Sydney Leopard Philosophy 105 3-5-2018 What is pious and impious and who, on the off chance that anybody, is to decide equity? In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato relates the dialog amongst Crito and Socrates in his correctional facility cell. Crito is doing what he supposes is just and intends to convince Socrates to escape execution. Socrates, however, doesn 't rush to take Crito 's offer.
Plato (c.428 – 348 B.C.) is a well-known Greek philosopher and mathematician from the Socratic period that had an immense impact on modern democratic theory. Plato’s political implications contained the pathologies of the democratic public sphere. Through Plato’s encounters and views on politics, he provided foundational ideas and insights on deliberative theory. According to Chambers (2009) his belief was that the strongest objection to rhetoric is not that appeals to passion over reason, but that it is nomological rather than dialogical (p.324).
Throughout the last five weeks, I have read three of Plato’s dialogues: the cave allegory, Euthyphro, and the Apology. While reading them, I was able to see Plato’s view of a philosophical life. To live philosophically is to question appearances and look at an issue/object from a new perspective. In this essay, I will explain Plato’s cave allegory, Socrates’ discussion with Euthyphro, and the oracle story in the Apology.
Plato’s Allegory of the cave represents life/death/rebirth. Life/death/rebirth is a popular archetype that most authors use in fictional books. Plato’s Allegory of the cave begins with people that are locked in chains inside of a cave. The people inside the cave see shadows on the wall of animals and creatures that they think represents their life. This cave is an illusion of life that the people are experiencing.
Thucydides and Plato have a clear set boundary in their writings as to what type of assertion they are fabricating. Thucydides sets a very narrow view with his piece of The Peloponnesian War that holds more weight in solid evidence of what a “good life” is demonstrated as. Plato, on the other hand, has several writings that go into depth of weighing what someone’s soul ought to have within itself. The statement of Thucydides making empirical claims, with Plato making normative claims, is supported with evidence in their respected works.
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold.
In conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.
The existence and continual study of Socrates’ philosophy regardless of differing accounts is astonishing in itself since it survived not through the specific philosopher, but through other people. Which is a testament of the impact that a man, such as Socrates, can make. When we think of Plato, who is regarded as a father of western philosophy, we are quick to think of his major work The Republic, his student Aristotle, and his writing on Socrates. (We think of his writings on Socrates as mere footnotes in philosophical thought without examining them.) “Nothing comes from nothing,” Parmenides proudly claimed, and this philosophical doctrine applies to Plato’s thought.
Justice and moderation are found within these individuals.14 These professions correspond to the ‘appetite’ part of the soul. The protective class includes the warriors or guardians, and Plato considers them to have souls made of silver. They are strong, brave, and comprise of the ‘spirit’ part of the soul.15 Courage lies within the auxiliaries. And then there is the governing
South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 4, Nov. 2009, pp. 415-432. EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48656660&site=ehost-live. 3. Plato.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
In the Republic, Plato gives an argument saying the soul is immortal. In this paper I will present his argument and show that his argument is invalid. I will show why the conclusion is not true and restate the argument to make it valid to help with Socrates’ claim. Plato’s argument on why the soul is immortal: 1. Something can only be destroyed by the thing that is bad for it.
Plato’s view on death According to Plato, Socrates didn’t fear death. He stopped fearing death when God ordered him to live the life of a philosopher. “No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of all evils.” He says that this is just as bad as thinking that you’re wise, when you’re actually not.
Joseph Daunis Three Classes and the Soul In Book IV of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates draws a comparison between the classes evident in their fictional city to the human soul. Socrates clearly defines the three forms he finds in the city as being the appetites of mankind, or in other words, all human desires, such as pleasure, comforts, and physical satisfaction. The second form discussed by Socrates is the spirit or the component of the soul which deals with anger and perceptions of injustice. The third and final form is the mind or reason, which analyzes and rationally weighs options and solutions to problems. Socrates compares these three forms of the soul to the three classes in the city: producers, auxiliaries, and guardians.
Plato employs Socratic discussion to converse upon these issues — encouraging his interlocutors to interrogate — by asking numerous open-ended questions in order implore others to examine their beliefs. Comparatively, Aristotle deviates from dialogue and instead expresses and elucidates on his theories in a prosaic and meticulous fashion. Plato’s work reads like an offbeat conversation between curious minds.
