Every human being tries to cognize this world and find his/her place in it. These attempts are an integral part of our nature as they make people discover new phenomena, and evolve. Founders of a classical philosophy like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, also revolved around this very issue. For this reason, Socrates even suggested his own term examined life. It could be defined as the consideration of the nature of any action that will be performed by a person. Before making any step, an individual should communicate with others, and understand the nature of this very action, and only under these conditions he/she will live an examined life.
Besides, there are vigorous debates related to the question whether examined life is worth living or not, and whether people should adhere to the concept of unexamined life, which is more interesting and promising, or not. Besides, using the idea of the good life as the main criterion for the evaluation of these aspects, we should provide the idea that only actions that result in the improvement of the current state of society and its evolution should be considered appropriate. For this reason, only examined life could be considered the good life as it helps individuals to evolve and contribute to the development of any community.
We should say that Platos Allegory of the Cave could be used to prove the importance of an examined life and the role a person living according to this principle might play in the community. This allegory introduces the idea of people living in a great cage with poor light. They see shadows on walls and consider them real objects that should be investigated ( The Allegory of the Cave ). However, one person manages to leave the cave, and he/she sees a real world, with sunlight, and other objects. He/she obviously tries to persuade people that there is another world that should be cognized. We could say that only in terms of examined life this person will return and try to alter society as he/she realizes the importance of this action and the impact it might have on the whole community. Only life in the new world could be considered a good one and community should realize it.
We could use The 11th Hour as another example of the unique importance of examined life. In case all people think about the character of their actions, their impact on the planet and environment, the state of the Earth will be much better. This documentary shows us that there are numerous problems at the moment that come from disregarding of the existing societys needs, or unexamined life (Conners). For this reason, it is crucial to analyze basic virtues and act in accordance with the current situation. Only under these conditions, we will be able to create wise and constantly developing society.
Besides, here is a certain real-life example that could be used as the evidence to our statement. For instance, a prostitute sleeps with people for money. It could be compared to people who act trying to obtain some benefits. They do not think about virtues or other values; they just perform actions that might bring benefits.
There is obviously a counter argument to this idea which states that acting in this way a person stops to be himself/herself which contradicts to his/her nature and it also makes you selfish as you want to become popular within this very society. However, it is not the same. Adhering to the principles of an examined life, a person improves living conditions of other people, and it could be taken as an altruistic step. For this reason, we could conclude that even in case a person acts to promote the rise of a community, he/she still contributes to his/her own evolution, and it is the only mode of life that should be appraised.
The analogy of the cave is Platos way of explaining his thoughts on forms. The analogy of the cave is found in Platos book called the Republic (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002). Plato presents his analogy by giving an illustration of prisoners in a cave. The focus of this essay is to discuss Platos cave analogy. The most interesting thing in the cave analogy is that some people in the community always work hard to become enlightened because through it, they get to understand the reality in life.
People grow tired of living in a continuous state of lack of truth, and they begin thirsting for it. The time that a determined person takes to remain in a state of lack of knowledge, and truth is always limited. At one point in life that person gets to discover the truth, and when this happens he can no longer be patient enough to remain in the dark. He is always tempted to embrace the change that comes with that knowledge of the truth. For example, my mother remained in her abusive marriage for long because she was not aware of her rights. When she got tired of the situation she started desiring to get her freedom. This desire led her to the knowledge of the truth about her right not to be abused (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002). However, there are cases where people always remain comfortable with their lack of knowledge, and do nothing to show that they are weary. The prisoners in the cave for example, refused to hear anything about the reality outside the cave, and got angry with the prisoner that had seen the reality (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002).
Plato shows that a person can run away from prison to see the reality. In his analogy of the cave, Plato shows that it is possible for a person to escape prison in order to have a taste of the reality. Of the prisoners in the cave there was found one who was impatient, and tired of being a prisoner. Getting out of prison entails a struggle, and the person involved must use much effort to get to freedom (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002). The prisoner that escaped from prison was determined to see the reality, and this determination gave him encouragement to cut off his chains. The struggle was mental and physical as well because the prisoner had never been outside the cave. He had to imagine beyond the shadows he had seen, and use a lot of physical strength to break the chains (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002). Plato shows us that the reality can be very appealing to those who are imaginative, and are eager to know the truth. Those who are not willing to know the truth may have no desire to struggle for anything better. In the analogy of the cave the prisoner is not bothered by the fact that his fellow prisoners are not supporting him. He breaks the chains by himself, and leaves the others behind. This is evidence of strong will, and purpose to rise above prevailing circumstances.
People can risk their lives to get the truth because it brings change to them, and to others. Truth comes with change of situations, and circumstances. It even makes life better for those that get it. The man who got out of the cave knew nothing about the outside world. He did not know what he was going to meet, and therefore he was only taking a risk. People do make risky moves in order to get understanding, and change their lives (Heidegger & Sadler, 2002). For example, when my parents refused to pay my school fees because of reasons best known to them, I was forced to look for advice from a lawyer, and take them to court. The lawyer gave me vey truthful information about my right to education, and parental support. I made a risky move because I still depended on them for my supplies, and their being jailed would spell doom for me.
However, sometimes it turns out that the risk taken is not worthy the reward. For example, in my case the money, and time my we spend was too much compared to the benefit I got from the ruling of the court. However, this example shows that it is always worthy to strive and take risks because even though people can incur losses, other people may benefit greatly from their struggles, and risks taken.
Conclusion
It is therefore clear from this essay that the thesis that some people struggle hard to get the truth is true. This means that people should never be satisfied with their circumstances because when they fight for the truth they get better things in return. This is the reason why some people excel in various aspects of their lives such as marriage, and career life because they put in determination, and get the reward for their labor.
