This paper seeks to compare and contrast Plato’s Crito and Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham Jail. Both Socrates and King make a case from similar perspective, though separated through a vast amount of years, both are unjustly arrested and charged with seemingly ridiculous sentences; awaiting trial in prison, and they are presented with a choice to flee incarceration or to stay and accept their fate. Their argument, in my option is over whether it is moral or not to disobey the law, despite the fact that it is unjust. In “The Crito” Plato documents a conversation between Crito and Socrates.
Still, Plato’s full psychological theory is much more complicated than the basic division of persons would suggest. First, there are different kinds of appetitive attitudes (558d–559c, 571a–572b): some are necessary for human beings; some are unnecessary but regulable (“lawful”), and some are unnecessary and entirely uncontrollable (“lawless”). So there are in fact five kinds of pure psychological constitutions: aristocratically constituted persons (those ruled by their rational attitudes), timocratically constituted persons (those ruled by their spirited attitudes), oligarchically constituted persons (ruled by necessary appetitive attitudes), democratically constituted persons (ruled by unnecessary appetitive attitudes), and tyrannically constituted
In The Apology, Socrates attempts to defend himself and his conduct certainly not to apologize it. Derived from the Greek word “apologia,” which translates as a speech made in defense or as a defense only. This is an account of the speech Socrates makes at a trial in which he is charged inventing new deities, not recognizing the Gods recognized by state, and the Youth of Athens corruption. Phaedo claims to survey the events and conversations that happened on the day Socrates which is Plato’s teacher was put to death by the state of Athens.
Even on his last day of existence, Socrates did not surrender his exploration of the nature of the soul. Using the Socratic Method and the Recollection Argument, he cleverly proved that the soul exists before birth and that it is immortal. In this paper, I will explain Socrates’ line of reasoning by using the words of the philosophers engaged in the discussion recollected in Phaedo and a metaphor of my own. Secondly, I will point out some limitations in the Recollection Argument, such as its exclusive definition of all learning as recollection and the negative perception of the body. Finally, I will assess the strength of Socrates’ premises and the conclusion to reach an overall evaluation of the argument that established a strong foundation
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
What– according to Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Plato, Thucydides, Confucius, and the Koran– makes a good society? Thanks to the long lasting scriptures of these ancient thinkers and rulers, today, we are fortunate to be given the knowledge to understand the thoughts of sages; who lived thousands of years before us. Through myths, poetry and legal codes, these wise men express their philosophy on what it takes to create a good society. It is evident in all the texts, a presence of a Supreme Being or “God”, who dictates to the people how to behave, along with its respective consequences.
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.
While Aristotle, did not believe Plato’s thinking of the Forms, his thinking was that the soul is not made of a form of objects that that’s on the shape of a material thing, but consists of the same higher substance or spiritual being in his metaphysics theological thinking. For Aristotle, the world beyond is where the physical immortal substance exists, and is developed through the belief that there is a higher being that gives us our soul. Based on Aristotle theories on human development, he has played a major role in bioethics. Bioethics is another branch of philosophy and biology, the study of living things. In reference to James Fieser from applied ethics, “Aristotle held a position now called delayed hominization: human fetuses only gradually acquire their souls, and in the early stages of pregnancy the fetus is not fully human”.
It never changes and yet causes the essential nature of things we perceive in the world. These two perceptions are what Plato describes as the divided line or the journey of self discovery. This progression of the spirit, that can never be reached, becomes the ideal. Plato’s discussions include the involvement of the soul. It is clear, that the main reason for dealing with the soul is to achieve this state
Nevertheless, the non-material form allows individuals to think about anything. In conclusion, both Aristotle and Plato’s are theories of dualism, they just differ in their explanations. Plato seems to maintain that mind and body are the same; however, Aristotle maintains that they are different.
There are two giants in the Axial Age of human history, Confucius and Plato, who are considered as the landmark in the oriental and western world. They are great philosophers, ideologists as well as excellent educators, whose thought have profound influence to the oriental and western world. Confucius’s ideas maintain authority for more than two thousand years, which have intimate connections with development of Chinese federal society. Even to this day, it still remains practical significance and reflects the glorious radiant. Plato’s doctrine is a source of Western political thought.
I believe that Aristotle’s ideas are more significant as they closer to western beliefs than Plato’s. Similarities can be found in religion, art, government, and evolution. Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed in the idea of a god, much like many people today. He believed that God was the First thing to exist, separate from all matter and is the ultimate form. As well as is a pure minded being.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.
“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics.
Socrates and Aristotle, despite being related through Plato, are in fact very different people and have many differing theories. Socrates outlook on life was that we 're all inherently good, but we will do bad things on accident. For example, when talking about ignorance, Socrates believes that we do not willingly do anything wrong. We instead have two branches of ignorance: not knowing something and knowing that you don 't know, or not knowing but you think that you do know (Plato, P.561). Aristotle on the other hand, claims that there is a different outlook on the model of ignorance.
