Meno and Socrates in their dialogue are trying to understand whether the lessons of virtue are teachable. Meno says that there are different virtues in existence, but Socrates argued that each virtue is different. However, the quality of virtue is what is more important than its existence. The debate continues with Meno saying that virtue is being in a position to rule over people. However, Socrates disputed this by saying that it is not virtuous when you have slaved under your power and a ruling can have the consideration as virtuous only if it is just (Bostock 248).
Socrates and Meno on Wisdom
Plato is reported as talkative on wisdom, hence handling this topic about him poses a significant challenge. He argues that in order to understand wisdom, one needs to know its true nature. Socrates says that real wisdom can be found with God and that human wisdom has no value at all. However, Meno argues that respecting wisdom just as Socrates did is important for people to understand its importance (Bostock 248). According to Meno, people assume that they get wisdom from education and life lessons. However, Socrates seems not to agree with the idea by arguing that one can gain knowledge from education but not wisdom.
Socrates drives the idea that virtue cannot be taught because if it could be then people could be having whatever virtue they want (Bostock 248). The practicability of teaching does not make any sense to Socrates. That is why he challenged Meno to define virtue and explain whether it can be learned. Recollection involves things known to individual spirit prior to birth and not just things learned in life. Through this explanation, Socrates says that all things people know are not wisdom, but knowledge further, saying that human beings try to gain it but only God has true wisdom (Scott 12).
The reason why it is hard for human beings to have wisdom is that it requires them to be odd. People who think that they are wise to want to have power and wealth. However, wisdom requires one to be ready to do what is pleasing and helpful to others. In addition to this, wisdom does not relate to being able to carry out various actions but having a prominent state of mind. In addition, Socrates says that an action may be right and its quality determines whether it is an act of wisdom (Scott 12). Meno and Phaedo also argue that wisdom helps in determining the quality of a persons writing or words because it reflects wisdom. Socrates concluded that wisdom is a virtue having special characteristics than the others (Scott 12).
Conclusion
Debating whether wisdom is a virtue or not can still progress and people can have differing views on the issue. Reflection and contemplation have been associated with wisdom and it can help one in making a wise decision, but it is not always a feature of one. However, they do not determine the wisdom as God has this virtue, but do not apply reflection and contemplation upon activities. Wisdom can still have subdivision into different forms and one thing to keep in mind is that only God has true wisdom independent of any supporting actions.
Works cited
Bostock, David. The soul and immortality in Platos Phaedo. Essays on Platos Psychology 2001: 241-262. Print.
Scott, Dominic. Recollection and Experience: Platos theory of learning and its successors. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print.
What charges against Socrates are recorded in the Apology? Is he guilty of them? Why or why not?
The accusations placed against Socrates include:
Studying the activities in the heavens and below the earth.
He gets people to believe in a weak argument against a stronger one.
Teaching the youth how to make arguments thus corrupting them.
His lessons for people not to believe in the gods of the city (Burnyeat 11).
Studying the activities in the heavens and below the earth
Regarding this charge, Socrates argues that he is not interested in anything happening in heaven or below the earth and, therefore, he is not guilty. He argues that he has respect for people who are experts in studying the things in the heavens and below the earth. In addition, he refutes not being one of these experts and with no interest in such work (Burnyeat 9). Predicting the things in the heavens and below the earth associates him with the physicists such as Thales and Anaxagoras; however, Socrates argues that he is not interested in their work (Burnyeat 11).
He corrupts the youth by encouraging them to embrace criticism
The accusation came about because Socrates attracted enormous attention from the young men in Athens. Through his cross-examining of prominent people in public places, Socrates had a lot of influence on the youth. He promoted criticism among the youth due to his criticism of authority. The accused puts up an argument that he does not conduct any of the activities conducted by the trainers since harming the youth involuntarily would also hurt him. Education should be the consequence other than punishment. Socrates also says that if he voluntarily corrupted the youth, then they would in turn hurt him, and no one harms self knowingly (Burnyeat 11). His argument is that there is a difference between him and the teachers, that is, the trainers charged for their teachings but Socrates did not. The individual was guilty of this charge since his teachings influenced the youth even though involuntarily.