Reference
Heidegger, M., Sadler, T. (2002). The Essence of Truth on Platos Cave Allegory and Theaetetus. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Platos philosophical work aims at distinguishing between observable things that appear beautiful and those that are beautiful. According to him, unified, big and equal things appear beautiful while truly beautiful things are characterized by features such as goodness, justice and unity. Plato argues that man should transform his values by understanding the forms and defects of the physical world. From his work, Plato advocates that man should recognize that the soul is different from the rest of the body and its functioning does not rely on the body. The soul is capable of controlling all forms of nature especially when not burdened with connection to physical things. From his work, we learn that the soul has the ability to remember what it once had even after being disembodied. The life that man lives is to an extent a reward or punishment resulting from choices made in the past.
Although Platos propositions can be identified as the foundations of his philosophy, we can accurately say that few of his works can be taken in whole without question. This paper will discuss puzzles that are identifiable in Platos philosophical work.
Discussion
Plato uses dialogue to convey his message to the audience and readers. Although, this device is widely used in drama, Platos dialogue is quite different when compared to that of his philosophical colleagues. He uses dialogue to invoke primordial mythical realms such as the development of Euripides. His dialogues are characterized by philosophical discussions that convey his view of the world. One of his major interlocutors is Socrates and Plato uses him to justify his reasoning and view of the world.
Plato, as seen in his philosophical work, never addresses his audience directly, but uses characters to convey his messages. He does this indirectly and this leads to the question of whether people can really understand Platos mind, since he never affirms anything that is said or done in the dialogues. It is easy to place a philosophical doctrine on his characters, but it is hard to place this on him. Questions on whether Plato really had philosophical convictions and if people can really tell what they were have arose. Research shows that if people attributed any of the philosophical views portrayed by his characters, then they would be violating his purpose of writing the dialogues (Robert 12).
Other issues such as why Socrates is one of the prominent characters in Platos dialogues and whether he holds the same opinions as Plato have also arose. Research shows that Platos intentions in involving Socrates in his dialogues were to show a sense of neutrality. For instance, Platos definition of justice is similar to Socrates definition. This is evident in the republic where both state that justice is composed of every part of the soul carrying out its own functions. The fact that we can understand what the characters in the dialogue are trying to put across does not mean that we can understand Platos intentions and way of reasoning. It is confusing as to whether Platos use of dialogue is meant to express his philosophical opinions or is a way of illustrating the foolishness of the characters involved.
Conclusion
It is clear that Plato in his philosophical work he was trying to confuse the audience. He effectively achieved this by indirectly addressing the audience through the use of dialogue. One of the best examples of Platos dialogue is The Euthyphro , a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro. Euthyphro is torn between his responsibility as a son and a prosecutor. During the dialogue, Socrates never tells Euthyphro what to do, but he asks him questions that ultimately affect his final decision.
From the discussion above, it is clear that for one to understand Platos philosophical view, he needs to interpret what his characters say. Plato fails to effectively convey his philosophical views because he does not directly address the crowd but uses characters in his dialogues. We are thus left to draw our own conclusions about what he might have believed in, and the only evidence we have is the dialogues. Therefore, to conclusively draw his philosophical views, it is paramount that we take what the characters say to represent Platos stance and view of the world.
To understand the philosophical views of Plato, and what the characters mean by what they say in the dialogues, we should take both endeavors as one task and not two. This is because we might not gain anything from the readings if we take both to be different. Platos dialogues were made to provoke the audience to reflect and accept the views of the characters from their arguments. This is seen in the fact that one can understand what the characters in the dialogue are trying to put across but cannot understand Platos intentions and ways of reasoning.
First section: Prologue from paragraph 17a to paragraph 19a
Socrates explains who he is and mentions that the accusations against him have provoked him to make this explanation. He says that he is giving his defense speech at an old age. He also describes his accusers in a satirical way and remarks that no one knows their names because they have always spread their false claims without any proof and therefore did not want their names to be identified.
Second section: Defense against old recriminations from paragraph 19b to paragraph 24a
The earliest charges against Socrates resulted from peoples prejudices that he was a sophist (he made the weaker argument look stronger) and a physicalist (he investigated things in the skies and beneath the earth). He mentions the words of an oracle from Delphi who said that Socrates was the wisest man of all.
Third section: The accusations made by Meletus and Anytus from paragraph 24b to paragraph 28a
The specific accusations made by these two men are that Socrates is guilty of irreverence and the corruption of youth. In his defense, Socrates says that he would never corrupt youth voluntarily, and if he did so involuntarily, he does not deserve punishment. As far as impiety is concerned, Socrates says that since he believes in a divine thing, he also believes in divinity.
Fourth section: Answering the accusations from paragraph 28b to paragraph 34b
Socrates provides his own explanation for his art. He says that he is not a sophist or physicalist, he is not irreverent, and he does not corrupt the youth. In fact, he goes around the city and shares his wisdom with the people in order to prevent them from being ignorant.
Fifth section: The sentence, the alternative punishment, and final pleas from paragraph 34c to paragraph 42a
Socrates mentions that he is quite old, and he would have died soon anyway. However, when he is accused and is allowed to suggest an alternative punishment, he says that since he has been offering help to the city through his wisdom, he deserves to be fed for free for the rest of his life. In the end, he says that only God knows what life is better: the present one or the one after death.
Work Cited
West, Thomas G. Platos Apology of Socrates: An Interpretation, with a New Translation. Cornell University Press, 1979.
Phaedo is one of the dialogues that were written by Plato, the great Greek philosopher. Plato wrote it to give an account of the conversations and proceedings that happened on the very day when the Statesmen of Athens killed Socrates, his tutor and a philosopher as well. It recounts his trial and death.
The Phaedo was written in Platos middle period targeting philosophers, proponents of philosophy, and those who love knowledge. It presents four arguments concerning the immortality of the soul. Plato also uses it to talk about his principle of the link between soul and body, his sentiments concerning the relation, and its explanations from a technological viewpoint.
With this hint about Platos Phaedo, the paper presents his major metaphysical, epistemological, and psychological views about Phaedo. Besides, the writer gives his/her opinions about the views based on their strengths and flaws.
