Plato presented the allegory of the cave in his book the Republics in a manner suggesting that the king should play the role of enlightening people in society. The seventh book of Plato discussed the extent to which people should be enlightened in society. Plato suggested that the king would live a philosophic life by simply avoiding evil in society. Through this, leaders in society would achieve their objectives peacefully. Plato utilized the idea of the philosopher-king to explicate the metaphysical and epistemological hypotheses, which described the uniqueness of the philosopher-king. Plato used the analogy of the sun, the line, and the cave in explaining the living conditions of prisoners in the cave. Plato observed that people should always avoid evil and aim at doing good things in society (Elliott, 1967). In this regard, the philosopher-king should be somebody with the interest of the majority at heart. Human beings have the ability to behaving in four different ways. However, only the philosopher-king can behave in four different ways. According to Plato, the allegory of the cave is the most important. The allegory of the cave illustrates the impacts of education on the human soul. In this regard, education is crucial to human life.
In the cave, there is no light. The cave is designed in such a way that people can only look in front but not sideways. Moreover, people cannot look behind since the cave is so squeezed. Fire and other dangerous objects surround the cave. Another group of people occupies one section of the cave. The group is very arrogant and unsupportive. The prisoners in the cave can only see the shadows of real objects. In their senses, prisoners believe that these shadows are the real creatures. One day, one of the prisoners was taken out of the cave to see real objects. The prisoner noted that there was a difference between something real and a shadow. After some time, the prisoner was able to see the sun. As soon as the prisoner saw the sun, he concluded that the sun is the source of light. From Platos view, the sun is equivalent to the king. This means that the king represents the good image of society. Therefore, the King should be a reliable person in society.
Plato came up with his form of government after analyzing the analogy of the cave. Plato observed that the best individuals in society should always be allowed to rule. In this regard, only qualified persons should occupy influential positions in the public and private sectors. Plato noted that democracy is the worst form of government because it does not give the best individuals in society a chance to exercise their power. In other words, it is the worst system of government. Democracy is the tyranny of the multitude because the majority might force the leader to implement deformed policies. Individuals who receive the best form of education are compared to the sun. The prisoner from the cave saw real objects because of the availability of the sun. Similarly, society can achieve its goals and objectives if the best are allowed to rule. If the best were allowed to rule, society would achieve justice. According to Plato, the issue of justice must be found in both the individual and the city. This would bring out the analogy of the individual and the city. The individual has three major qualities. The same applies to the city, which should have three qualities. An individual should be rational in his or her actions. The individual must be reasonable in order to be different from animals and plants. Rationality would help an individual differentiate between the right and wrong acts. Furthermore, some situations demand courage. An individual must develop courage in order to face difficult situations. However, rationality would help an individual differentiate between situations that demand courage and those that demand a reason. The last aspect that Plato discussed was appetite. Human beings share this aspect with animals.
Therefore, leaders must be sensitive to the sufferings of citizens. In other words, leaders must be responsive to the demands and wishes of the majority in society. The philosopher-king must be somebody with an adequate education. This would help him categorize the situations that demand reason and those that demand courage. In the allegory of the cave, the sun symbolized the ultimate form. Similarly, the philosopher-king represents the interests of the poor and the helpless. The sun was the form of good, which was the source of reality, kindness, and beauty. However, the philosopher-king could only excel if soldiers provide enough assistance to him. The soldiers are compared to courage because they risk their lives to protect both the philosopher-king and the populace. The populace is compared to appetite because it is full of criticism. Nonetheless, the populace is very important because it supports the king financially. The city must have soldiers, philosopher-king, and citizens.
Reference
Elliott, R. K. (1967). Socrates and Platos Cave. Kant-Studien, 58(2), 138.
Plato held that philosopher guardians would run a just state. Plato thinks that given their education, talents, virtues, and the way their lives would be controlled in his Republic, such people are the best possible rulers.
In my opinion, Plato is right. In Platos Republic, Socrates makes a poignant point on the nature of an ideal leader. Equitable leaders need to be wise. Also, philosophers have a lot of wisdom. Socrates assertion resonates with the wisdom of the ages which posits that the best leaders need to have a generous heart and wisdom. His allegory of the cave is another excellent illustration of the natural inclination that humanity has to take illusions for reality.
People indeed have remarkably different and mostly incorrect ideas of what constitutes personal fulfillment in life. Some do not even have any idea. They spend their lives experimenting on different agendas trying to quench an inexplicable thirst.
Socrates posits that all of humanity possesses this thirst. It is what drives people through their daily struggles with life. They are seeking a higher good. In the context of a community, different factors contribute to the definition of this ultimate success. Therefore, different people have different ideas. This is where leaders come into play. Communities should live in harmony. However, that would not be possible if everybody were to pursue his/her private desires.
Leaders come in to make a collective decision for these people. This becomes a formidable responsibility which the society cannot vest on just any other person. For one to qualify for this privilege, he/she needs to demonstrate the capacity to shoulder the weight of the mantle.
For instance, sacrifice is a critical value that such a person needs to demonstrate. Many leaders fall short of this point because their personal or private needs override their sense of duty to society. People naturally seek personal development. They put the needs of the community after their own. An upright leader should be a master at utilitarianism. Utilitarianism refers to a condition whereby the bosom of society precedes individual satisfaction. This requires a different breed of people altogether.
Intellect is another quality that these leaders should possess. This brings to light the importance of education. In contemporary society, people do not give too much emphasis on the education of their leaders. Most are swayed by the fallacies that these leaders spin during election campaigns. However, it is all propaganda. Consequently, after electing them into their respective offices, they depict their true colors which are often unsightly, to say the least.
Education is a tremendously essential quality in a leader. At the very least, a leader will be in charge of a highly diverse society. He/she will be presiding over people who are likely smarter than him/her. Therefore, the less educated this leader is, the more opposition he/she will face. Similarly, the more discontent there will be in society. It becomes necessary, mandatory even that effective leaders have the education to back them up.
Education denotes an appreciation for history. Ergo, an educated leader is more likely than not to learn from the past mistakes of his/her predecessors. Just as Socrates opines, he/she needs to have memory (Kent, 2006, p. 23). Education also means that the leader has a base of Knowledge which serves to inform his/her actions. Such knowledge becomes useful in the deployment of their duties as leaders.
