Plato’s Apology is in the words of Socrates. The apology explains what Socrates though of death as he awaited his death after being condemned for not believing in God. He believed after death, one would either go to another world or be in a state of nothingness. He had the theory of death being a place where one would learn about life and talk to people that no longer walk the Earth. He supports his argument that death is a gain by explaining that he, Socrates, will get to speak to famous poets and past heroes.
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.
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.
For this week's journal entry, I would like to bring up the idea of "wisdom" in reference to Plato's Apology. Personally, I find that the way in which Socrates defends is wisdom is admirable, and although it leads to the verdict of him being killed, I think that this decision and the reaction by Socrates helps define wisdom. Socrates, in essence, says that he does not fear death because he is wise. No one knows what death is -- perhaps it may be the best thing a person gets to experience. However, a person that is unwise would approach death into thinking that it is the worst thing that can happen in life.
Plato breaks the justification of knowledge down into two types of realms that show what can be known by reason and what can be known by the five senses. These realms, then divided into two other unequal parts based on their clarity and truthfulness, make up what is known as The Divided Line. By understanding The Divided Line we can fully grasp the differences between the perceptual, also known as becoming, realm and the conceptual, also known as being, realm. The perceptual realm is the opinions and beliefs of people or it can be known as the visible realm.
STEP ONE: When we are considering information as feasible, we must look into where the information is derived from. Receive partial information is not going to be helpful enough to create a stance on a topic. Without all the information we are unable to give the correct answer to a question that may be asked in trial. In this quote by Rebecca Goldstein’s book, “Democritus would also have to put in long hours in the lab, devising experiments under carefully controlled conditions, and taking measurements by means of instruments designed to extract precisely the right information”
While some, like Plato in his The Republic, thought it weak to give government into the hands of the common people, Pericles countered this argument with a compelling argument of greatness. By putting government into the hands of the people, the people are united and more devoted to their country. Democracy bonds the people together in a way that no other government can understand. Pericles confidently states, “Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes.”
Continuing off of those points, Plato has an argument that cities come to be certain ways because of the ways that the people are as I mentioned before and if that’s true then there must be as many kinds of people as there are kind of cities. Therefore, there are as many kinds of people as there are kinds of cities. This is where I have a problem with Plato’s argument. I believe that even if cities have their characteristics because of the type of people that live in them, the number of kinds of cities don’t add up to the number of kinds of people. Cities can have mixtures of people.
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.
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 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.
Plato proposes that in order to function the noble lie effectively, the citizens must be persuaded to believe that their political role was chosen prior to birth, due to the composition of gold, silver or bronze in their souls . This gives rise to the ‘’Myth of Metals’’ , which states that every citizen is born from the earth and must regard the native soul as their mother. The citizens possessing gold and silver are the most honored and qualified to rule, whereas a workman takes no part in protecting or governing the city and carry on all necessary lines of work. The city state must be ruled by the philosopher kings who belong to the category of rulers and possess a high degree of knowledge and are capable of identifying the activities that promote the welfare of the entire society. The philosopher kings must be chosen from amongst the class of
Pericles ' viewpoint is nevertheless argued in The Republic, juxtaposing the qualifications of the ruling power and their competence versus the incapability of the general public to foster such a magnitude of power. Using "Socrates" as a fictional protagonist, Plato critiques democracy in The Republic. Through this protagonist, he reflects on the value of merits such as ‘justice, ' that are prevalent in the configuration of society as a whole and in the character of an individual being. He condemns societal democracy due to its foremost features such as freedom and equality. Although freedom is of utmost value to Plato, he is of the faith that freedom concocted with such a form of governance may run the risk of chaotic mobocracy.
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.
In the conclusion of this paper, I will have illustrated that Plato’s government view is more valid than of Locke’s. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Plato describes a just city to look at the concepts of political justice. He refers to this city as Kallipolis. A just city is that of which everyone develops a skill based off of their innate abilities.
