It turns out that Aristotle and Kant would give rather different answers to this question. I think that it is because we are unclear about the answer we would give that the conflict is still with us and within each of us. Briefly, Aristotle would say that he is interested in
Socrates then realized why the Oracle said he was most wise because he knew that he did not have this wisdom. Those that thought they did do not at all because it is only the God who is truly wise and Human wisdom is basically worthless. “The wisest amongst you, human beings, is anyone like Socrates who has recognized that with respect to wisdom he is truly worthless.” (23b) Socrates is separated from most because he does not claim to have a knowledge of value, he is not ignorant of his ignorance. Socrates first defends himself against Meletus’ charge of corrupting the youth by bringing him into question in front of the court. He proves Meletus wrong by showing how he cannot be the only person that is corrupting the youth while others improve the youth.
However, Socrates would not teach daimonia if he did not believe in god. There is an inconsistency in Meletus’ indictment. Socrates points it out. He says, “you say that I do not believe in gods, and again that I believe in gods, since in fact I do believe in daimons” (Ap. 27d).
However, Socrates is unable to find the meaning because the definition of piety changes. Piety is impossible to define for at least three reasons: the definition of piety can have more than one meaning, the structure of the conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates is dynamic, and their knowledge of piety also keeps changing. The definition of the word piety can mean more than one thing. During the conversation, Euthyphro keeps changing the definition of piety. First, he states, “In that case it’s what’s lovable to the gods that’s pious, and what’s not lovable to them that’s impious” (13).
Plato disagrees with the sensible world because he argues it is in constant flux, which means we would be mislead by our senses. Aristotle holds that we live in the here and now, which is also in flux as all things move towards the prime mover, which is the only thing that belong to the metaphysical realm. Aristotle is much more considerate of actuality this is because we cannot be certain if there is a metaphysical world as no one has ever seen it; it is merely a speculation by some people. However we can be certain that the empirical world truly exists as we all belong to it. Plato states that our belief in the empirical world is doxa however as this is our only stable thing we believe it to be true.
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.
Compare Socrates with the Sophists. Many Athenians had mistaken Socrates for a Sophist. The fact is that Socrates was one of the Sophists keenest critics. That Socrates should have been identified with them was due to his relentless analysis of any and every subject, a technique also used by the Sophists. But between the Sophists and Socrates there was a fundamental difference.
The Unexamined life is worth living What does it mean to live a good life? Famous Greek philosopher Socrates once said, "The unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato 30). By saying this, Socrates was basically stating that in order to achieve the good life, one must examine life and question the unanswered thoroughly. Some people may agree with this idea while others may strongly disagree. After giving this question much thought, I have come to a conclusion as to what I believe the good life actually is.
Socrates strove to find the truth in love. Socrates follows Agathon, claiming ignorance for himself in the matter of eulogies; he doesn’t know how to make eulogies, only how to tell the truth. Being encouraged to go ahead with a truthful speech anyway, Socrates turns his attention to Agathon and uses him to display his method of leading students to knowledge through questioning. The logic goes like this: Love is love of some object, love desires that object, one desires only what one does not have (one can desire the continuance into the future of what one already has though), and those who love do not have the object they love/desire. Agathon has said ‘the gods made the world from a love of beautiful things for there was no love of ugliness’, so Eros must be love of beauty and not of ugliness, so Eros then lacks beauty and does not possess it.
6) The subject produces another definition, one that improves on the earlier one. 7) The subject is made to face his own ignorance. This method was used to target fallacies and contradictions within his opponent’s argument and make his opponent aware of the inconsistencies. Socrates’ method was intended to reach a greater understanding of the truth, but not everybody appreciated and shared Socrates’ enthusiasm about his method. Law School is one of the most known platforms for the Socratic method.