As a result, they will simply be implementing procedures that have proven to be efficient in the past. Leaders acquire this wisdom through training. At this point, Socrates uses the example of an eye attached to the body, thus, requiring the bodys manipulation to turn to the light. The leaders first need to acquire wisdom for themselves, which they will use to teach their subjects. This is important, as people in the community will stand a chance to achieve the higher statuses that they seek throughout their lives. Part of the training that the leaders administer will base on the understanding that material possessions are not the ideal goal in this life. The result of learning this lesson is that people will put less emphasis on selfish private endeavors and instead focus on healthy ventures to seek the truth.
Just leaders should also apply reason in reaching their decisions which is among the qualities of philosophy. In so doing, they will be able to exercise wisdom, thus, distinguishing between illusions and reality. Socrates says, They will learn the truth about fair, just, and praiseworthy things (Kent, 2006, p. 23). Part of this quality requires them to have inquisitive minds so that they are teachable. As a result, they will learn the different illusions and what they allude to so that they are better placed to advise their subjects on what to do.
The sacrifice mentioned at the beginning of this paper is a virtue that frowns upon self-indulgence. These leaders need to stay focused on meeting the needs of society. They cannot do this while attending to unimportant personal fetishes. Socrates mentions sex, personal wealth, and food as obvious because if a leader, for instance, is obsessed with wealth, he/she will likely manipulate his/her authority and status amassing this wealth at the expense of his/her subjects.
A philosophical leader is virtuous by his/her education level. The difficulty arises in finding a person who satisfies all these requirements. It is also possible to find a person. However, it may be even more difficult to convince the person to take the leadership mantle, as not all just people are interested in being leaders. Therefore, Plato is right concerning this issue.
Reference
Kent, J. (2006). Philosophical Discourses on Just Leadership. Philosophy, 1(1), p. 23.
In The Republic, Plato uses four images to describe the philosophers education: the ship, sun light, the divided line and the cave. These images allow Plato to portray the search of knowledge and the process of education symbolically persuading the audience. The task of education is to disabuse potential philosophers of common conceptions. These images can be seen as examples of Platos figurative explanations. Plato confronts this accusation if his political philosophy is to speak to the realities of politics. He follows the abstract argument with one acknowledging the importance of popular perceptions.
The image of the ship symbolizes profession of politicians and difficulties of the statecraft. The city is like a ship and its public the ships owner, a powerful but deaf and myopic man with scant knowledge of seafaring. Politicians resemble sailors who vie for the ships captaincy, scheming against their competitors for the owners approval, all of them hostile toward someone with real knowledge of navigation. This metaphor allows Plato to avoid direct claims of poor political leadership but teach the audience about the statecraft and its weaknesses. If he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or notthe possibility of this union of authority with the steerers art has never seriously entered into their thoughts (Bloom 173). Politicians call the true captains study of the stars and wind stargazing; in their eyes, every attempt at navigation is useless. Plato simply transfers the comic situation to ship. This metaphor presupposes the philosophers knowledge of statecraft, and so far Plato has not shown that there is any such knowledge. The image also fails in falling back on the comparison of moral knowledge to a skill. Socrates is not merely explaining why philosophers seem useless in existing societies, but why they really are useless. Given how political power unfortunately operates in the world, knowledge of the best policy for a state to pursue has nothing to do with the execution of that policy. The ship of state illustrates pedagogical function.
Using an analogy drawn from the world of visible things, Socrates asks people to think of the sun, the light of which provides the energy that causes all other things to grow as well as the means by which people can see them. The form of the good, he says, is like the sun. All other things, including ourselves, exist because of the form of the good, and people can know these other things, which include triangles, chairs and chairness, justice and the form justice, as well as the form of the good itself only because of its light.
The stages of the educational regimen for philosophers correspond to the types of being and knowing laid out along the divided line, and that Plato transposes his increasing sense of certainty about knowledge into a greater degree of reality of the objects people know about. It is through imagination that readers have images, but because images are a pathetically inferior type of being, Plato regards imagination as totally irrelevant to the education of the philosopher. The sort of inquiry with which philosophical education begins, such as investigations of ordinary objects like ones index finger, corresponds to belief on the divided line. The study of mathematics and geometry corresponds to thinking and allows readers to begin to operate with intelligible rather than visible things.
The allegory of the cave illustrates the place of the form of the good at the top of Platos hierarchy. Most of people, Socrates says, are like prisoners chained before a wall in a cave, unable to turn our heads. What people call reality is actually a mere shadow play on the wall, projected from behind our backs by persons carrying statues of humans and animals and carved likenesses of other ordinary objects before a fire that is behind them. Philosophers who achieve knowledge of the form of the good are like prisoners who have broken their chains and made their way up and out of the cave into the sunlight. Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? (Bloom 193). There they see just how far removed from reality they previously were. In the cave, they knew only shadows of what were only copies of ordinary objects; in the light of the sun they are able to see the objects themselves and finally the sun itself, which gives being to all else.
For philosophers, the final phase of education corresponds to the understanding of forms on the divided line. It refers generally to the pitting of speech against speech, but exactly how it operates, and precisely what forms it can deliver are not so easy to understand. For instance, Plato argues that people are able to recognize chairs as chairs, in spite of the differences between particular chairs, and in spite of the similarities between chairs and other things, because there is a pure essence of chair or pure chairness, so to speak, that preexists any particular chair and that particular chairs participate in. The participation of particular chairs that people see with eyes in chairness is both what causes them to be chairs, rather than something else, and, because people know pure chairness with our minds, what allows people to recognize them as chairs. Plato seems to think that the forms explain the diversity of particular things in the world people live in, and that it is the reality of the forms that gives determinate reality to the particular things that participate in them.
The images and explanations are complementary representing a single while of knowledge, education and pedagogy. Socrates contrasts knowledge of the form of the good with knowledge of mathematics and geometry in terms of their respective certainty as well as their respective objects. While I said previously that geometry and mathematics constitute absolute knowledge, Plato would have me qualify this statement. In geometry, for example, people can prove with certainty highly complex principles involving triangles setting out from a few simple definitions of points and lines and principles such as parallel lines never meet. The public corrupts young intellectuals by forcing them to court popular favor rather than pursue the truth. It persecutes anyone who tries to educate them, thus diverting that teachers talents to the undignified practice of political intrigue.
The complementary can be explained by clear argumentation and unity of meaning applied to these images. For instance, Socrates opens his discussion by assuming the existence of Forms. Here they stand opposed to the objects of human sight, and this opposition between the visible and the intelligible suggests an analogy between the sun and some corresponding entity in the realm of the intellect. Just as the eye sees objects only thanks to the suns supply of light, human reason can know the Forms only thanks to the intercessions of the Form of the Good. And as the sun, the source of all energy, also makes possible the existence of every living thing, the Form of the Good not only lets people know about Forms, but causes them to be in the first place. The complexity results from Platos desire to use the Divided Line to make two points at once. First, it explains to an unprepared audience how the objects of opinion are related to objects of knowledge, by inviting that audience to see the visible world as a mirror image of another, more solid place. The reflection relationship uses our ordinary conception of greater and lesser reality to point beyond ordinary experience toward a greatest kind of reality.