Platos major views and arguments about the Phaedo
Plato argues that philosophers should be willing to die. This comes up when he tells Cebe to remind Evenus who is also a philosopher that he should be prepared to follow other philosophers through death. Plato points out that, just as other philosophers were put to death, Evenus should also follow them.
However, Plato argues that the philosophers should not take away their own lives since this would annoy the gods that possess the philosophers, an argument that other people do not understand easily. For example, Cebe enquires from him the reason why philosophers who have the will to die do not commit suicide.
Socrates then answers that this would make the gods angry since they are the guardians of the philosophers. Weiss confirms this by arguing that the major aim of philosophers is to practice it with the aim of dying (58). This defends the argument by Cebe that no one would want to die and leave the service of gods since they are the best masters.
In fact, Plato justifies his claims about the pleasure of death though the definition of death as what separates the body from the soul. Weiss argues that Plato used the argument by Socrates that true philosophers hate the pleasures of the body, for example, drinks, sex, and food.
According to Socrates, the argument reveals why a philosopher fights to free his or her body. He argues that the senses of the body are not accurate but deceptive. Plato further confirms this in the argument, when the soul is mostly by itself, then a philosopher can search for knowledge successfully (Weiss 62). Bodily pleasures like food, sex, and good drinks act like impediments for the philosophers in their pursuit of knowledge.
Plato also confirms this in his worldview on forms. According to Weiss, Plato refers the forms as beautiful, the just itself, bigness, health, and the good (59) besides arguing that all forms are not guided by sense but by thoughts and hence the reason why they are likely to mislead the philosopher in his/her search for knowledge.
The greatest impediment to a philosophers search for the truth is the body. Weiss also argues that the body fills a person with desires, wants, fears, illusions, and nonsense. There is no thought that comes from the body (60). This means that any true philosopher must come out of his/her body in order to succeed. Plato points out that philosophy is training on the process of dying. Upon death, a philosopher will gain the wisdom he/she has been searching. Therefore, a philosopher should not fear death.
Platos second major view about the Phaedo comprises the three-fold argument about the immortality of the soul. Cebes argues that many people do not believe in the immortality of the soul. He follows by arguing that people must be convinced of the idea of the soul continuing to exist even when one dies, and that the soul continues to have intelligence.
Weiss argues that Plato, through Socrates, presented a cyclical argument that, since souls of the dead normally come from living creatures, the living souls then must originate from the dead (57). He justifies this with the view that all things originate from their real opposites. For example, for one to be big, he/she has to be small initially. He adds that, for every pair of opposites, there must be two opposite processes.
For example, there is the process of increase and decrease in the larger and smaller pairs. In addition, he argues that the two opposite states must balance each other. Otherwise, all things would be similar. For example, if a decrease were not able to balance an increase, everything would diminish.
Moreover, he argues that being dead and alive are two opposite states of being. Therefore, coming to life and dying are opposite processes in these states. Weiss points out that coming to life must therefore balance dying (58). Finally, he argues that all things that die have to come back to life.
The second argument on the immortality of the soul is through recollection. Plato points out that, if a person hears, sees, or even perceives a thing and thinks about how he/she knows it, he/she can think of something else with a different knowledge. This means that knowledge can be recollected.
Plato then argues that not everything that seems equal is equivalent to the equated thing per se. He points out the existence of two worlds: the visible and the invisible world. He adds that the soul is similar to the invisible world while the body is likened with the visible world. Plato argues that, if the soul is assisted to get out of the body through training on philosophy, it is then able to get into the invisible world (Sedley 362). Therefore, the philosophers are trained to get out of the body.
The third Platos argument about Phaedo is the objection from Simmias and Cebes based on how Socrates responded. Philosophers are obsessed with the hope of better things after death. To him, this may be the reason for his firm argument about life after death. Plato points out that people should weigh every argument before they take action to follow it.
In addition, if one makes the wrong decision and follows the wrong argument, he/she should blame him/herself for lack of knowledge: not the argument and its discussion. Plato also argues that the soul is harmonious. There is no way it can be part of the wickedness of disharmony. Every soul is as good as the other.
In fact, Warren confirms this revelation in his argument that the soul rules over all other elements opposing it while conversing with passions, fear, and desires (98). This claim indicates that the soul has some control of the body. In addition, a great opposition exists between the body and soul. According to Plato, everything is judged according to the theory of forms that was presented by Socrates.
The fourth key argument about Phaedo by Plato is the myth about Afterlife. At this point, the argument is that, since the soul is very important in this life and the life to come, people must worry about morality. The premise is that there is punishment for the wicked souls. According to Annas, Plato portrays a journey that the soul takes to the underworld. This begins from judgment of the dead soul that proceeds to the underworld.
The soul moves to the three regions of the earth and its shape, and finally to the punishment of wicked people and pious philosophers rewards (Annas 121). The idea of believing in rewards and punishment of the soul makes people improve their souls while still alive. People become more virtuous in order to avoid punishment after they die. Many people in the world have changed their behaviors in preparation for the afterlife.
Annas further affirms this when he argues that Plato admonished the living to repeat this tale like an incantation of their lives (127). According to this argument, Plato strongly believes that those who search for the truth will receive a reward in the afterword. Thus, he convincingly admonishes his friends and those who would want to know the truth to volunteer their lives for it. The premise here is that gods, who are the masters of the philosophers, will punish others.
The fifth Platos view of the Phaedo is depicted in the death of Socrates. Plato views the reality of death from a positive perspective. He argues that there is no need for a decent burial or one leaving behind any instructions on how to bury the body because, when one dies, what remains after death are not the person but just a body.
For example, Socrates shows how he longs for the afterlife that he had always searched through philosophy by asking for the poison required by his sentence (Weiss 62). He then drinks it very comfortably as if he enjoys the process of dying. Plato depicts the death of a philosopher in a very gentle and enjoyable manner.
For example, Socrates drinks the poison very calmly and even with a good cheer after which he lies down to die. This part of the Phaedo gives a new energy to the argument. The reality of the enjoyable death of a philosopher becomes more evident. For example, Socrates does not waste any more time after he finishes his conversation with his friends. He bids farewell to his family, takes a bath, and then asks for the poison.
