However, Socrates argues against Crito’s proposal to help using few arguments. Socrates firstly highlights that the opinion of the many should not be counted only the experts, that one must never do any injustice and emphasizing on the importance of following the law. One of the arguments Socrates presents, through the use of metaphor and personification he compares the state and kinship. Socrates highlights the bonds that are required in a family such as loyalty, duty, obligation and obedience is required to the state. Socrates is highlighting that a social contract is in placed which citizens are required loyalty to the law.
Philosohy Falling through the Center of the Earth: The balancing act of injustice and justice From the early pages of Plato’s Republic Socrates and his companions are striving to find what can be considered ‘justice’. Socrates companions seam to all feel that to do injustice with out consequence is good for oneself. One after another, explanations as to what constitutes justice are raised and soon extinguished. However, it is only when Socrates expresses his view of justice in the city and in man do we see an explanation of justice being willingly practiced and inherently good. In order to simplify justice and prove that it is indeed better than injustice, Socrates moves from describing justice in the individual to the city.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
Schulman and Thoreau's ideas of self-government can still be applied today, because it teaches the valuable lesson that it is always greater to abide by one's own beliefs than to follow the majority. Emerson reinforces this idea in his book Self-Reliance when he states that "imitation is suicide" (Emerson, Self-Reliance 391). However, because Keating was breaking the rules, when he was essentially punished for Neil's death, his character also demonstrates the
In this essay I will discuss four different classifications of justice that are proposed by Socrates’ interlocutors, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, as well as his rebuttal to each of their proclamations. A final section of this paper will be dedicated to how Polermachus’s outlook on justice, which is doing good to one’s friends and harm to one’s enemies, can most effectively be defended against Socrates’s response that it is unjust to harm anyone. This is because of Socrates’s inadequate dismissal of Polemarchus’s claim. Socrates offers an unclear definition of what causing harm is. Therefore, it can be presumed that specific types of harm such as constructive criticism and disciplinary punishment are deemed unjust when they actually can be efficient instruments in the formation of a just human being.
Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another. While this can still happen today it seems that the law does try hard to make sure everyone is satisfied and everyone’s interests are accounted for. Rudolf von Jhering said that the law is the main way of ordering society, his views was that the rights of the majority should take precedence over the individual. He said that society is made up of conflicting interests that cannot all be satisfied and that the role of the law was to balance them out so the individual conformed to the needs of society. Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level.
Nagel, however, emphasized the value of life, even if the “bad elements” in life outweighed the good ones. While Socrates saw death as an opportunity for greater satisfaction after life, or at least a sleep that would be better than the bad things in life, Nagel viewed death as the end of opportunities to enjoy life. Socrates called death a “blessing,” claiming that it was either something good or nothing, and he explained that compared to bad things people experience in life, nothing is actually a good thing. On the one hand, he said, “If (death) is a complete lack of perception…then death would be a great advantage. If one had to pick out that night during which a man slept soundly and did not dream…(he) would find them easy to count compared to the other days and nights.” This idea of a “dreamless sleep,” as Socrates called it, is somewhat difficult to understand, but by comparing it to the bad days people have during the course of life, he made the case that an eternity spent in nothingness would feel more like a single night, instead of the daily grind and restless sleeps that come with living.
Inductive reasoning is useful because it allows for a more open-ended viewpoint. Socrates used inductive reasoning along with the dialectical method. When speaking to people, Socrates would begin with a question and on his counterpart’s response would ask further questions. Socrates continued this process until his counterpart admits his unfamiliarity of the subject or becomes extremely annoyed with Socrates and stops the conversation as a whole. He used his counterpart’s statements to form theories using inductive reasoning and he used the dialectical method by asking interlocking and progressive questions to fluster the questioned into leaving the conversation.
Famous literary critic and author Rebecca West encompassed this mentality as she said, “I really write to find out what I know about something and what is to be known about something.” Simply put to write is to know, therefore writing is a form of expression used to manifest our thoughts on to paper. According to ideas of Socrates, if knowledge and wisdom are possessed by the individual, he in continuing knows himself. A good writer can be differentiated from others, based upon his willingness to go against what is expected and push the envelope. The only way to obtain this confidence in life and in one’s writing is to develop this way of thinking, believing that the majority is wrong, and resisting “common nonsense.” The best writing comes from a piece of work that makes one think, that makes one question his own knowledge. Socrates conceived the notion that everyone has the ability to reflect upon their own life and see their world through only their
 The knowledge that comes from the sciences is usually expressed in propositions and laid before us as conclusions that we can grasp and put to use. But the "doctrine" of a thinker is that which remains unsaid within what is said, that to which we are exposed so that we might expend ourselves on it. In order to experience and to know henceforth what a thinker left unsaid, whatever that might be, we have to consider what he said. To properly satisfy this demand would entail examining all of Plato's "dialogues" in their interrelationship. Since this is impossible, we may let a different path guide us to the unsaid in Plato's thinking.