The complementary nature of arguments is explained by a close link between four images. For instance, the Allegory of the Cave involves the Divided Lines distinctions among kinds of knowledge, involves the imagery of sun and light that first illustrated the Form of the Good. The four stages of things that the liberated prisoners see, the shadows of the statues of things; the statues themselves; shadows of those things of which the statues are images; then the things themselvescorrespond to the four stages of objects of cognition along the Divided Line. The Allegory of the Cave addresses political questions by illustrating the political consequences of the hierarchy of knowledge. It addresses the images of education and governance. The primary aim of these images is to direct attention to the fact that there is another world beyond the visible world and that it is only of that world that people can have certain, absolute knowledge. Plato treats the form of the good, then, as a final and highest reality upon which all other things are dependent. It is a sort of cause of all causes; without knowledge of goodness our knowledge of other things is uncertain.
Works Cited
The Republic of Plato. Transl. by Allan Bloom. Basic Books; 2 Sub edition, 1991.
What is life? I still remember that a friend of mine used to raise the same question when she was absolutely frustrated and even lost her passion for life after a failure in her career due to her credulity. She asked disappointedly: What is life? Without me, what will life be? . At that time, life, for her, was no more no less the miseries; and with a pessimistic eye, she viewed life as dark as black, whereas happy people usually view life as beautiful as pink.
She said she no longer trusted anybody because life had given her a profound lesson about trust and deceit, and it was not true that we reaped as we sowed. In fact, life might be nice for this one but might be cruel for another one.
Very often, I hear many people say: Thats life whenever alluding to something that never contains only joys and happiness; because, as what they think, life is virtually a battle in which everybody has to struggle for survival and self-defense, or else life will be trampling on them. Also, they say: Thats life! In order to adapt well to it and to be successful, you should get a little of enthusiasm, a little of honesty plus a little of cunning .
In the eyes of my little twenty-year-old sister, life is a fortune that each person, no matter how rich or poor, does possess. Since her life is her personal fortune, she has tried to use it as meaningful as possible; she may spend all summer days at an orphan home to teach the orphans how to read, how to write; she may stay for hours with our grandparents to tell them some funny stories about her life as a volunteer teacher or chatting with her friends about what she has done so far to understand the meaning of her life. As she has said: We do not know what life means until we find out what we are meant to be in life.
Maybe she was right, but life is not going the way we want it to; in contrary we are bound ourselves to the circle of life by the stress of existence. Although our lives are becoming boring with the same works repeated every single day: 8 hours for working, 8 hours for sleeping, 2 hours for eating, 6 hours for some miscellaneous businesses; we cant help engaging in it because as a livelihood, we need food to survive; we need clothes to keep us warm, and we need shelters to live in.
However, life must have been more than that! As complicated as inherent attributes in a human beings character, we never stop thinking and wondering why we were born into life; what we mean to this life; why we have to bear all sufferings; why we should battle for the ephemeral things such as fame and fortune and what we get ultimately after we die& Consequently, our lives are frequently filled up with a bunch of questions that we have fumbled for the answers.
Plato was born in Athens, Greece, in 427 B.C. and died in Athens, Greece, in 347 B.C. This time period was a couple of hundred years after the beginning of the Olympic Games and the start of alphabetic writing, and a hundred or so years before the uprising of Alexander the Great, who would conquer the known world. The center of Western civilization during these times was Athens, a city-state and a democracy. This basically means Athens supported itself and the lands around it and had a somewhat organized government.
The citizens of Athens governed the city, which is a big reason for its success. Also, Athenians were mostly intellectuals and preferred using their minds instead of their bodies. Whenever an argument came up, instead of physically fighting like many of their contemporaries would do, they discussed and debated the issue until a conclusion or agreement was found.
In the same aspect, power was not given to the greatest fighter or the strongest warrior but instead to those that could master words and provoke deeper thought. Because of this, many began to learn polemics, or the art of argument. These skilled debaters, also known as rhetoricians, would argue almost any case and teach their skills to anyone for a fee. These Sophists, as they were called, were the Western worlds first professors, more interested in practical subjects than with metaphysical thought. Sophists were the ones that indirectly began moral philosophy. They did this by challenging the views of the common people, which brought about strict examination of the moral standards that were present in that day. One of the most famous people falling into the category of a sophist is Socrates, who will be discussed later.
As one can see, the age in which Plato lived was one of intellect and retrospection. In addition to the age in which Plato lived, there were many more personal events that happened in Platos life. However, one must keep in mind most of these facts are assumptions or logical guesses, most of which can not be proven. These assumptions are temporarily going to be presented as fact, though they are not. Platos real name was Aristocles; he probably got the nickname Plato, which means broad shoulders, from his broad shoulders acquired through wrestling training.
Plato was the youngest son of Ariston and Perictione, who both came from wealthy families that had lived in Athens for many generations. As a young man, Plato studied under Cratylus, who was a student of Heraclitus, the philosopher that believed the most basic substance is fire and that everything is constantly changing. Plato became friends with Socrates, due mostly to the fact that Socrates was a friend of Platos uncle.
From the ages of about 19 to 24, Plato fought in the Peloponnesian War. Wanting to be involved in politics rather than the military, Plato retired from the War in 404 B.C. The following year, there was a restoration of democracy to Athens, which gave Plato the hope of joining the politics in Athens. However, Athens politics werent as ethically sound as Plato had hoped, and with the death of his teacher and friend Socrates in 399 B.C., Plato decided never to get involved with politics in Athens. After Socrates death, Plato traveled to Egypt, Sicily, and Italy.
While in Italy, Plato learned of the works of Pythagoras, which allowed Plato to better appreciate mathematics. Upon returning to Athens, Plato rejoined the military, where he received honors of bravery, and it was during this time that he began to write his dialogues. After his service, Plato founded the Academy in hopes of producing better statesmen to govern the peoples of the world and, probably, better mathematicians. Plato put much importance on mathematics, as is shown in what was written over the door of the Academy: Let no one unversed in geometry enter here. After this point in his life, little is known or can be guessed about concerning Platos experiences.