He swallows and comfortably waits for it to kill him. Apolloni confirms Platos argument that the invisible world never changes: it is intelligible, deathless, non-composite, and divine (5). The reader can now understand the reason why he tells other philosophers to follow the same route. Dying is something that can be enjoyed according to Plato.
My opinion on the argument
Plato convincingly argues about the harmony of the soul and body. He is also able to convince the reader about the ability of the soul to control the desires of the body. He points out that, regardless of the great opposition that exists between the body and soul, the soul is able to control the bodily desires for food, sex, and drinks.
He has a plus for this claim. He also sturdily argues about the desire of philosophers to die in order to obtain the happiness they always look for in their pursuit for the truth. The weakness of this argument is that Plato is not able to prove how philosophy separates the soul from the body because the two must exist in harmony. Hence, the opposition he talked about earlier must always exist until one dies.
Sadly, Plato points out that the vision of the soul is intelligible and indivisible, which is a weakness of Platos argument in that he depicts the death of a philosopher as an enjoyable and gentle undergoing, which does not concur with the norms (Sedley 359). For example, he narrates how Socrates asks for the poison himself just after saying goodbye to his family and friends. He then lies down to die. Death cannot be enjoyed. In most cases, it is violent.
Human beings are also very resistant to death. The other weakness in Platos argument is that he considers being dead and being alive as opposite. His argument is therefore not convincing at this point since these two words cannot be directly opposite. It is not convincing in that any human being can yearn for dying. Cohen argues that people react violently to information that threatens their lives (1154). It is therefore difficult to understand why a philosopher would enjoy dying.
This clarification does not come out in Platos arguments. As a plus, the views of Plato about Phaedo can be relied upon since he manages to approach them though examples that the philosophers fight for dying. Those who love knowledge would want to realize the truth besides being ready to die for it. For example, he gives a vivid example of how a philosopher died in pursuit of the truth. If people had not believed in this truth, the philosopher could have regretted his opinion.
The argument is also true because, as Plato argues, there is a complete separation of the body and the soul once a person dies. The body is left destroyed: it decays. The other prove of reliability of this argument is that people have been able to use their souls to control bodily demands. For example, people can fast and go for days without food and drinks.
It is also possible for people to deny their bodies the pleasure of sex and lives to control it by their souls, for example, the catholic celibates. Platos argument can also be relied upon since the ability to control ones bodily desires for worldly evils has led to worlds morality. If people would control their bodily desires for sex, for instance, there would be no evils like rape and incest in the world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Platos argument about the Phaedo has faced acceptance and criticisms. Plato argues that philosophers enjoy dying, the soul controls the body, and that there is a better afterlife. He qualifies his arguments though examples. By the end of it, he illustrates how a true philosopher lives and dies.
This convincingly makes his arguments appear factual as those of Socrates who was his teacher who dies in pursuit of the truth. He also appeals to other philosophers to follow suit by being prepared to die for the truth. In my opinion, Platos arguments make sense not only to other philosophers but also to all who love philosophy.
Works Cited
Annas, Joel. Platos Myths of Judgment. Phronesis, A study of Platos myths in the Gorgias, Phaedo, and Republic 27.1(1982): 119-43. Print.
Apolloni, Dennis. Platos Affinity Argument for the Immortality of the Soul. Journal of the History of Philosophy 34.1(1996): 5-32. Print.
Cohen, Gal. When beliefs Yield to Evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26.1(2000): 11511164. Print.
Sedley, Dan. Teleology and Myth in the Phaedo. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 5.1 (1990): 35983. Print.
Warren, John. Socratic Suicide. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 121.2 (2001): 91-106 Print.
Weiss, Reis. The Right Exchange: Phaedo 69a6-c3. Ancient Philosophy 7.1 (1987): 57- 66. Print.
Is it necessary for people to listen to the opinion of the majority because they live in the society? Is the majoritys vision of the problem always right? Platos dialogue Crito is based on the discussion of such issues as justice and injustice with references to the notion of the majoritys opinion.
Crito insists that a person must listen to the opinion of the majority, and Socrates argues that it is impossible to pay attention to the opinions of all the people because it is important to concentrate only on the wise mens ideas and examine it in relation to his specific situation and his vision of it.
In spite of the fact the opinion of a single person can be discussed as irrelevant in comparison with the opinion of many people, Socrates focus on the value of the opinion helps determine the main aspects of the issue and find the most appropriate variants to resolve it.
Socrates argument based on the principles of value, expertise, and justice is more convincing than the opinion of Crito which depends on the notion of reputation in its association with cowardice and tangibles.
Discussing the situation of Socrates being in prison, Crito provides his vision of the problems resolution with references to his values and ideals. Crito claims that it is possible to save Socrates from execution giving some money to the guard.
His decision is based on the idea that it is a kind of injustice to have money and not to use them to save the friend. It is the problem of reputation, and according to Critos arguments, it is possible to conclude that reputation is the social notion which depends on the opinion of the majority.
Crito draws Socrates attention to the fact that there can be no worse reputation than to be thought to value money more highly than ones friends, for the majority will not believe that you yourself were not willing to leave prison while we were eager for you to do so (Plato 44e).
Crito supports his argument about the necessity to concentrate on the majoritys opinion, emphasizing that the majority can inflict not the least but pretty well the greatest evils if one is slandered among them (Plato 44d).
One the one hand, Critos arguments can be discussed as relevant if the majority is the group of people who can be discussed as wise.
On the other hand, the majority is the group of different people, and their opinion can be based on the principles of justice as well as injustice. That is why, Socrates disagrees with Critos position.
Socrates argument sounds more convincing because it is organized consequentially, and the principles on which it is based are correlated with the ideas of virtues. Thus, according to Socrates, the opinion can be discussed as valuable when it is expressed by wise persons who are experts in their spheres.