Socrates was accused of making weak arguments appear stronger
In this accusation, Socrates was associated with the Sophists. The sophists got people to believe in a particular argument even if it was a weak one. The sophists were not to be trusted, and they influenced the people negatively especially for political gain. Through their arguments, they were able to make people adopt their points of view (Burnyeat 11). He says that there exists a clear distinction between him and the sophists asking people to pay for the teachings, but he does not ask for any payments. The philosopher even criticizes such behaviors by the sophists and says it is ridiculous. Socrates is for this reason has representation among elites as not guilty of this charge of developing and propagating such arguments in the society (McPherran 125).
He teaches people, not to believe in the gods
Socrates uses natural explanations for natural occurrences and this results in the charges that his belief was not in the theocracies that were followed by the Roman emperors (McPherran 125). Socrates regarded the gods of the city as a hot rock; a view undermined the Roman political authority resulting in a crime of impiety (McPherran 125). He says that he believes in a Diamon and his faith in a Diamon is an indication that he believes in deities, and he is not against the gods of the city (Burnyeat 3). Despite his arguments, Socrates is guilty of impiety since he referred to the gods as hot rock and failed to honor them.
Works Cited
Burnyeat, Myles F. The impiety of Socrates. Ancient Philosophy 17.1 (1997): 1-12.Print.
McPherran, Mark L. Recognizing the Gods of Socrates. Apeiron 30.4 (1997): 125-140.Print.
Researchers traditionally define society as a group of people who interact with each other basing on the common culture, morality, and economy. To become the society, a group of people should function as an organization.
From this point, to create an ideal society, it is necessary to change the principles of organization and to propose new patterns according to which people should interact with each other as the complex organism. The concept of the ideal society is discussed in the works by many philosophers. It is important to pay attention to the conception presented by Plato in his work The Republic on the issue of the ideal society.
Thus, Plato discusses social classes and forms of governance to provide the model of the ideal society. To propose one more model of the ideal society, it is necessary to refer to the classical Platos vision. Nevertheless, the concept of the ideal society is rather utopian because of impossibility to create this society in reality.
Although the notion of ideal society is a controversial question with the elements of utopia, there are specific features and components which combination can contribute to constructing the model of the perfect society with references to the personal vision of an ideal.
Society as a collective consists of individuals whose human nature makes them compete and fight for the better resources. Nevertheless, people can be discussed as good and sympathetic while living in the community if their interests are met. Thus, people become aggressive if they are afraid of losing their resources, property, or advantageous living conditions.
As a result, to build the community where relations are based on the positive side of the human nature, it is necessary to create the specific conditions to respond to the interests and expectations of the majority (Ede and Cormack). The task of the social leaders is to orient to interests of the majority in order to avoid the opposition of the public which can lead to revealing the negative qualities of people living in society.
Referring to the mentioned task, it is possible to formulate the purpose of the ideal society. Society can be discussed as a strong organization where all the components of the society cooperate with each other for the common good. In its turn, the effective cooperation of the societys members depends on the particular features of organization. From this point, the society should be organized in a specific way to provide the social support and assistance for all the members.
The purpose of the society is to protect individuals with the help of organizing them in a group where people can freely and effectively interact with each other. Thus, the society is created to help people satisfy and complete their needs (Osborne). The fulfillment of peoples interests should become the main purpose of any society because society as an institution is only the organization of individuals which interests are important for the further successful development of the whole group.
The principles of satisfying the peoples needs and interests within the ideal society are correlated with the concept of justice according to which this society should function. According to Plato, the idea of justice is closely associated with the personality of the leader ruling the society.