One of the most significant influences in life of Plato and the molding of Platos thoughts is Socrates. Most of what is known about Socrates is what is gotten out of Platos dialogues and by the writings of Socrates contemporaries because Socrates wrote nothing himself. Socrates was an excellent debater, one of the best of his times. He argued a lot, and he did it well, which were the characteristics of a true Sophist. However, the main thing that separated him from the other Sophists is that he argued not simply for the sake of arguing, but to improve the worlds view on certain issues, to do something important. He argued over the more sacred things in life, such as beauty, character, goodness, and knowledge.
The most well-known contribution of Socrates to the world is his method of breaking arguments down. This Socratic, or dialectic, the method involves continually attacking an argument with questions that refute it until it is no longer able to be refuted, which brings about a stable conclusion. This method helps to get rid of of misconceptions, which ultimately brings the person whose argument is being questioned to a better understanding of their own views on certain subjects. Socrates was a man of a character. He was not prideful or egotistical, meaning he didnt go around arguing for the sole purpose of making others feel inferior and stupid.
He was a strong defender of justice and was very willing to risk his own self to bring about justice, as was proven by his death. To sum Socrates character up, one could say that he was able to properly mold his actions to fully represent his beliefs, which must have been close to the truth because of Socrates very analytical nature.
Platos beliefs and theories on the many different aspects of life are begotten from his writings. One of the most significant theories of Platos is the Theory of Forms. Considered by some to be just metaphysical speculation, the Theory of Forms tries to explain perception and experience in relation to what Plato calls Forms. Forms are things that do not physically exist in the world, but things that exist through physical things of the world. Plato believed everything physical in this world could be defined by the Forms that it represents. For example, a pancake could represent the forms of circularity or softness.
Plato believed Forms are eternal, as they are not limited by the physical boundaries of the things they are represented in. He also believed the Forms are unchanging, unmoving, and indivisible. Another one of Platos famous concepts were his two-realms concept. Plato believed that there are two realms; one realm deals with our sensory perceptions, and the other deals with the absolute truth, eternity, and perfection.
This belief is derived from Platos writing entitled The Cave, which is found in his Republic dialogue. He relates the first realm, the one in which we live, too bounded people in a cave, and the second realm to the brilliance outside the cave, stating that if we could only unbind ourselves and build up the want to, we could travel to the second realm. Another one of Platos theories were the Theory of the Divided Line, which contrasted true knowledge with opinion or belief. He strongly believed that true knowledge is unaffected by opinion, that there is a truth that is absolute.
References
Cherry, Kevin M. (2006) The Unity of Platos Gorgias : Rhetoric, Justice, and the Philosophic Life.. Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p. 315-318.
Drag Jr., John., (2004) Plato Learning Life Science. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, Vol. 11 Issue 4, p. 41-42.
Plato and Epicurus are some of the greatest thinkers whose ideas remain relevant and applicable in the world today. These philosophers examined and studied the questions of ethics and morality from different perspectives. In the Republic, Plato gives a detailed analysis of the good while Epicurus describes the notion of good life in his Letter to Monoeceus. This paper gives a detailed analysis of the thoughts these philosophers present and how they help more people pursue their ethical goals in their lives.
Platos Philosophy
In the Republic, Plato develops and advances a unique argument that could help readers get a clear understanding of the concept of good . He does so with the aim of guiding thinkers become philosopher-kings and be able to achieve all other aspects in life. In the work, it is evident that Plato uses dialogue to identify the concept as a perfect and changeless element existing outside human time and space. Consequently, all good things will share these unique and powerful attributes. The conversations between Glaucon and Socrates help the reader equate and compare the concept of good to the sun (Plato 12). Specifically, the thinker tries to explain how the idea of good will exist within the intelligible sphere or realm. Through such an idea, good is what will provide truth to all things human beings appreciate and understand in their lives. When people pursue such an ideology, chances are high that they will be closer towards finding the truth and knowledge.
When people embrace this concept of good , Plato reveals that they will be in a position to appreciate and understand all complicated things, including justice. While such good is non-living, the Republic proves that it remains superior and more prized than all the other things (Plato 19). Those who embrace the analogy of the sun to learn more about this concept will be closer to both the truth and knowledge. The notion of philosophical reasoning emerges when individuals intend to pursue the described good successfully. Through these ideas, it is evident that Plato uses such arguments to develop and support his theory of happiness and eudaimonia. According to him, human beings need to develop the right skills, moral conduct, and behaviors that will take them to maximum happiness and complete wellbeing.
Epicurus Philosophy
Epicurus is another great philosopher whose ethical theory revolves around happiness. He explains how human beings can engage in desirable practices and avoid actions that might result in pain and anguish. In the work Letter to Monoeceus, the reader identifies a number of aspects and goals that are available to those who want to achieve or have a good life . To achieve such a goal, Epicurus believes that individuals should be keen to get rid and abstain from any unnecessary desire in life (Epicurus 7). This initiative will make it easier for them to achieve ataxia, also known as inner tranquility. The philosopher goes further to encourage people to engage in epistemological conversations about some of the topics that matter the most in life, including physical pleasures, food and diet, and sex.
When people pursue intellectual pursuits while focusing on happiness, they will benefit from a good life characterized by wisdom. Such individuals will become virtuous and capable of overcoming most of the emerging challenges. With this understanding, individuals will focus on some of the key attributes that amount to a good life characterized by happiness. These would include freedom, friendship, and self-sufficiency (Epicurus 25). These attributes form the basis or foundation of Epicurus ethical theories.
Leading the Most Ethical Life
The above discussion has identified the key arguments Plato and Epicurus present in their works. Plato believes that the concept of good could allow people to focus on knowledge and justice. According to the thinker, the concept is more prized and guides people to avoid all unnecessary things and issues that could result in pain or unhappiness. Through the power of good, individuals will be empowered to act intelligently, promote justice, and ensure other lead ethical and contended lives. With philosophical reasoning, people will pursue the good and act ethically and morally in their lives. For Epicurus, a hedonistic approach emerges as the best strategy for living an ethical life (Epicurus 8). Specifically, he encourages readers to take the issues of self-sufficiency, good friends, and freedom seriously. This approach will take them closer to happiness and encourage them to avoid actions that are unnecessary or wrong. While putting their eyes on the good life, such individuals act maturely, avoid sin, and embrace moral pleasures. Such an outcome will be possible since all people will be focusing on the best ways to maximize their happiness.
For Plato, people should behave and act in such a way that their motives are driven by the concept of the good. This powerful attributes illuminate and encourage people to pursue the truth, justice, and knowledge in all their actions. Epicurus, on the other hand, guides people to act ethically and only focuses on actions and thoughts that will eventually maximize happiness (Epicurus 22). For example, the example of identifying new friends who could be engaged philosophically is a unique way of behaving positively. People only need to pursue modest pleasures if they are to become fearless and avoid bodily harm.
