In Crito, a play by Plato, Socrates and Crito deliberate about the justifications of breaking out of prison. Crito provides numerous evidences that should appeal to Socrates emotional side by bringing up his friends and family, however, Socrates maintains his composure. Instead he contributes a logical and concise argument to act justly by staying in prison and accepts his punishment for ‘corrupting the youth’, among other things. I believe that Socrates argument is most effective due to his content, which is filled with logic and reasoning to prove his premises, as well as his style; not filled with flare and insignificant common phrases. Socrates most effective strategy is his use of logos, he always uses rationale and logic to decide his next point or explain his most recent assertion.
In Euthyphro, Plato’s method of arguing obliviously proves the point that evidence and a clear thought out explanation is needed when trying to describe and explain the difference between two things—especially when involving right and wrong. Although it helps to prove it and make you truly think about the definitions as well as how to describe it, for the person, in this case Euthyphro, on the other side of the argument it can be very annoying; because you explain one thing and then are questioned and have to explain more or then you being to questioned on your own thinking making you have to restart. It is in a way similar to now how little kids go through a phase were they ask “why” to anything and everything; typically the one being questioned
In response to the long-standing philosophical question of immorality, many philosophers have posited the soul criterion, which asserts the soul constitutes personal identity and survives physical death. In The Myth of the Soul, Clarence Darrow rejects the existence of the soul in his case against the notion of immortality and an afterlife. His primary argument against the soul criterion is that no good explanation exists for how a soul enters a body, or when its beginning might occur. (Darrow 43) After first explicating Darrow 's view, I will present what I believe is its greatest shortcoming, an inconsistent use of the term soul, and argue that this weakness impacts the overall strength of his argument.
In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will
HUM2225 Dr. Hotchkiss September 30, 2016 Moral Insight Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there. Socrates explained that the court was persecuting him for impiety because Meletus was spreading rumors about him corrupting the Athenian youth. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he was there to prosecute his father for murdering a farm worker named Dionysus.
In Plato’s, Phaedo, one of the arguments that Socrates makes for justifying his theory about the soul being immortal is the argument of opposites. The argument of opposites is found from 70c to 72c in the Phaedo. The argument is not logically valid as there are a few fallacies that occur with the definition of opposites with which Socrates defines his argument. This argument ultimately fails at being logically valid as contrary to premise 1, all things that have an opposite do not come from only their opposites. Socrates also does not specify in this argument whether he is referring to the soul dying or the body dying in the final premises.
He mentioned that he would worship the idea of asking them questions, discuss his sufferings to others. He believed that he would win either way because he would be living a better life of finding out who is wide and he could continue his search for true and false knowledge. His arguments are valid because after he states his beliefs, he explains why he thinks what he thinks to be true. He created the theory of, “Either death is a state of nothing ness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world by another” (Plato).
Plato claims that the soul is immortal because of his argument of Opposites, to which I agree. Socrates says, “For all things that come to be… [come] from their opposites if they have such...” and “…those that have an opposite must…come to be from their opposite and from nowhere else.” (70e) Socrates argues the opposites of Bigness and Smallness. For something to be considered big, it must have first been smaller, and for something to be considered small, it must have come from being big.
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
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.
He is able to make the claim that the fear of death is just another type of false wisdom of claiming to know the unknowable. He further supports his claim by stating that instead of fearing the unknown caused by death, he is more terrified of failing his mission to God and his people. He asserts that fearing certain evil such as failure to do God’s duty is more sensible than fearing death, which cannot be accurately identified as either good or
Brian Diaz Professor Siddiqui Philosophy 1 20 January 2018 Second Paper: Conceptual Reconstruction (Crito, Meno, Phaedo) The dialogue of the Crito, by Plato, recounts the last days of Socrates ' life. In the dialogue Socrates ' old friend, Crito, proposes that Socrates escape from Athenian prison. Crito is a wealthy man from outside of town, a student of Socrates, and an old friend.
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.
All men are mortal. (premise) – 2. Socrates is a man. (premise) – 3.