Plato states that philosophers should become social rulers because only these people can guarantee the rule of justice within the group of people organized as society. Moreover, justice should be represented in just laws which are followed by all the societys representatives without opposition because of the rulers significant authority.
Plato continues that philosophers should be chosen as the rulers of society because they create just laws not to accentuate their power, but to contribute to the social good (Plato). However, just laws are developed to control the actions of the public. The just and rational control is necessary for the society in order to prevent the social degeneration and the further focus on chaos. From this perspective, justice plays an important role in society.
Society in which just laws are used and just leaders rule contributes to creating the common good. It is important to note that in spite of the concentration of modern public on the ideas of individualism and freedom of choice, people cannot live without social interactions and their communication is directed toward creating the good for a personality without doing any harm in relation to the other members of society.
This positive pattern of communication within the society is possible with references to the ideal society. Referring to the real societies and to the elements of their functioning, it is necessary to note that people can achieve the welfare only while acting within the society as the part of it because of sharing the common economic infrastructure and participating in the same social institutions (Brym and Lie). From this point, the society develops to produce the common good for all the members.
The question of a governmental system used in the perfect society is one of the most controversial ones in relation to the idea of constructing the society focusing on the interests of the majority. The governmental system is significant for the society in order to provide the necessary control. It is possible to refer to the responsibility of an individual and to the democratic form of government as the best choices for the society when all the associated legal laws, social rules, and principles are clearly stated.
People need limits in order to avoid chaos. That is why, just laws are important for all the forms of government, including democracy. Democracy is based on the ideals of freedom, equality, rights, and choice (Appelrouth). All the mentioned concepts are appreciated by modern people because these ideas provide the context for the development of individualities.
Nevertheless, Plato claims that much freedom guaranteed with references to the democratic principles can lead to chaos, peoples outrage, and social mess (Plato). From this perspective, the legal system should work for the society providing people with just laws. Appropriate social norms and rules should be developed with references to the principles of morality which is accepted in the definite society. These easy points can help prevent the democratic society from the decay.
However, people are inclined to follow laws correctly and avoid their violation when they are satisfied with the position within the society, including the social status and welfare. To improve the state of the public, the democratic government should implement the effective economic system. Today, people pay much attention to such concepts as equality and freedom (Levitas).
These notions are also relevant to discuss the ideal economic system for society. Thus, capitalism guarantees the focus on peoples freedoms, and the principle of equality is discussed from the point of fair competition. Nevertheless, only laissez-faire capitalism can help people realize their freedoms and rights in the economic sphere fully because economy is not controlled by the government.
That is why, this economic system is the most appropriate for contributing to the progress of the democratic society. The democratic society provides equal opportunities for all the people to achieve the necessary welfare (Ede and Cormack). Laissez-faire capitalism limits the control of the government and focuses on peoples interests when they develop strategies to improve their business and achieve the economic success with references to their abilities and intentions.
Focusing on the ideas presented earlier, it is necessary to note that individuals living in such societies should be characterized by the developed feelings of responsibility and respect for each other (Novacek). Such issues as racism, discrimination, and prejudice are inappropriate for the ideal society. That is why, the public should be well-educated.
The accents should be made on the primary education when children learn the moral norms and principles and on the higher education when people choose their career path. It is important to note that moral training is effective when it is combined with education. Well-educated people are able to live in the society where the focus is made on following definite laws and norms strictly.
Equality should be realized in providing the equal educational opportunities (Osborne). Furthermore, morality and religion are connected spheres. People need moral limits to live in society according to the definite rules. From this point, the role of religion and morality in society is to control people without the impact of any external factors, but with the accents on the inner world and personal inclinations.
Plato proposes the Allegory of the Cave in order to depict the reality from the point of ordinary people who are prisoners within the society (Plato). The journey out of the cave is necessary for people as the representatives of the society in which the public concentrates on education, equality, and freedoms.