Plato succeeds in presenting powerful arguments that describe the true purpose of life. In the studied work, it is evident that the real goal would be to consider the most appropriate ways to attain knowledge. When individuals take the notion of the good seriously, chances are high that they derive both value and utility (Epicurus 24). This kind of thought would differ significantly from that Epicurus. For him, the ultimate goal of human life would be to pursue happiness through these key actions: avoiding anxiety, remaining humble, considering ways to become self-sufficient, and attracting true friends.
Similarities and Differences
From the above analyses, it is agreeable that the philosophers present diverse ideas that try to support the notion of an ethical life. While the thoughts appear different, the agreeable fact is that the ideas converge by encouraging people to focus on integrity and goodness. However, some differences exist since Epicurus encourages people to focus on happiness as the ultimate goal of life while Plato encourages his followers to pursue knowledge and wisdom (Plato 18). Additionally, the concepts of good and good life appear to present different notions to the targeted readers. Finally, the works and thoughts of these philosophers are agreeable and convincing since they can help more people lead contented lives and improve their ethical foundations.
Conclusion
The above discussion has identified Plato and Epicurus as great thinkers whose thoughts guide more people to lead good lives. While their concepts of good and good life are different in terms of definitions, the reader realizes that they encourage human beings to focus on the best ways to remain ethical, wise, and happy. A proper analysis of these similarities and differences can make it possible for people to develop superior philosophies that can make them successful in their respective lives.
Works Cited
Epicurus. Letter to Monoeceus: Epicurus. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
A great deal of what we know about Socrates the man, in fact, all of what we know of him, is what is written about him by others who may or may not have heard him speak. This is because Socrates chose not to write anything down in his pursuit of wisdom (Wilke & Hurt, 2000: 942). Some of these writings, such as Platos Apology, provide such a degree of firsthand knowledge, though, that we can make some characterizations.
In this document, Plato records, to what degree of accuracy is uncertain, the defense presented by Socrates himself at the trial for his life. Within the text, Socrates continually refers to himself as being the wisest man alive, based upon the words of the Oracle at Delphi, which is known to never speak falsely. Although it can be argued that Socrates acted unwisely in purposefully incurring the wrath of many of Athens more powerful figures, the defense he presents to the court indicates that Socrates was indeed wise beyond the understanding of normal men.
The argument that Socrates acted foolishly is based primarily upon his own foreknowledge that what he was doing was making many people angry with him. This is evidenced within the text of the Apology as Socrates begins his defense of himself against the old enemies that have spoken falsely telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause (Apology: 944).
He realizes most of his jurors have heard bad things about him from the time that they were young and are unlikely now to change their minds regarding his guilt. It has been argued that with this knowledge, Socrates should have done more to defend himself based upon more emotional reasons, such as bringing his family to court to plead for his life.
At the same time, it is shown through Socrates words that he knew he was making enemies even as he was making them. Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this (Apology: 946). His willful continuation of these actions that only added to the number of enemies he would have in the state is often pointed to as a sign of unwise behavior.
However, Socrates was indeed wise beyond the normal ability of a man in that he continued to act in a way that might threaten his life but was in the greater interest of the worlds population. After being told by the oracle that he was the wisest man alive, Socrates did not allow this distinction to go to his head and immediately begin spouting pithy sayings that proved his wisdom. Instead, he went to the streets and began questioning those individuals he had always considered wiser than himself.
In each case, he found that even among those who possessed a little wisdom tended to take that knowledge to the outer extremes and assume they knew everything there was worth knowing, without any further examination. At last, I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this, they certainly were wiser than I was.
But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom (Apology: 947). From his account, it becomes possible to deduce that Socrates definition of wisdom entails not only knowledge but also the knowledge of what one does not know. I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer, he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing (Apology: 947).
Within the trial itself, it has been argued that Socrates could have made a better presentation on his behalf, perhaps by calling up witnesses to account for the good hes done for them or to appeal to the emotional nature of his jurors.
However, Socrates has wisely already calculated his chances to escape death and chooses instead to be judged by history based upon his own merits rather than attempt to win over a group of individuals who are already disposed against him. In making this decision, he allows himself to speak according to his idiom, using the words which I have been in the habit of using in the agora, at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else (Apology: 943), thereby providing himself with his strongest tools rather than limiting himself by the customary rules of court oration.
He can prove to history, if not to the jurors, that he has consistently acted in ways that he deems to be in the right, in support of the laws, and in the best interests of the people. Finally, in accepting his punishment, he can prove the depth of his convictions and continue to stand for those ideals he has purported to stand for thus far. In his calm acceptance of the death penalty, Socrates expresses a deeper concern for the welfare of men living without an example of how to properly examine whether what they know as truth is actually truthful or merely the platitudes of a dominant leadership.
Even in the earliest portions of his speech, Socrates gives hints that he considers himself above those hes speaking to. This is indicated in his slightly sarcastic address regarding his manner of speech. He asks the jurors to forgive his coarse manner of speech, using the same words in my defense which I have been in the habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else , acting as if this were a foreign language rather than the language of a native Athenian, I am quite a stranger to the ways of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger, whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue, and after the fashion of his country (Plato, 1893).
Although everyone in attendance is an Athenian, Socrates indicates that he alone is capable of speaking in the fashion of his country , rather than those who have spoken against him. In addition, this plea for forgiveness regarding his manner of address holds another barb for those who have spoken already in that he implies his manner of speech is capable of relating the truth while the orators of the court are educated in the ways of duplicitous meanings, confusing the truth with the perspectives they wish to convey. To use the modern idiom, the orators make free use of spin while Socrates merely seeks to speak the truth.
While Socrates might have been able to escape the death penalty had he been willing to pull some of the tricks that people before and after him pulled in order to sway court opinion, he would have had to have done so by undermining the very things he most stood for the examination of the truth, the pursuit of wisdom and the importance of self-examination. By both accepting his own lack of wisdom in all things and by accepting that he was indeed wiser than any of the men he had met thus far, Socrates was able to illustrate the importance of eternal questioning as a means of self-definition and of discovering greater truths.
By remaining loyal to this stance in his own defense, he not only emphasized this importance to those who came after him but also ensured his words would somehow be immortalized as the only way in which he might be able to reach future generations. In this sense, Socrates ability to see beyond his one moment in time to the greater effects of his teachings proves him to have been uncommonly wise.
