Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil. My motivation for presenting my own definition stems from my frustration in Thrasymachus’s inability to see justice as something much more than a form of legalism Thrasymachus starts his definition by stating that justice is the interest or advantage of the stronger (338c). Immediately after being questioned by Socrates on this definition, Thrasymachus quickly clarifies that the stronger are in-fact the rulers and that justice is in the interest of them alone (339a). Socrates forces the examination of this definition, and results in Thrasymachus then defining interests as the laws that rulers make (338e). From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b).
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). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
Socrates, an Athenian philosopher, was a curious man. His questions brought an entire new perspective into people’s lives, leading some to become inspired and innovative. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” (Doc. 1) Socrates had once said, continuing to support the concepts of innovation and knowledge. Ironically though, Socrates was put to death because of some of his thoughts.
Is Socrates a Believable Character? Socrates, as most know, is a man famous for offending Athenian beliefs during 4th century BC. Philosophy was not accepted at this time therefore many believed Socrates rambled on about nonsense. Although this seemed like nonsense to people living in Athens at the time, Socrates still voiced his opinion as his love for philosophy was more important then what was said of him. As history shows, Socrates is a believable character as the Apology written by Plato has many examples showing he truly is philosophical and wise.
Plato’s theory of forms is unconvincing discuss Plato was a duellist and thus believed that there are two worlds; the material world and the world of ideas/Forms. The world of ideas or Forms is the true reality and the world of appearances is just reflections of world of Forms. Plato believed that our knowledge of the Forms was a priori which means that our souls knew the Forms before it was inside us, therefore we have knowledge prior to experiencing the objects with our senses. Plato believes everyone is born with an intuitive but imperfect understanding of the Forms. He also believes the philosopher is able, through using his intellect, to achieve true knowledge of the abstract Forms without using his senses.
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.
Validity in the Charges of Impiety against Socrates Impiety is commonly defined as a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to public religious observation. Plato’s Apology consists of a speech made by Socrates, a well-known philosopher, in defense of his life and conduct at his trail. Socrates was accused of being impious through accusations such as corrupting the youth of Athens, not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, as well as inventing new deities. The question then becomes, with these accusations in mind, are the charges of impiety against Socrates valid? This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex.
I admire his belief that one must concentrate more on self-development than on materialistic things and his view that virtues are the most powerful of all possessions. Since Socrates wrote nothing most of what we know of him comes from his disciple Plato, who wrote Socrates’ teachings in works called Dialogues. In this we learn about his creation of the Socratic method, which is a form of debate between individuals based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking. He is best recognized for inventing the teaching practice of pedagogy, wherein a teacher questions a student in a manner that draws out the correct response. I imagine that we would discuss the challenges he faced with the Athenians due to his ideals, which weren’t accepted in that time.
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
He does, however, agree to the idea that rhetoric is a form of persuasion in which it is broken down into three modes: ethos - the speaker, pathos – the audience, and logos – the speech. He insinuates the idea of one’s failing of unjust is equal to the idea of failing as a speaker, and believes rhetoricians must know how to argument in both ways to be a strong persuader. Socrates and Gorgias believe that human’s have a natural need to instruct and deceive disciplines, while Aristotle defines humans as good-natured whom have no need to convince others through persuasion. Aristotle also disagrees to Socrates’ definition that rhetoric is to soul as cookery is to body. Instead, he views rhetoric as the method of creating the truth without deception and creating truth with people’s own view.