To help people go out the cave, it is necessary to achieve the balance between the social control and role of individuality in community. The focus on democracy, laissez-faire capitalism, and individualism is possible when people are allowed to leave their caves and begin to participate in the life of their society as morally and socially responsible personalities.
Family is the main social institution which is typical for traditional societies. The creation of family is the creation of a micro-society with the specific hierarchy and rules. Nowadays, people are inclined to interact within the larger groups and rely only on their own abilities. Family in its traditional form cannot be discussed as the effective way to organize the society (Appelrouth). The main accents should be made on socially responsible individuals who are flexible in their interactions.
Society in which the majority of people can satisfy their needs and achieve the necessary welfare without violating the rights and freedoms of the other people can be discussed as ideal. This society is based on the principles of democracy, free will, and free choice. In this situation, rulers or social leaders are only reflectors of the publics will. However, strict norms and laws which prohibit the illegal and immoral behaviors should regulate the life within the society without limiting the peoples basic rights and opportunities.
Works Cited
Appelrouth, Scott. Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text and Readings. USA: Pine Forge Press, 2008. Print.
Brym, Robert, and John Lie. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. USA: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.
Ede, Andrew, and Lesley Cormack. A History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility. USA: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Print.
Levitas, Ruth. The Concept of Utopia. USA: Peter Lang, 2010. Print.
Novacek, Pavel. Human Values Compatible with Sustainable Development . Journal of Human Values 19.1 (2013): 5-13. Print.
Osborne, Roger. Civilization: A New History of the Western World. USA: Pegasus Books, 2006. Print. Plato. The Republic. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Who should rule? According to Plato, philosophers should rule because they have what it takes to be leaders. In his work, Plato explains that leaders should possess certain forms . These forms are relevant because they are unchanging and present the best knowledge.
Plato believes that philosophers are the only people who can grasp such aspects (Jowett 19). They are also capable of understanding everything appropriately. The leading form , according to Plato, is that of Good . All other forms arise from the Form of Good . According to Plato, philosophers grasp ideas by undergoing through certain stages of understanding. This is what makes them the best leaders in a society.
Plato claims that philosophers are a class of men that possess unique ideas, knowledge, and understanding (Adam 72). They are just and capable of leading others. The souls of these philosophers are conditioned thus making it easier for them to fulfill the needs and expectations of their people.
Rationality, according to Plato, is what guides a philosopher. Rationality is one of the attributes that make a philosopher an effective leader. Philosophers will promote justice because it is worthwhile. Justice is relevant because it embraces peoples psyche and health.
Such leaders will ensure the souls of their people are healthy, contented, untroubled, and happy. Such kings are able to make appropriate judgment in order to address the needs of the people.
The other argument presented by Plato is that of pleasure. Philosophers are truth-loving , something that makes it easier for them to apply impartial judgment . According to Plato, any kind of pleasure that is not associated with truth and philosophy is unpleasant. Only philosophers understand the importance of just life and its importance towards a better society.
From this understanding, it is agreeable that being a philosopher is a privilege. Plato believes that philosophy is a unique occupation that embraces wisdom (Adam 48). Such kings will be just . This is necessary because justice helps such kings grasp the Form of the Good . Philosophers will imitate the Form of the Good thus creating orderly societies.
From the above discussion, it is notable that Plato connects the idea of justice to the Form of Good . He furthers views the two as essential qualities of a leader. That being the case, it becomes evident that philosophers possess such qualities. The kings will behave in a just manner because it is the best thing for them to do.
As well, such leaders consider justice to be something essential regardless of the rewards or punishments it presents (Jowett 20). Plato believes that justice should be able to appeal to psychology. This is what promotes individual justice. With such ideas, Plato strongly believes that a philosopher will become the best ruler in The Republic.
From a personal perspective, I would support Plato because he offers valid ideas about leadership. Philosophers should become kings because they will govern their kingdoms for the good and welfare of the citizens. Such kings will apply practical theories and ideas in order to address the needs of the people.