Works Cited
Plato. The Apology. Taken from Wilkie, Brian & Hurt, James. Literature of the Western World, Volume 1: The Ancient World Through the Renaissance. (4th Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. (1997).
The Dialogues of Plato: Selections from the Translation of Benjamin Jowett (New York: Liverwright Publishing Company, 1927), pp. 3-29. Third edition & copy; 1893 by Oxford University Press, American Branch. Web.
Wilkie, Brian & Hurt, James. Literature of the Western World, Volume 1: The Ancient World Through the Renaissance. (4th Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. (1997).
Long before Western Europe became the epicenter for canonical literature, men like Plato, Socrates, and Machiavelli were writing about the virtues and downfalls of being a righteous man in society.
These men all had their own goals in mind in creating their work. For Machiavelli, it was a gift to an impending ruler, the new Medici prince, on whom Machiavelli wished to bestow all the knowledge he had on how to be a powerful and respected leader. Plato sought to celebrate the teachings of his great master Socrates, and develop his philosophical ponderings on the tenets of good citizenship. Both Plato and Machiavelli, in The Last Days of Socrates and The Prince respectively, present us with concepts about how to conduct oneself in accordance to the leadership, exhibiting evident similarities and differences that show us how a citizen should conduct ones self under a Machiavellian type of leadership.
In The Apology, Socrates stands before a jury of his peers accused of committing an injustice, in that he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example (Plato 35). Despite the connotations our modern-day language provides for the title, it is meant to be interpreted with its original meaning as a sort of explanation behind ones actions. This is an important distinction to make because Plato does not depict Socrates asking for forgiveness, but rather proving his belief that he did nothing deserving of the death penalty. The Apology serves simply as an account of Socrates trial before his death at first glance, but the real contribution it makes to the image of the Socratic citizen is seen in the way Socrates responds to his charges. In an almost humorous way, Socrates explains that he could not be accused of being a sophist because they are wise and rich and he is unwise and poor, and later suggests that his punishment should be the equivalent of a few free meals. This behavior that Plato portrays in Socrates tells us that the Socratic citizen is defiant of authority by using logic. In a Machiavellian society where the ruler considers himself all-powerful, the Socratic citizen will use rationale to disprove erroneous charges that a Machiavellian ruler may throw out just to get rid of someone who is causing a problem.
A Socratic citizen will also pride honesty above all else, and will not demean his virtue by admitting to an accusation he believes is false even if it causes trouble.
Though Machiavelli believed that whatever steps were necessary between the princes current position and ultimate power were acceptable, he also mentions that a leader should be able to know the difference between right and wrong. A prince must have the discernment to recognize the good or bad in what another says or does even though he has no acumen himself (Machiavelli 211). By this Machiavelli means that a prince should be aware of the true nature of those he surrounds himself with, to be, in a sense, a step ahead of everyone else.
But in The Apology, we see that the jury does not have a true grasp on what is right and who is virtuous.
If we consider Socrates to be this type of man, then the jurys prosecution of him is non-Machiavellian.
On the other hand, because Machiavelli promoted the idea of vanquishing any obstacle to ultimate power, disregarding Socrates innocence is perfectly acceptable.
The Crito dives even further into the connections between Platos work and Machiavellis.
In The Crito, Socrates rich friend attempts to convince the imprisoned philosopher to let him pay his way out of jail, and offer Socrates refuses, by stating that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right
(Plato 80). Here we learn that according to Socrates, the Socratic citizen will not commit wrongs just because he believes that he has been wronged initially. This is contradictory to Machiavellis view because he believes that the ends justify the means. This fundamental difference between the two authors can perhaps be chalked up to the fact that Plato deals with the acts of the citizen and Machiavelli with those of the leader. Machiavelli says that a true prince will be able to assume goodness only when it benefits him and to avoid it when it does not. &It is necessary to a prince if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity (Machiavelli 351). However, if Machiavelli acted as a Socratic citizen he would most likely still apply this theory, believing that a man should not sacrifice his life, especially if he is a great and capable man, simply because he does not want to commit a wrong. But in Platos view, the Socratic citizen will not value his freedom over his righteousness. Good men and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened , says Socrates (Plato 73). The Socratic citizen will resign himself to unfair punishment to maintain a record of never having committed a wrong for selfish reasons.
These works are imperative when considering the nature of right and wrong. They also give us insight into the beliefs of these canonical writers in regards to the way citizens should behave under their leaders. Through the pondering of these celebrated historical men, we can gain further understanding of virtue and righteousness, and when we must utilize our civil disobedience, and when we should not act out in wrongfulness for self-centered reasons. Plato and Machiavelli offer us seemingly opposing views of the righteous citizen, however, we learn from both that the use of logic and reason can determine the right choice of behavior in any situation.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. 1910 Edition. P.F. Collier and Sons: New York. 397 pages.
Plato. The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro/ The Apology/ Crito/ Phaedo. 2003 Edition.
Plato and Descartes contributed immensely to the subject of knowledge. Today, the epistemological themes derived by Descartes continue to drive the modern education. On the other hand, Platos thinking has influenced many modern philosophers in respect of the concept of knowledge and ignorance (Wilson 135).
Plato approached the concept of ignorance with an authoritative tone. He was categorical that the only good thing is knowledge whereas the evil one is ignorance. He asserted that the characteristic element of ignorance is self-satisfaction, wherein he who upholds it is neither wise nor good and has no discerning for that which he does not have or need.
Discussion
In his first meditations, Rene Descartes ventures to explain his doubtfulness of the world around him. He argues that his believes have sharply deceived him before. He presupposes that perhaps he is currently dreaming or God is a deceiver. He asserted that for an individual to be knowledgeable, the subject under review must possess within itself absolute certainty (Wilson 135).
He shared a common thought with Plato that there is universal and objective truth that human beings should discern. In his argument, Descartes suggested that to get the requisite sample that demonstrated absolute truth and, which results in being knowledgeable, eternal doubt is necessary. This brings in the concept of his desire for not knowing.
According to him, Descartes asserts that the need to know enables him to find something free of doubt and, which constitutes knowledge (Wilson 155). This state converges to the idea f knowing through establishing absolute truth. Fundamentally, the idea of not knowing brings about a belief, which must be held in order to sustain the gap created by ignorance or confusion (Garber 58).
He suggested that doubting everything paves the way for one to clear all possible beliefs. In his methodological doubt, Descartes sought to establish a single truth that could be used as the basis for testing all beliefs with a view to determine the ultimate truth.