It is impossible to rely on the opinion of any person because of the lack of knowledge. Moreover, Socrates states that the most reasonable people, to whom one should pay more attention, will believe that things were done as they were done (Plato 44e).
From this point, it is also necessary to pay attention to the personal reflection on the problem and on the opinion.
Socrates emphasizes that we must therefore examine whether we should act in this way or not, as not only now but at all times I am the kind of man who listens only to the argument than on reflection seems best to me (Plato 46c).
Basing on the reasonable opinion of wise persons and connecting its importance with the notion of justice, Socrates concentrates on the fact that unjust actions can lead only to injustice.
However, Crito develops the argument in the discussion with Socrates, stating I do not think that what you are doing is just, to give up your life when you can save it (Plato 45d). Nevertheless, if Crito pays attention to the life of a concrete person, Socrates discusses the issue with references to the larger context.
Injustice can lead to injustice and this chain can be endless. It is impossible to resolve the problematic issues with the help of definite unjust actions because of their consequences.
The discussion of Crito and Socrates is based on the opposition of the basic principles which they operate, developing their arguments. Socrates determines the notion of value paying attention to the idea of justice.
Thus, unjust actions which are not based on the reasonable opinions of the experts and which are harmful for the peoples body and soul can corrupt the person. Furthermore, when the persons soul is corrupted it is worse than the corruption of a body.
From this point, unjust actions based on the wrong values cannot be discussed as the way to justice. Socrates argument helps understand that Critos ideas depend on the wrong values which are reputation as the reflection of the majoritys opinion and money which can be used for supporting unjust actions.
Socrates arguments lead to Critos agreeing with the philosophers position. Thus, Socrates presents his main argument stating that we should not then think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself (Plato 48a).
It is possible to rely on the opinion of a person who knows the truth about the issue because of taking the experts position. Furthermore, relating to the situation of Socrates imprisoning, it is necessary to rely on something which is credible according to this definite situation.
That is why, Socrates bases his argument on the discussion of the Laws as the main source of the truth for resolving his situation. It is important to analyze the fact of Socrates imprisoning from the perspective of justice which comes from the citys Laws.
Socrates proposes to examine the situation from the point of the Laws, saying if what we say is true, you are not treating us rightly by planning to do what you are planning. We have given you birth, nurtured you, educated you; we have given you and all other citizens a share of all the good things we could (Plato 51d).
From this point, a person cannot decide what to do without references to the Laws. In spite of the fact the Laws can be interpreted as unjust in relation to Socrates situation, it is his duty to rely on them as the source of the truth.
Having presented the basic ideas which reflect his vision of the problem of justice and injustice, Socrates concentrates on persuading Crito. Socrates uses questions, answering which Crito begins to agree with the philosophers position.
The discussion of the idea that it is relevant or not to focus on the opinion of the majority develops with references to such concepts as reputation, expertise, and values.
Thus, according to Socrates different people can have different values, and such values and money and reputation which is based on the other peoples opinion are the values used by not wise men. Moreover, wise men rely on their knowledge of the subject and their values are related to the notion of justice.
In this case, the possibility of Socrates escape from prison can be discussed as logical according the majoritys opinion, but it is unjust with references to the ideals of justice based on the Laws. Therefore, according to Socrates, the Laws can speak the truth and support the idea of justice.
Socrates point of view and position can be considered as more reasonable because he develops his argument basing on the ideals of justice. Socrates examines the issue from several perspectives and concludes that people should rely on the opinions of the wise people, but not all the persons are wise.
That is why, the majority opinion is not always good or reasonable. Thus, Critos claim can be discussed as less convincing in comparison with Socrates one because those values which are accentuated by Crito cannot be considered as relevant due to their unjust nature.
Furthermore, Socrates emphasizes that the persons decision should be based on those opinions which are not only reasonable but also reflect the personal understanding of truth.
Work Cited
Plato. Crito . Classics of Western Philosophy. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. USA: Hackett, 2002. 42-48. Print.
The Leviathan and Republic theories proposed by Thomas Hobbes and Plato respectively are the two most solid arguments that attempt to explain an ideal state. From their arguments, it is clear that they each share a common sentiment regarding the need of a State. However, they seem to differ on the manner of administration to run the state. While Hobbes adopt a negative image of humans and view them as being materialistic on one hand, Plato adopts a positive image of humans and view them as inherently good on the other (Velasquez, 2008). However, they form a common ground by arguing that a society need to have some form of a government that creates a hierarchy of some sort. They both concur on the issue that without some sort of government, the society would be chaotic and would eventually crumble down. This paper will critically analyze the arguments posed by both Hobbes and Plato and to further establish the capability of human reason to determine the universal, objective, moral and political truths based on the two theories.
The Republic Theory Versus The Leviathan Theory
In order to form a solid basis on how the two theories visualize the ability of man to reason, it is important to have a valid understanding of the theories themselves.
According to Platos Republic theory, he envisions a State run by individuals, each possessed with particular mannerisms that would otherwise render them more superior to others. He presents a positive attitude towards human nature in what he calls an ideal state. According to his theory, he views man as being naturally good and only requires a supreme power to guide him. According to Plato, if man and his government are well affiliated and balanced, then a just society comes into existence. In order to create a perfect state, the government created should further integrate virtues of knowledge, bravery, self-control and justice.
Hobbes on the other hand shows his distrust in men and governance. He views man as greedy and up to no good. According to his school of thought, Hobbes adopts a materialistic philosophy and argues that human nature is characterized by desires and repugnance that ultimately lead to regular power struggle. He further contends that the virtue of morality is instinctively subjective and that human nature is naturally vicious and aggressive resulting to a fearful society. He envisions his imaginary State as one tainted with regular wars, death, violence and fear due to lack of adequate resources. He criticizes Platos idea of having a State with platonic love and contends that it is non-existence. He also believes that justice cannot prevail in such a society.
