What kind of wisdom? It is perhaps such wisdom as could be called human wisdom, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I may be wise; whereas the persons of whom I was just speaking seem to have a sort of superhuman wisdom, for I don’t know how else to describe it, because I do not have it myself; and whoever says that I do speaks falsely and is attacking my character. (par. 8) This is one of the few instances in which Socrates claims to have any sort of wisdom, but he suggests that the wisdom he really has is a subset of wisdom that he calls “human wisdom”. He defines the wisdom he is being accused of having as “superhuman wisdom”, meaning that the
But between the Sophists and Socrates there was a fundamental difference. The Sophists showed that equally good arguments could be advanced on either side of any issue; they were skeptics who doubted that there could be any certain or reliable knowledge. On the other hand, Socrates was committed to the pursuit of truth and considered it his mission to seek out certain knowledge. Unlike philosophers
Aristotle and Plato have different theories on reality. I think that Plato has less to say about reality than Aristotle does. Aristotle’s argument lies in the here and now, whereas Plato’s reality is part of a metaphysical realm. Aristotle’s fundamental idea is in disregards to Plato’s dualistic theory. Plato disagrees with the sensible world because he argues it is in constant flux, which means we would be mislead by our senses.
There are obvious flaws in this idea but an explanation that Berkeley gives clears it up a little. He explained that even though we can not see space or distance, we know it exists from past experiences. Rationalists such as Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, and Baruch Spinoza argue that our senses are not the ultimate source for knowledge since what we percieve may be decieving. Rationalism is the view that all ideas come from knowledge and reason and can be deduced. On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed.
The categorical notion of 'virtue' has a long history in moralistic philosophy. It’s first cogent exposition was offered by Aristotle, and it is thought by some that it has never since been expostulated better. Nevertheless, thinking about virtue did not stop with Aristotle, and his ideas are not believed to be unerring truth to everyone. I wish to focus on one central respect in which some moral philosophers, chiefly Immanuel Kant, have had doubts about Aristotle's account of virtue. I think that to a large extent the conflict is misunderstood, but it is also illustrative of some larger, more glaring issues in philosophy.
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). Euthyphro makes a claim that piety means to be loved by the gods. Socrates questions how something that is god-loved is pious and something that is god-hated is impious. Afterwards, Socrates comes to a new definition of piety saying, “Is it where the just is that the pious is too, or is it that where the pious is, there too the just is, without there being the pious everywhere the just is-because the pious is part of the just” (21)? Here, the definition of piety changes from being loved by gods to being just Kajol 2 or fair.
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.
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.
“Don’t force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever is not good to be bad. It’s the same with Love: when you agree he neither good nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly or and bad; he could be something in between.”(46, Symposium) Socrates said this because he knew that Love cannot possibly be a god since he lacks beauty but he must be something between mortal and immortal. Socrates believes that Love is rather a great spirit who is in search of more than just beauty on the outside. The beauty that Socrates speaks of is an internal beauty that he believes is one of the main goals of love. Socrates said,” After this he think that beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the of their bodies.”(58, Symposium) For Socrates the highest point of madness is that people constantly want what they don’t have.
At first glance, this argument seems to be inevitable, as it seems that moderation to everything is a necessity. Neither too much nor too little of anything can be good; that in order for something to be good it has to be the right amount—that which Aristotle describes as the golden mean. However, his arguments present to be too vague, lack evidence and reality, and many times is a circular argument lacking any true definition of his main points. Aristotle begins his argument by defining two different types of virtues: intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue owes its existence to teaching and moral virtue to habits.