Assignment One Rhetoric is the idea of new education that brings about the conception of argumentation, discourse, and persuasion. The central argument between Socrates and Gorgias, in the article “Plato on Rhetoric”, is defining the concern of rhetoric. They provide several concepts and deductions to its educational concerns by using different metaphors – such as medicine, weaving, garments, music, and other various models. However, another scholar, Aristotle, has a differing opinion to the notion of rhetoric. Socrates argues about the nature of rhetoric as: the truth and false idea of flattery, the loss of meaning to rhetoric, and rhetoric’s concerns with discourse.
Philosophers are critical thinkers and this sculpture looks like one philosopher looks like. 2. Think of an ethical question that might arise in your own life. What are two possible answers to the question? Which answer do you think is better?
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.
Socrates believed in asking questions, challenging the answers to said questions and then re-examining the logic in arguments that were formed from the Q and A that transpired. This way of thinking was, previous to his teachings, unheard of. He inspired the Athenian youth he taught (Plato was his student) a new form a free thinking. Creating an atmosphere
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.
It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate. Taking central stage in the history of this debate are Hume and Kant and their examinations of the concept have been very influential. I will attempt to show how they unfold their different conceptions of cause and effect and how the two compare to each other. A note on Terminology: While Hume and Kant discuss more or less the same subject matter they do as most philosophers, discuss it in their own (or that most native to them) terminology. For sake of clarity I shall utilise the concepts of each in their respective sections.
This discussion of rhetoric and writing was such a significant contribution to the topic that it is still being taught today. Socrates discusses the relationship of good speeches and bad speeches in respect to the persuasiveness of the speech. He does this by acknowledging that what makes a good agreement or speech is the layout of it.
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.
Paul Starita Pol Sci 201 10/26/12 Examining Justice and Education In The Apology, Socrates defends himself in a court of law after being accused of creating new deities and corrupting the youth. In this text, we find subtle opinions and explanations about the nature of justice. The Republic is a text written by Plato, where Socrates and several of his students deeply explore justice and how an ideal society might look. Especially present in The Republic, both texts have undertones of how education ought to be and why it is so important. These two texts define justice as an important virtue that every person should learn to possess through a balanced, self-discovering education.
His investigations into the men that claimed wisdom brought about much hostility against him. The real issue in his trial is not “criminal meddling” or that he taught his pupils to disbelieve in the gods or to “make the weaker argument defeat the stronger,” but is really his life style or philosophical life and is that these investigations expose the fact that his accusers pretend knowledge when they are ignorant and they have their reputations to protect as being learned men. The revelations of Socrates could also bring about the loss of power and worth of the ruling class, which relied on tradition and the acceptance of the people and would affect the faith in the gods that were accepted by the state as the one true religion. Wisdom according to Socrates is that in respect to wisdom, you are worthless. He felt that wisdom of the Gods was true and relevant and that of humans was not even comparable.