plato argues that Aeschylus’ theories have holes because of deception or death. While living the good life one can logically avoid obstacles such as deceit. Queen Clytaemntestra rule in Oresteia is an example of this. Plato addresses the exact ways to ultimately reach true happiness in the Republic and tells the audience specifically how to achieve the good life. Although there are vague similarities between both plays, we notice the path some characters chose do not lead to the good life no matter how wise they seem to be.
She writes on how you can have your own natural beauty in your own way. Being perfect is not beauty. It is how you are as a person and how you look at life. Beauty is skin deep not just how we look, and how we dress or what kind of music we listen to. Beauty can be achieved with enough discipline and self-devotion.