During the course of reading Euthyphro, the idea of doing what is right became the overall goal for what Socrates was trying to argue. Though to one such as myself, I would easily define it as doing what is morally good according to a just law. However, after reading this dialogue, there would seem to be many loop-holes that could be argued against my understanding. The whole dialogue of this section concerns how a man named Euthyphro is supposed proceed against his father in civil court, and how Socrates see's this as morally wrong. How he asserts his disposition is through asking Euthyphro to give his reasoning behind his actions, and constantly disagreeing with him through more questions which lead into more universal idea's such as
Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” directs rulers to be practical and do basically anything to stay in power, even if it requires being evil. He would reject Plato’s opinions regarding rulers, since Plato believed that rulers must “ascend until they arrive at the good” (55) and “the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and in the State in which they are most eager, the worst” (61). Plato's views directly contrast to Machiavelli’s views on the ruler, which is that the best and most effective ruler is one that does everything possible to maintain the power in which he holds. He is only worried about the attainable future and ideals, while Plato is more focused about the enlightenment of man, and the understanding of knowledge.
Plato however sees that living in ignorance is living away from the truth and being a philosopher, argues that we should always question the world we live in. An example of this would be in Plato’s analogy of the cave because the prisoners were happy in their un-real world and playing their games but even though they were extremely ignorant to reality, they were very happy and content with their lives. Plato believes that this is wrong and that only philosophers are brave enough to become enlightened and see the world for what it is. Socrates also agrees with Plato on this and a quote to prove this would be that “a philosopher does not indulge in any pleasures of the body, he cannot gain wisdom through hearing or seeing they being finite” which applies to wise philosophers and not ignorant men. Contentment should be out of fullness and not laziness.
Part 2 Plato and Tradition and Belief Q.1) Socrates explains that Athenians lack wisdom, hence if asked that question they will laugh at him. To even 'think' the question amongst the Athenian is wisdom, and to know where it comes from, is another. Then Socrates explains that he is from amongst those unfortunate and incapable people who lack in understanding, they can't even 'think' the question, let alone have the answer. So he stands in no position to have an answer, for he does not know what 'virtue' itself is, therefore he knows nothing about it. Socrates teaches his student his notion on 'virtue' by discussing in drawing attention more to the definition, rather than the actual act itself.
While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them. Just because of the good laws of the state benefited Socrates and helped him in his upbringing, it doesn't mean that he has to remain completely loyal to them for his entire life. His main point about never returning an unjust act with another makes sense to a degree, but only if you agree with his view that the soul is the only thing that matters and not the body. While I understand that point, I don' think every unjust act ruins the soul. Some acts such as telling a white lie in some situations are
Thesis Statement: In The Allegory of the Cave, Socrates outlined a program that would make sure Athens had good rulers and a good government, which would have worked for Socrates time, but not in the present. The program would have benefits. Philosophers would make better leaders than normal people. No one would take office because of personal ambitions. Things would run better with no competition for office.
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.
In Euthyphro, Socrates did not directly express what he felt was the meaning of piety but rather questioned the accounts by Euthyphro. It seemed as though Socrates, throughout the entire dialogue, dissected and broke down every definition and meaning to what pious and impious meant to Euthyphro. While Euthyphro tried to defend and prove his point it was rendered mute as he jumped from answer to answer slowly being cornered to the inevitable; that he did not in fact know the full definition or had a true understanding of what pious and impious meant. (Plato 20) In Apology, Socrates is accused of several things. Among them are studying heavens and below earth, which as a consequence leads to corrupting the youth with his teachings.
“Apology” February 20, 2013 As I read the Apology written by Plato I noticed that Socrates makes his defense in a question and answer type of structure. He is very wise as to asking the right questions. He tries to make Meletos answer his questions as it will prove Socrates defense later. Socrates tries to make Meletos contradict himself and therefore, the contradictions are his defense. For instance, Socrates asks “Do not the good do their neighbors well, and the bad do them evil?
The first charge is that Socrates is corrupting the young. Meletus is being asked questions by Socrates that proves that he is incorrect with his charges and that he isn’t to be taken seriously. Ultimately, in this questioning, Socrates gets to the point that Meletus is trying to tell the court that he, alone, corrupts the youth. He goes on to say that this is the opposite of what usually happens. How can one person corrupt the entire youth by themselves?