The approach will ensure all classes benefit equally from their leadership. Philosophers, as Plato argues, will not leave the minorities behind (Jowett 85). This will promote equality, peace, and development.
These classes include farmers, warriors, and guardians. With these three classes, philosophers can establish the best systems thus making it easier for the people to understand their respective obligations and responsibilities.
The idea can reduce corruption and injustice. The people will never question their positions in the society. Instead, they will stand firm in order to safeguard their rights. This explains why such kings can address most of the challenges affecting our societies today.
According to Plato, a ruler should have skills and virtues in order to lead others. This is necessary because a tyrant cannot be virtuous. A king will establish the best relations in his kingdom. He will always be close to his family, his villages, and eventually bring his people closer.
With the Form of Good , the philosopher will make his kingdom successful. The leader will use his knowledge to implement the best ideas and opportunities that can address the diverse needs of his people. As Plato states, true leaders should consider every issue at hand in order to make the best decisions (Jowett 103) . This explains why only philosophers can complete these duties and empower their people.
After examining Platos arguments, it is evident that philosophers can help establish successful societies. Such a philosopher will be a servant of the people. This is exactly what Plato argues in his work, The Republic .
Although many people would argue that Platos ideas influenced leaders like Adolf Hitler, the outstanding fact is that such a leader was a tyrant but not a philosopher-king.
It is necessary to consider some of the ideas presented by Plato in order to understand the importance of justice and proper leadership (Jowett 75). If applied properly, Platos views on leadership can help societies and corporations overcome most of the challenges they face today.
Works Cited
Adam, James. The Republic of Plato. New York: Longman, 2009. Print.
Jowett, Benjamin. The Republic by Plato. New York: Wiley, 2010. Print.
The working of rhetoric has been analyzed by Plato in Phaedrus as the art of influence on the soul. In reality, there is a little misunderstanding when it comes to Platos philosophical project. According to Plato, rhetoric is an art of philosophy that helps in controlling the minds of the crowd or any kind of meeting such as congregation. The art is also used in disruption or attracting attention although it seems meaningless. Another art that was included in the list of Platos philosophical project was deceit that combined together with rhetoric formed Platos philosophical project.
Plato as a leader had to come up with his own concepts of ruling which made him apply various philosophical concepts so as to achieve what he wanted. The main philosophical concept used by Plato was rhetoric in relation to Phaedrus 261a-266.
Rhetoric is a philosophical art that is dealt with in various bodies such as law courts. In the law court, this art is used to achieve or come up with reality based on a given subject matter. There are numerous activities that happen in a real-life situation that tend to give a better explanation of rhetoric as a philosophical theory. According to Socrates, Rhetoric explains or gives the reason as to why one should give favors or privileges to a stranger more than to a friend. Socrates also believes that some of Platos philosophical concepts fall within Phaedruss point of reasoning and this, therefore, makes them very difficult to understand. Phaedrus philosophical perspective tends to be null according to many philosophers due to the fact it does not have enough support.
Although Plato falls in the Phaedrus bracket philosophically, there are certain points or concepts that are still unclear as no evidence has been presented so far to ascertain the validity (Huard, 133). Rhetoric is one of the key tools that can lead a group as this only creates empty images or imaginations that in turn lead to great thoughts. Plato as a person believed that false information can lead to true information hence rhetoric seems to be the best as it involves a deceit that is only aimed at creating some kind of psychological crash in the peoples minds (Huard, 133). Actually, rhetoric rule is to inflict impossibility into the peoples minds hence getting control over them.
Phaedrus is considered to have been overwhelmed with madness and failed to reason or match out things in a correct manner philosophically (Huard, 133). There are a number of aspects of philosophy that Plato also believes in or tends to explain in Phaedrus. The main philosophical concept of Plato revolves around the human life and control and this is the reason he gave explanation of the rhetoric.