The Ability Of Human To Reason
Human reason is very important as it is related with the act of thinking and making sense of certain issues (Kellogg, 2002). Most theorists have attempted to learn and explain human reasoning. According to Hobbes, he describes reason as being calculative. Plato on the other hand views reason as a natural sovereign which should take over other things such as emotions and spiritedness. He further contends that humans achieve a form of happiness that is enjoyed in accordance with reason. Both Plato and Hobbes in their theories lay out solid arguments on the ability of human beings to reason and make impartial decisions regarding political issues that affect them.
According to his Republic theory, Plato contends that humans have the ability to reason without being externally influenced. In his ideal government, which he envisions as one that capitalizes on natural order, humans can be able to exercise their freedom to make choices. He however states that the humans are guided by the wisdom of their rulers. One of the leading philosophers, Immanuel Kant, seemed to share similar sentiments as Plato regarding human reason. He introduced the act of practical reasoning where man is governed by his own self-governed norms. In his argument, Plato argues that in his government, which is run freely and fairly, each person has the freedom of following their goals in their own will so long as they conform to the standards given by reason. He also holds a strong belief that human nature is characterized by reason, desire and aggression.
He however argues that reason dominates desire and aggression. Man is therefore able to reason so as to ascertain the truth about how they are supposed to live. The truth, according to his theory, engrosses knowledge of thoughts in existence in other magnitude of reality that can only be apprehended by reason. Based on the above argument, Plato states that man can exercise self-control when it comes to their desires and aggressive nature by using their reason. This is because man is not governed by self-interested appetites as claimed by other philosophers such as Freud and Hobbes. Plato contest that the aptitude of reason to have power over desires and aggression is dependent on ones past preferences. This means that if man constantly gives in to his desires and aggressive nature, then he ultimately lose his capacity to control them.
Hobbes seems to have a different take on the views proposed by Plato regarding human reason. He depicts reasoning as the practice of calculating the outcomes of names that refer to entities. He further argues that the act of reasoning can be miscalculated and he gives an example of error as a type of inaccurate reasoning. He equates reasoning to science and further contest that scientific data is not qualified as being absolute knowledge but a conditional one that relies on correlations between reasons and effects. He goes further to divide knowledge into two categories; absolute and conditional. Hobbes argues that the process to reason falls under the category of conditional knowledge. Hobbes regards man as being selfish and unruly and as a result has to be forcefully governed by a supreme power. In this kind of tyranny, it is almost impossible to control opposing interests hence lacking a legal command to distinguish right or wrong. However, man possesses innate rights to shield themselves from harm. This therefore mean that man lean towards the basic laws of nature intended to avoid the state of war. It is this law of nature that govern human reason according to Hobbes.
Each of the above philosophers provides solid and valid arguments on the ability of human to reason. It is evident that Plato, in his Republic theory, posits that humans are capable of reasoning and discover the universal, objective, moral and political truth. This is because man rely more on reason to make judgments and in most cases, he is able to make solid and sound verdict. Hobbes on the other hand posits that man is not capable of ascertaining the political truth through his reasoning as he often lean toward the natural law to influence his reasoning.
Theory Of Community And Its Take To Human Reason
Community has been known to bring together people and create a harmonious bond. It can be argued that the theory of community hence integrates solidarity, trust and commitment. The community share a common interest and is therefore a very important theory that helps to establish a middle field between Hobbes and Platos theories.
It is believed that community was preceded by state of nature. The state of nature is used to illustrate the hypothetical form that came into existence before the government. The state of nature makes a huge contribution on human reasoning. In Hobbes work, De Cive, Hobbes describes the state of nature as one that liberalizes man. Plato on the other hand relies on the theory of community to argue that the people share a mutual interest and can therefore reason. It is therefore important to conclude that both Hobbes and Plato agree on the ability of human beings to reason but only differ on the extent of reasoning and whether or not it is absolute. The theory of community therefore gives a fair play in determining the degree of reasoning described by both philosophers.
Conclusion
It is arguable from the theories above that human nature is capable of reasoning and ascertaining the universal, objective, moral and political truths. Though Plato and Hobbes take on different view to determine the threshold of human reasoning, it is evident from both their arguments that reason forms a strong basis in both their theories. It is not in dispute that humans indeed reason. The only discrepancy is that though both acknowledge the fact that reasoning indeed exist, it is the ability of humans to make sound decisions based on their reason that has been put to test. It is therefore conclusive that human reason can facilitate the discovery of universal, objective, moral and political truths.
Reference List
Kellogg, R. (2002). Cognitive Psychology. California: Sage Publications Ltd.
Velasquez, M. (2008). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Love is an eternal theme in literature and culture. Its sources come from ancient times. It is not for nothing, that two outstanding Greek writers, Plato and Sappho investigated love, Eros and gave mortals advice on how to deal with it.
Cult of Knowledge and Cult of Femininity as Origins of Eros
Plato disclosures a physical love. Firstly, it narrows horizons and aspires only to pleasure. Secondly, it brings to grasping relations. The only desire of a loving human is to enslave the object of love. Platos love helps to pass the first steps of the philosophical road. According to Plato, the tragedy of intimate love is eternal, because it often overshadows the main thing: body overshadows soul, a separate human and his beauty overshadows the beauty of the truth and being. The truth of love is to follow the way of love like philosophical way and see the soul behind the body, everlasting beauty of virtue, and idea behind the beauty of transient love. And such way will bring to good. This is the main point in Platos understanding of Eros. Thus, he gives advice not to avoid Eros and love, but to treat them as a means of reaching good and virtue.
Sappho uses particular epithets to depict Eros. In fact, such epithets are common to a person, which has fallen in love. Such a state of deep affection is described as languorous and bittersweet. The point is that Eros is depicted as a god of double nature: kind and severe, bitter and sweet. When Eros captivates somebody, Sappho advises addressing Aphrodite for help. The goddess can hear only the voice full of love. Only such a voice can achieve heaven because love is the highest feeling. If somebody calls the goddess with a languid, passionless voice, she will remain deaf to helpless supplication and no help will be obtained.
