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.
The forth crime that was charged was, disbelief ‘in the gods of the city.’ This charge is a result from the first charge of being ‘a natural philosopher.’ He indeed did not believe in any of the Olympian deities. He may have gotten out of this one if he praised any god and paid tribute to them, but he did not. Because he didn’t, he had committed treason.
According to Hume, while all events are causally decided by prior events and conditions, this does not prevent the possibility of free will. In Hume's view, free will is not the absence of causal determination, but rather the absence of external constraints on human action. That is, individuals have free will when they can act by their own desires, motivations, and beliefs, without being coerced or constrained by external forces. One of the key features of Hume's compatibilist position is its emphasis on internal factors in human action. Hume believed that our desires, motivations, and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping our actions, and that these internal factors are not incompatible with determinism.
Types of the reason from Teleological argument have been around for a while yet have increased restored intrigue as of late. Has Hume figured out how to demonstrate the improbability of such views or would they be covered to counter his feedback? Take a position in the level-headed discussion and show where your rivals aren't right. The argument for configuration depends on the supposition of a maker, or God that outlined the universe with the gathered closely resembling nature of the apparent request of the world, and the question found in computers and all things considered, something so requested must be the aftereffect of a Teleological argument.
Another difficulty I see here is an incorrect assessment of the problem that Aristotle is addressing. In the text of the Republic, as Plato makes his case for goodness existing above being using the Greek phrase dunamei huperechontos (surpassing it in power), Glaucon responds with daimonias huperbolês (that’s a preternatural exaggeration) (509c). Thus, it is explicit in the text that Plato is making a controversial claim, and I argue that it is controversial for a good reason. Here is an example of Plato’s idealism, which is extrapolated upon at length in the allegory of the cave. The dilemma for Plato, therefore, becomes this: if the form (eidos) of the good is, in itself, an idea that is ontologically superior to being, then how might an
In the movie 12 Angry Men it showed many examples of Hume’s ideas such as skepticism, pluralism, relativism, and reasonable doubt. First let me explain what skepticism is, skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge or particular subject. Pluralism is the position that there are many different kinds of belief—but not all just as good as any other. Relativism is when the position that each belief is just as good as any other, since all beliefs are viewpoint dependent. Reasonable doubt is lack of proof that prevents a judge or jury to convict a defendant for the charged crime.
Part A- Socrates In thinking of Socrates we must recognize that what we have is four secondhand sources depicting him. That of Plato, Xenophanes, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. All having radically different accounts on Socrates and his views. Out of all them we consider Plato’s to be the most possible account, even though we face a problem of different versions of Socrates.
Plato’s Republic examines many concepts that make up an ideal state, the biggest being how justice affects the structure of society as well as the human nature of an individual. In Book Two, Glaucon states that the only reason that justice exists is because people are afraid to act on unjust thoughts. He argues that if no one was afraid to act on these thoughts, then no one would be just. Glaucon’s brother Adeimantus adds on to this argument, stating that appearing to be just is better than actually being just. He adds that the unjust person who is able to maintain their reputation of being just will also be happier than the just person.
In book five, Plato addresses the people of Athens in regards to the honour of a man, the sins of a man and the rewards of man. While reading it I found it interesting that Plato did not only condemn the people of Athens but criticized the way they lived and ruled. For instance he states “Now in every man there are two parts: the better and superior, which rules, and the worse and inferior, which serves; and the ruling part of him is always to be preferred to the subject”(Book V). This quote for the book sets the tone for the whole passage because he is quick to distinguish that in every man there are two different parts. I found this most particularly interesting because he says the ruling part of the man prefers to be a slave.
To illustrate for his argument of king-philosopher, Plato compares the structure of the state to that of a ship. He draws out a picture of a sailing journey being lead by an ignorant and incompetent person while everybody else in the crew is trying to compete to be at the helm, which result in a disturbing scenario. In this simile, the captain is whoever successful at convincing the owners of the ship to choose him as the navigator; he represents the current ruler under democratic government, while the crew or the sailors represent the politicians of the state. The sailors, who are just ordinary people and have no special knowledge about navigation, are rivaling against the captain, who is also not much different from them, for ruling power.
Title (Argue against three positions from Plato) The Athenian philosopher Plato is said to be one of the most important figures of the Ancient Greek world. It could also be argued that he is one of the most important figures in the entire history of Western thought. In his many written dialogues, he expands the ideas and different techniques of his teacher, Socrates, of thirty years. Plato’s way of living was to ask ruthless questions that made you think about the reason you are living and why you are the way you are.
He opines this position by arguing specifically against Aquinas, as mentioned. However, this paper will not focus on arguing that Hume is specifically refuting Aquinas; other critics have argued this idea thoroughly, so I will approach Hume’s opponent as evidently being Aquinas. Hume’s refutation of Aquinas is split into three parts; two of which are solely philosophical, and one that is theological: if suicide is morally impermissible, then it must be a violation of our duty to God, to society, or to ourselves. Hume thinks that suicide does not violate any of these duties, so he concludes that it is morally
I disagree, because without emotions or desire, there is no need for reason. If one does not have emotion, they are “boring” and unapproachable. When relating the soul to the ideal leader, having more reason may be important, but a persons desire and emotions make them who they are. Aristotle implied that soul is, “A particular kind of nature, a principal that accounts for change and rest in the particular case of living bodies” according to the Encyclopedia of
Socrates execution Socrates was a Greek from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western Philosophy. He is a prominent and known through the accounts of classical writers. Through his presentation in Plato’s dialogues (his student), he has become renowned for his contribution to the matters of ethics. Socrates also made a notable lasting contribution to the field of epistemology .His influence and an idea remains a strong foundation for much of western philosophy that followed (Plato 51).
“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.