Descartes held that the more knowledgeable one is, the more he or she discerns to know extensively. Using this statement, Descartes implies that not knowing is beneficial in letting a truth-seeking individual to obtain much knowledge of the single truth (Garber 58). Therefore, in his experience, Descartes believed that confusion or absolute lack of knowledge is necessary to spearhead the search for truth about objects within the context of the world.
He reflects that people are beings existing only as thinking things. This process takes place within the inner most worlds of senses and thoughts (Hall 35). The methodological doubt espoused by Descartes renders individuals to question their beliefs about their physical world. His argument has preoccupied the modern epistemological thought that yields informed inquiry into the objects and subjects within our interactive environment.
Platos conception of the world led to his distrust of its changing nature. He argued that no one could understand or know anything concerning the world (Garber 58).
In his quest to explore the notion of ignorance, he sought to distinguish different types of ignorance. Plato defined simple ignorance as the sheer lack of sufficient knowledge or information and double ignorance, which amounted to both lack of knowledge and delusion of beholding genuine knowledge.
However, Platonic philosophy holds that those who do not know, but have a genuine and deep desire for the lasting truth are capable of protesting the limiting features of ignorance. In his submission about knowledge, belief and ignorance, Plato posited that we could not know that which is not true since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge.
Knowledge according to Plato has elements of permanence and certainty as contrasted to relativity and transience. Plato treated knowledge as that which relates to real and infallible, and that one cannot know a falsehood (Hall 26). To be certain that one is knowledgeable, he or she must be void of opinion since an opinion is always mistaken.
Platos conceptualization of knowledge is that to know, one should be able to give a logical account of the object in question. In other words, the idea relating to knowledge must be able to identify the elements of nature and elevate them from the rest in all respects. This contrasts with Descartes notion, which relies on the idea that to be knowledgeable means to possess a clear and unique idea that forms the basis for gauging all other ideas that come thereafter (Hall 23).
Although Descartes begins with doubt to seek the ultimate truth about the existence of things, he abandons this particular world to embrace the self. Self-doubting and questioning enables one to discover himself in the same way Descartes did. Therefore, not knowing has the capacity to enlighten an ignorant person.
However, it is important to state that from an individual to overcome his state of ignorance he or she must have the will to seek the eternal truth (Descartes 156). He continued to expand his methodology to conclude that if you doubt or question, you develop the tendencies of shaking off the remnants of belief, which do not account for knowledge.
In his popular sentiment, Descartes asserted that, I think, therefore I am. This statement has the implication of priori-knowledge in which Descartes beliefs in the capacity of empirical forms to result in genuine knowledge. To doubt is an equivalent or connotes lack of pure knowledge about a given phenomenon (Descartes 156). The process of engaging ones mind in constructive doubt ensures that he unearths the loose truths in order to gain the concrete rock or clay that defines truth.
Descartes believed in the omniscience of God. The epistemological discourses of Descartes have far-reaching elements of confusion. For instance, he supposes that had he without the knowledge about the truth of the existence of God, he would be subject to ignorance and not knowing (Falzon 22). This statement challenges his proof of the existence of God in his claim that there is a deceitful or God or being that endeavors to deceive him.
Since god denotes truth that is undoubted, it cannot be true that this set of truths purportedly deceives his mind. This confusion is somewhat a blessing in disguise since it calls upon him to begin imagining and actively thinking in order to arrive at a conclusive remark about knowledge.
He, in his methodological doubt presents the two sides of the coin by demonstrating the distinguished importance of having knowledge as contrasted to ignorance. In general, Plato contends that ignorance is born of a foolish man who cannot attain any good since goodness is the result of true knowledge held and practiced by an individual (Falzon 22).
Conclusion
The notion of not knowing in both Platos suppositions and Descartes converge to lay emphasis on the significant role played by ignorance to enlighten as well presenting its limiting sense to mankind. According to Plato, belief exhibited a lack of truth and the knowledge by the believer. Plato utilizes the posteriori knowledge in understanding the elements of truth as contrasted to Descartes, who believed in the experimental truth.
Works Cited
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007. Print.
Falzon, Christopher. Philosophy goes to the movies: an introduction to philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.
Garber, Daniel. Descartes metaphysical physics. University of Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1992. Print.
Hall, Robert. Plato. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Wilson, Dauler. Descartes. New York: Routledge, 1982. Print.
Descartes and Plato offered thoughtful arguments about how separate human soul or mind is from body, beliefs contained in Meditations and Phaedo literatures respectively. Though, mind and soul and used interchangeably, their connotations are different. According to Franklin (289-293), whereas, Plato consistently uses of the psuche (soul), Descartes shuns it in his arguments. For instance, in his Meditations of theology targeted at Sorbonne, Descartes indicates that the soul is immortal (Besheer 55).
In general, the Descartes philosophy is linked to the churchs connotation of the most significant part of an individuals body, which is acknowledged as existent, even after the end of physical life. The spiritual part of an individual is, therefore, what can be stained by sin and be purified, called upon during salvation, and ultimately during the Last Judgment, hence does not suffer any form of confusion or end of life (Besheer 56-57).
Nevertheless, unlike Plato, what Descartes promised he would expose is the impurity of the mind, which he opined, harbors errors that are shaped by the prevailing intellectual guidelines (Besheer 55-97). In addition, he said the errors of the mind do not meet the threshold of sins against morals. In addition to Descartes machine-body philosophy, if an individuals body even subsists, which at the introductory section of Meditation he casts doubt on, he indicates that a mind is mainly meant to think and envisage.
Nonetheless, these roles of the mind fall short of animating any physical body system (Besheer 58-67). And since he believes in himself as the only person with accurate thinking capacity, and since he is certain about his own life as an avid thinking creature, Descartes believes his mind is accurate.
Nevertheless, Platos Phaedo tacitly criticizes Descartes ability to realize a functional mind without the corporeal processes. Generally, it is likely that the subsistence of the mind or its operations of judgment is linked to the body in one way or another (Besheer 55-97).
In view of this, though the body does not enhance the activities of the mind the same way a physical ability contributes to body actions, the mind depends on the body based on the fact that a vibrant mind draws lively qualities from the physical body. Eventually, however, Besheer (89-97) indicates Descartes affirms that in relation to his lucid and diverse philosophies of mind and human physical abilities, these natures dont exist disparately.
It is notable, though, that Descartes believes his thoughtfulness as having helped him discover his philosophical accuracy. Therefore, he can summarize his ideas on the premise that theologically, mind or soul is disparate from physical self; and this, forms the foundation for affirming the immortal nature of soul or mind.
