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.
Plato’s view of Knowledge In his dialogue “What is Knowledge” from The Meno, Plato’s main goal is to distinguish between true opinion and actual knowledge. These are two concepts that are very close to each other but are very different also. By exploring Plato’s works, this paper will discuss how true opinion and knowledge can be equally good, but why one should prefer knowledge to true opinion when true opinion will also get similar results. In addition, this paper will also discuss Plato’s theory on how knowledge is different than true opinion in the sense that it requires an extra step to become knowledge from merely a true opinion, and how this theory is connected with Daedalus and his statues of the running man. In “The Meno” the character of Socrates mentions, “correct opinion is no less useful than knowledge” (pg.
How do Confucius and Plato look at the individual, at society, and at individual and society together? How does Plato’s vision of what makes for happiness compare with that of Confucius? Do the ideas of “justice” and “benevolence” figure into these different visions of happiness? Plato and Confucius had many brilliant ideas that change the world, but in what differences did they go about creating these ideas. In Plato’s Republic there are many types of “justice” in the society.
For Socrates, upholding justice leads to this state, while for Epictetus, it is about being in accord with nature. For Epicurus, it is about maximizing pleasure through removing all pain. I will expound on these below. We will first consider how each philosopher views justice as a means to achieving the ideal human state. To Socrates, his action was right and thus he chose not to flee as he felt that upholding justice was very important and the most righteous and virtuous thing to do.
Bentham was concerned with human rights and democracy, he believed that happiness shouldn’t only be for one person it should be for lots if of people. Bentham would base his decisions on pleasure Vs pain, he would use the hedonic calculus to help him work out which action would produce the most pleasure. The Hedonic calculus looks at 6 main things; Intensity (how much pleasure or plain will it bring? ), Duration (how long will it last? ), Remoteness (how near is it how soon will it come?
Aristotle and Kant were both brilliant philosophers, who each strongly supported and believed in their own arguments. They were similar in their approach to ethics; they both admire reason and rationality. The basic beliefs of Aristotle contrasted with the modern ideas of Immanuel Kant which offered a great match for an interesting view of human good and good will. However, after a thorough inspection of each philosopher's theories, I found that after initially leaning toward Aristotle’s theories I discovered that Kant's idea of good was found to be more captivating than Aristotle's, in that Kant's view addressed good in a complete sense through categorical obligations of man. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and was passionate about the virtue ethics, as were a lot of the early philosophers in Greece.
These Forms are not a physical thing, but in fact just the essence of something, and this essence is the perfect version. For example, Plato believed that the Form of Beauty is perfect beauty; the Form of Justice is perfect justice; the Form of a table is the perfect table. Plato believed there was a hierarchy to the Forms and the most important of all was the Form of Good. This was his strongest belief as if thought that everyone should be good. It is difficult to imagine what Plato meant by the “Form” of something so he created the “Analogy of the Cave”.
For instance, a beautiful person is a copy of Beauty. It indicates that a person shares more or less an Idea of Beauty. Moreover, this doctrine represents a serious attempt to explain the nature of existence, because we have certain kinds of experiences which raise the question about existence for us. For example, we make judgments about things and behavior, saying about a thing that it is beautiful and about an act that it is good. This implies that there is somewhere a standard of Beauty and Good, separate from the person and his act about which we are making judgments.
Aristotle believes we practice good virtues for a greater reason, the superior aim in life is to achieve the supreme good, which is happiness. For Aristotle, happiness or fulfilment was the goal and purpose of life. In this understanding he meant more than just pleasure, he understood this in three different ways. First being happiness as a life of enjoyment of pleasure, second happiness as a free member of society, and last happiness as a philosopher. In order to achieve the eudaimonia, Aristotle believed that you had to practise skills or virtues to achieve happiness and live good lives.
Virtue theory has its origins with Plato and Aristotle. Plato suggested that happiness could be attained through the pursuit of virtues and that certain virtues are central: prudence, justice, courage and temperance. These later become known as the ‘Cardinal Virtues’. (Cardinal translates to fundamental.) Aristotle develops this and distinguishes between things that are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things that are good as ends (for their own sake only).