The Symposium is Platos philosophical book. It deals with many topics, one of which is love. Its form represents a group of speeches by a group of men, gathered at a symposium, an all-male wine party. The most honored speaker is Socrates. He says: The only thing I say I know is the art of love (177d8-9). He claims that he was taught by Diotima, by her philosophy of love.
The topic of love is closely associated with knowledge, and Socrates highlights that to become a Philosopher, in other words, a Lover of Wisdom, is the highest point to long for. Eros is felt for a person, but afterward, contemplation accompanies it. So it turns into an appreciation of beauty, existing in beloved, and even into an appreciation of beauty as it is. Physical attraction is not considered to be an essential part of love.
The main point of interlude in the Symposium is that love excites neither the possession of the beautiful, nor of the good, but it entails striving for them.
Concept of Platonic Love
The speech of Socrates, representing the concept of Platonic love, can be divided into the part dealing with the nature of Eros and the part dealing with the effects of Eros. The essence of love is striving for something that lacks. The effect of love represents a movement upwards for contemplation of eidos, which is the highest purpose. Thus, Eros is interconnected with Eidos, love with knowledge and wisdom. The unity of erotica and vision of the forms begets spiritual strive for the beautiful, and consequently, to the Beauty itself. The ideas of Diotima of Mantinea, a female seer, make ground for a concept of Platonic love. Socrates calls her the one who taught me the art of love (201d5).
Eros is intermediate, it is not full knowledge or complete ignorance, moreover, Eros is between gods and mortals. The mythos about the birth of Love proves it. The god Resource was seduced by the goddess Poverty, thus Eros was born. He shares the natures of the parents: need, lack from mother and craftiness, intelligence from father. So he lacks beauty and goodness. Diotima then proceeds to the human world. Most humans are ignorant. Some are ignorant of their ignorance, but others realize it. Those mortals, who understand their lack, strive for wisdom. If they have a desire to gain wisdom, they are called lovers of wisdom (204b). After that, Diotima describes the erotic activity, teaching a lesson in the correct way to go or to be led by another to the art of love (211b7-c1).
The effects of Eros can be found in people, seeking that is good forever because it will bring happiness and well-being; striving for the beautiful and longing for immortality; and contemplation of eidos.
The risk is associated with the notion that real happiness is immortal. Humans can achieve it only by begetting for children and begetting in the soul. Only in the last case, men find true, real happiness. Mortals try to preserve the object of their happiness by means of giving birth. Eros longs for immortality and good through the beautiful (207a). If Eros lives within the body, temporal duration is achieved, procreation, sexual reproduction. If he lives in the soul, virtue is born. The love of a single beautiful body regenerates into a love for all beautiful bodies, and, at last, into the love for the beautiful. The beauty of knowledge leads to a love of wisdom, and the highest stage is achieved. It represents the Beauty itself, immortal, eternal.
Sapphos View of Eros
Sappho was famous for her love poetry. Inspired by the ancient cult of femininity and freedom of feelings, she glorified Eros and attracted attention to his double nature: that of giving luck and that of torments. Eros once again limb-loosener whirls me sweet-bitter, impossible to fight off, creature stealing up&I dont know what I should do: two states of mind in me& (Sappho). In her poetry personal emotional experience is intertwined with the depiction of feelings and scenes, created by her vivid fantasy. Sapphos lyric is based on motives of love and separation, intense passion, naked feelings, expressed with extreme simplicity and vividness. Eros in her perception is a terrible primordial force. The very epithet sweet-bitter implies that Eros is beautiful, but cruel towards his victims.
Eros possesses Sappho. Every time he attacks her, Sappho feels confidence ruining. All sensations leave her, and she raves and dies. She calls herself one whom the Muse of Love hath betrayed! Passion destroys one organ of her body after another, like a disease. The soul is not given as many places as in Platos conception. Sapphos art is straightforwardness and sincerity. It is truthful. She does not shame any feelings.
Sapphos object of passion is inaccessible. Do I strain, nor I hope on passions wings (Sappho). Before Sappho, Eros did not flame. He excited feelings, warmed heart. He was inspired for sacrifice, tenderness, voluptuousness, bed. But he never reduced to ashes, destroyed. Everybody, who experienced him, was given courage, delight, and sweetness of regrets.
Thus, love brings confusion and perplexes. It combines oppositions: delight and bitterness. Eros represents a double-face idea and should be treated with carefulness, but Sappho advises everybody to experience Eros. After the storm, unembittered clear skies can be found. And gold dreams settle in the devastated heart. The dark power is turned into delight. Gnawing fire turns into light. And Sapphos poetry turns into the triumph of the soul. There is no point in resisting Eros; on the contrary, only experiencing him shows real depth of life.
Conclusion
Thus, we see that Plato and Sappho had somehow different approaches to Eros. While Plato advised thriving for the beautiful, ascent to wisdom and eternity, Sappho glorified immersion into depth of passion, dark powers of delight and tournament. The purpose of love as the attainment of immortality borders on the longing for enjoyment and possession of knowledge adjoins possession of beloved objects. Plato assumes Love as Good, and Eros in Sapphos poetry represents a force of double nature, bitter and sweet at the same time. In conclusion, ancient Greeks considered love an essential part of human life and devoted it to their hearts and minds.
Plato is deservedly known as one of the greatest and most influential Ancient Greek philosophers in no small measure due to his theory of forms. In The Republic, which is probably Platos best-known work, the author uses his mentor Socrates as a mouthpiece to outline the essence of this theory for the audience. Perhaps one of the most famous and often quoted passages in the text is the so-called allegory of the cave in Book 7. It would not be an exaggeration to state that Platos allegory of the cave only makes perfect sense if one views it in the light of the theory of forms. After examining the allegory itself, the theory, and how the former illustrates the latter, one can clearly see that the two are interlinked and essential for each others understanding.