Phaedo
Analysts of the Phaedo sometimes punch holes in Platos philosophy for blurring the difference between soul and mind (Franklin 289-314). Plato apparently links mind to thinking, while soul, according to him (Franklin 290-291) is charged with the duty of necessitating body animation. Although, this signifies more of a terrible error, it falls short of being termed confusion. In general, a mistake can be made while attempting to establish an essential issue.
For the linkage of envisaging soul to animating soul is what forms the basis of Platos hypothesis in the Phaedo (Franklin 312-313). In an attempt to comprehend this, an individual might give the impression of discerning a similarity between opinion and body movements if thinking is related to the practice of intellect, which may seem innate for many individuals, that the realistic activity is putting intelligence to work.
For the individual of sensible intelligence is exposed to the sensible needs of his condition. This is in contrast to a theoretically responsive organism that is exposed to influential environmental factors, which are different from the manner in which a body system is impacted by chemical factors within the body.
Additionally, an individual who is not reactive to issues that impress most of his or her peers may not be perfectly sane. Such individuals often do not properly respond to their corporeal demands (Franklin 291-311). Conversely, such an individual does not, however, function below the physiological threshold; rather, these people may be regarded as mainly fulfilling their social existence. This enables them to achieve animations and relation, which becomes lively if livened.
Life at this degree confirms being biologically active, and for most people, biologically life automatically impacts effective actions, except during sleep. Notably, these two aspects of being active are intertwined in such a way that, instead of drawing similar perceptions of both of them, an individual might, more simply perhaps, view them as similar, hence conflate what he or she believes sets the physical body on the move.
Conclusion
In general, Phaedo and Meditations provide clear perceptions of Plato and Descartes on the soul or mind and the body. Whereas Descartes suggests that human soul is immortal and acts independently, Plato indicates that soul or mind is directly linked to the living body.
Plato avers that the model exercise of aptitude is hypothetical or at in most cases not directly practical. Additionally, Descartes believes that Christianity is based on the human soul, which is summoned during spiritual encounters such as salvation or cleansing, and will be of need during the judgment day (Besheer 55-57).
On his part, Plato builds his philosophy on the fact that, since the ideological soul is fully functional when exposed to an influential environment, he concludes that it would be easier to explore the soul-body connection if death separated them.
Works Cited
Besheer, Kirsten. Descartes doubts: physiology and the first meditation. Philosophical Forum, 40.1 (2009): 55-97.
Franklin, Lee. Recollection and Philosophical Reflection in Platos Phaedo. Phronesis, 50.4 (2005): 289-314.
The concept that needs to be defined is that of piety/ holiness. Euthyphro is in the verge of prosecuting his father because of the crime he committed. Socrates is surprised by the action of Euthyphro. However, Euthyphro argues that his action is pious.
This action makes Socrates to wonder whether impiety and piety knowledge that Euthyphro posses are adequate enough to allow him prosecute his father by not behaving impiously. As a result, they search for piety definition as understood by Euthyphro. The dialogue between the two terminates without getting a clear definition of what piety means (Cohen, N.D).
Definition of piety by Euthyphro
The definition of piety is offered by Euthyphro in four different perspectives. From the initial dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Euthyphro is in the verge of prosecuting his own father. This is because he murdered a murderer. The underlying philosophy behind the actions of Euthyphro is not understood by Socrates.
However, he is keen to learn with an aim of understanding Euthyphro and how he ended holding such a super power in the whole state. Socrates was preparing himself to face trial. As such, he wanted to attain the same respect that had already been achieved by Euthyphro. In their dialogue, Euthyphro understands the various definition of piety.
On the contrary, throughout their dialogue, Euthyphro gives out four different piety definitions some of which contradict each other (Brickhouse & Smith, 1995). According to Socrates, there are numerous limitations with regards to his definitions and continues to insist for an answer that is satisfactory. His initial definition can be found in the following statement, piety means prosecuting the unjust individual who has committed murder or sacrilege, or any other such crime (Plato, N.D, p.5).
This is in reference to his fathers prosecution for murder charges. Piety is therefore considered as that action which does not maintain the city justice. Therefore, if a single man acts in a disgraceful manner, he needs to face justice by being prosecuted and justice enforced. To emphasize on this point, a reference is made to Kronos the father of Zeus and Zeus himself. Kronos was bound by his son Zeus because he consumed his own children.
After being bound, Zeus escaped. Ironically, Kronos managed to castrate his own father because he consumed his own children. However, it is argued by Euthyphro that, in comparison to all gods, Zeus is the most just. Therefore, Euthyphro is trying to appease the gods by being just. Thereby prosecuting the society wrong doers such as in the case of his father, Zeus and his father as presented in the book.
Another definition of piety provided by Euthyphro to Socrates states that, the pious is to do what I am doing now to prosecute the wrong doer (Plato, N.D, p.9). In that case, he prosecutes his own father despite people being against his actions. This definition is not accepted by Socrates because it is only an example given rather than a definition.
According to Socrates view, the definition of piety given by Euthyphro is not objective as they are not similar in each and every situation and they are not explanatory. Another definition of piety by Euthyphro is that The pious is what is dear to gods (6c-8d). This definition is fine to Euthyphro. Nevertheless, Socrates argues that, a lot of things are disagreed upon by gods. For instance, the idea of him prosecuting his father might be okay with Zeus but not appealing to the overthrown Kronos.
Socrates main goal
From the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, the main goal of Socrates was to have a clear definition of what piety was. However, Euthyphro gave him examples rather than a single definition. In addition to that, Socrates wanted to understand Euthyphro better and how he raised to that powerful position in the state. Socrates was about to face trial and his main objective was to make sure he worn the case by understanding the true meaning of piety.
According to my own definition, piety is the reverence and devotion to God and religious practices. For instance, going to church and listening to sermons is a good example of piety. Therefore, Euthyphro was obeying his gods by prosecuting his father. Given the fact that his father had committed a crime, he was supposed to face justice and pay for his sins.
Additionally, piety can be perceived as the science of sacrifice and prayer. In essence, piety is acknowledging what needs to be done in sacrifices and prayer in order to please gods. Therefore, individuals should have a clear knowledge of how they can address their gods in times of prayers and sacrifices. Hence, an individual needs to please god.
However, according to Socrates arguments, he believes that there is no co-existence between the god-loved class and pious things class. His arguments are based on substituting the two terms god-loved and pious in his statements. The substitution result to sentences that are false.
References
Brickhouse, T. C., & Smith, N. D. (1995). Platos Socrates. New York: Oxford University. Press.