For the purpose of this essay, it is still necessary to briefly retell the allegory. Book 7 of The Republic offers the audience to imagine a group of people living in an underground cave. These people have never left the cave and seen the surface, as they are chained so that they cannot move or even turn their heads (Plato). Behind them, there is a small wall and a fire, and others people move between the two, carrying all sorts of images just above the walls edge. The prisoners cannot see the objects themselves, as the chains prevent them from turning their heads, but they can see the shadows that fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave (Plato). According to Plato, the prisoners would be convinced that the shadows they see are the worlds contents as they are. Should they be released and allowed to move upward to see not the shadows and not even images, but the actual objects that inspired the images in the light if the sun rather than a fire, they would likely be confused and even angered.
Allegory relates directly to the central part of Platos philosophical teachings the theory of forms. According to Plato, every object in the world has a true form a collection of essential qualities that define it. Forms or ideas, as they are also called transcend individual objects, as any given thing is merely a manifestation of the corresponding idea. As the philosopher himself notes in Book 10, there are untold multitudes of tables or beds in the world, but there are only two ideas or forms of them (Plato). These are, correspondingly, an idea of a table and an idea of a bed, and it is their existence that allows people to recognize all beds as beds and all tables as tables. As far as Plato was concerned, forms that defined the nature of all objects were the actual reality, and the physical manifestations of these forms were only a reflection of the actual state of things. Therefore, the main task for an aspiring philosopher was to train him- or herself to see the reality of the world the actual forms that permeate everything in existence rather than their manifestations.
In this light, it should be clear why the theory of forms is essential to understand Platos allegory of the cave. In this case, the underground prison house represents the world of material things, which people perceive with their basic senses and nothing else. They can interact with physical objects, but these are nothing more than crude manifestations of the true form the mere shadows on the wall. Plato also states that developing ones intellect and philosophical understanding of actual forms is a long and tedious process. Philosophical education to see forms is not easy, and one will likely be frustrated in the process, just like a prisoner seeing the sun for the first time will feel pain, confusion, and even anger. Finally, Plato also reflects on how people cling to their usual perceptions and can distrust and even ridicule the philosophers who can see the true forms of things. He likens such people to the underground prisoners who praise those most skilled in observing shadows and mock the one who came back from the surface to tell them about the real world.
As demonstrated above, the allegory of the cave is an important thought experiment in Platos The Republic, imagining a community of underground prisoners who can only see shadows of things rather than the actual objects. It relates directly to Platos central philosophical concept the theory of forms that states that all kinds of objects have intangible actual forms behind them, and all things were mere reflections of the corresponding ideas. The allegory of the cave is, therefore, an illustration of Platos theory of forms, where shadows on the caves wall represent physical objects that only bear some similarity to the actual forms behind them. Hence, after examining the allegory, the theory, and the interrelation between them, one may safely conclude that the theory of forms inextricably linked to the allegory of the cave and vice versa.
Work Cited
Plato. The Republic. Project Gutenberg, 2016, Web.
The Republic by Plato is an influential political and philosophical work at all times. It is a guide where several great thinkers share their ideas about the essence of human nature, justice, freedom, and leadership. Individuals can choose different ways to improve relationships and gain a better understanding of their souls. However, when it is time to think about an ideal state and the government that could work, sound decisions are not easy to make. Therefore, Platos Republic becomes a source of inspiration and knowledge where the brightest minds offer a solution. Plato conceptualized the ideal state as a republic and created three categories of citizens as the main form of governance, comparing them with the tripartite nature of a human soul.
The organization of an ideal state is not an easy task due to its potential role and functions for society. Plato states that a city seemed to be just when each of the three classes of natures present in it minded its own business, and, again, moderate, courageous, and wise because of certain other affections and habits of these same classes (113-114). In his conversation with Glaucon, Socrates underlined three areas of business similar to human spiritual needs.
There is moderate business for craftsmen and artisans to feed and close. Courageous business is for auxiliaries and soldiers to protect the shelter. Finally, wise business is presented by guardians and philosophers who promote knowledge. Even being unaware of the three categories of people, the reader can learn that the states role is to function and create the conditions under which every person is able to exist.
One of the critical elements of the ideal state is a person who works and takes action to survive. Plato says that this same manual artisan is not only able to make all implements but also makes everything that grows naturally from the earth, and he produces all animals (278). Although it is the lowest class, its functions to produce and develop goods and services and recognize specific appetites and desires should not be neglected. The government needs those for organization and control, and the limited knowledge of artisans makes them obeys and listens to the superior classes.
As soon as a person defines basic needs and wants, the question of protection arises. That is why Plato offered to put the auxiliaries in our city like dogs obedient to the rulers, who are like shepherds of a city (120). In fact, Socrates did not have the intention to offend or diminish the functions of this part of the state. Auxiliaries have a strong spirit in their souls and enough courage to protect the population and make sure the ideal state could resist invasion. Due to the nature of their work, soldiers are better educated compared to artisans, and their courage helps recognize what is right and what is wrong in relation to their native land and safety.
Finally, any state should have a leader where all decisions are made and all knowledge is properly distributed. In his conversation, Socrates underlined that the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize& there is no rest from ills for the cities (Plato 153). The ideal state needs the rational part where orders and laws are examined and promoted. Led by a guardian, its main function is to care about the city, recognize threats that cause suffering and pain, and deal with challenges beforehand. Philosophers must rule in the ideal state and engage every individual in philosophy and wisdom. This approach makes it possible to deal with emotions and use knowledge to upraise reason over desire. Not money and richness but moral leadership and respect could unite people in the ideal state.
Reading Platos Republic proves that the creation of an ideal state is not an easy task, and many factors should be taken into consideration. Still, despite an existing variety of options and thoughts, three elements remain firm and sacred in human life, namely wisdom, courage, and desire. As such, the state is based on similar factors, and Plato came to a conclusion to have a philosopher as a rule for soldiers and artisans. In understanding the ideal government, these three concepts prove that inequality is not a problem but a substance that unites and keeps order among highly educated, strong, and hard-working people. Unfortunately, this perspective does not seem to be real because individuals want to develop and grow, and the chaos between the classes is inevitable.
Work Cited
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Allan Bloom. 2nd ed., Basic Books, 1968.