The normal lifespan of human being is not just enough to be able to do or achieve all the things a person would like to. Such things include learning or acquiring all the incredible knowledge that the world offers. Some people may experience a full range of human activities and even try to create some things that a person knows that he or she is capable of doing. As much as many individuals have eventually come to embrace the fact that death is inevitable, most of them would actually wish to live much longer and do more things that they are allowed by the current lifespan (Farabi & Mahdi, 67). Another major advantage is to become free of the fear of decay. No one would ever wish to find his or her body to fall apart with age. And anything that would ultimately lead to the elimination of this experience would be welcome news to any individual.
Living longer would be very beneficial to the younger generation as they would be taught a lot of things by the old people. Living for more than two hundred years means that the individual would have great experience and he or she would understand what life really is. Their advice to the younger generation would be of great importance as it would help them in making appropriate decisions as well as helping to choose the right kind of life to lead. Mortality is also important as there would be production of goods that are usually used when the person is old because there would be market; this means that they would help in the growth of economy. It would also be interesting for an individual to see his or her grand children being born as well as watch them growing (Farabi & Mahdi, 67).
Time is the sole actual limitation of man. Any other resource can always be compensated for by the effort of a person. If an individual experiences political persecution, for example, he or she usually has the chance of recovering his or her finances or even ensuring that there is the enforcement of their rights with time as long as they are alive. However, when time depletes the very energy necessary for living, the very strength of youth, like pursuits becomes more and more inconceivable (Huard, 133).
Works Cited
Farabi & Mahdi. Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001. Print.
Huard, Laurie R. Platos political thought: The cave and other stories. New York: Algora Pub, 2006. Print.
Platos Republic develops the concept of the types of knowledge. The primary division of Platos classification is the division of knowledge into sensory and intellectual knowledge. The first category of knowledge, namely sensory knowledge, is perceived as a lower type, and intellectual knowledge is the higher one. Intellectual knowledge is divided into thinking (noesis) and reason (dianoia). By thinking, Plato understands the activity of the mind alone, free from the admixture of sensuality. By reason, Plato understands this kind of intellectual knowledge, in which the subject of cognition also uses the mind to understand sensible things. Sensual knowledge Plato also divides into two areas: faith (pistis) and likeness (eicasia). Through faith, one perceives things as existing and affirms them as such. Likeliness is no longer a kind of perception but an intellectual action with sensory images of things. According to Plato, feelings cannot be the source of true knowledge; he considers knowledge as ability or even power, the most influential of all that a person possesses.
Closely related to these differences is Platos distinction between knowledge and opinion. The opinion is neither knowledge nor ignorance; it is vaguer than knowledge but more precise than ignorance; it is in between these two categories. Unlike opinion, knowledge is a potency, a special kind of existence. I understand Platos distinction between opinion and knowledge; opinions can be both true and wrong, and their true value can fluctuate.
Socrates, the protagonist in Platos Republic, suggests creating an ideal city as a model for regulating the individual soul. The citys guardians must be moral and unselfish, living modestly and communally as soldiers do in their camps. Thus, according to Plato, people who have a moral and intellectual approach to governance issues should govern a just republic. These people in their decisions should rely on the knowledge because only it can provide them with an accurate perception of reality, free from feelings. The opinions of modern politicians, such as, for example, Joe Biden, influence the decisions made in government, which, from Platos point of view, is not acceptable. The mental activity of the head of state should be aimed at comprehending eternal questions, not the current and changing world.
Platos Euthyphro is a dialogue that poses the issue of right and wrong, and what makes an action be termed as right or wrong. The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates leads to a dilemma. It becomes unclear to Euthyphro whether righteousness or holiness is ultimately defined by God, or whether God loves righteousness because it is good. This relates to Creels argument of Perfect being Ethics in his discussion of divine command ethics. Creel brings up an argument that God decides whether an action is right or wrong. He suggests that understanding Perfect being Ethics would require one to imagine how a perfect human being would act. Creel suggests that this offers alternatives, such as understanding the nature of God through studying the Bible, but another approach tries to compare what several religious scripts define as divine. Therefore, the approaches posed by the issue of Perfect being Ethics would need more elaboration to the understanding of God as a perfect being. This overcomes the self-contradictions brought about by those approaches.
The Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma refers to the state Euthyphro found himself in after the conversation with Socrates, whereby it was difficult to decide whether God loves holiness because it is holy or whether holiness is holy because God loves it. Euthyphro believed that God ultimately defined holiness. He said that pious was pious because God loved it. Meanwhile, Socrates engaged him in a dialogue, which involved breaking down the matter in simple terms and allowed Euthyphro to decide what seemed right. The dialogue narrows down to two options. If pious is pious because it is as it is, then it is not determined by the subject in question. In this case, God deems to be pious because He decides it to be so, and piety becomes arbitrary. This is because, God can choose whatever is right, irrespective of the acceptable standards of ethics. This is a dilemma that faced Euthyphro and faces the believers of monotheism today.
A personal response to Euthyphros dilemma
Indeed, there is divinity, which we all cannot ignore. There is a divine power far beyond us all. God is perfect and according to the biblical scriptures, all He does is holy. The monotheists believe that God decides everything that is in place. I also believe that God made man in his image, so humans as well were supposed to be a perfect beings. However, after the fall of man in sin, as recorded in biblical scriptures, people lost the opportunity to maintain the state of perfect being. Before that, what pious was pious because God decided so. For instance, according to the Bible, the man was commanded not to eat the forbidden fruit. Eating fruit is not necessarily wrong. Yet the command was not to eat the fruit, and this was solely decided by God, which makes the argument of pious being pious because God says so, true in this case.
God is the source of ethics, yet I believe, He has everything put in place. The holy is holy even before He loves it; therefore, holy still becomes holy because he loves it. It is logical to assume that this issue is irrespective of who says or does so, and not that it is made to be in that state because someone says it is. Therefore, I believe that God loves what is right because it is right. The fact that He is holy means that He is the origin of all holiness, and declaring His love for what is holy does not necessarily make something holy.
Plato was one of the most popular philosophers of classical Greek philosophy period. He learned under Socrates, a puzzling yet unpopular classical Greek philosopher, who is credited with the birth of western philosophical ideas (Boeree para 18).
Western philosophy is the school of thought that was propagated by philosophers from western world, which included ancient Greece, Australia and North America. Modern scholars believe that Arisctocles, Platos real name, was born in Athens between 429 and 423 BC to an aristocratic family (Boeree para 10).
His Socrates mentor was a very unpopular figure in classical Greek. He was accused of corrupting the morals of the youth and misleading the citizens with his unorthodox political and religious views. As a result, the Athenian government sentenced him to death and executed him by forcefully giving him a poisonous drink in front of his students. His death devastated his most devoted student Plato so much that he fled Athens.
He traveled the world and was captured by pirates, who demanded ransom. His friends raised the ransom but when he was released without the ransom, he used the money to buy a piece of land and established an academy in Athens to teach the youth morals. The purpose of this paper is to highlight how Platos close relationship with Socrates shaped his philosophical beliefs.
The relationship between Plato and Socrates influenced Platos philosophical views abundantly. Most of Socratic ideas are described in Platos recorded works, the Dialogues. One of the most popular views he borrowed from Socrates is the Socratic Method of Inquiry. Socrates Method stated that solutions to the most stubborn questions could only be arrived at through constant enquiry into the problem.
The inquirer must formulate several questions, which philosophers would deliberate on, until a conclusive answer is arrived at. This theory is the birth of modern scientific enquiry procedures that begins with a simple hypothesis, followed by the formulation of questions. Scientific philosophers then conduct an extensive research until solutions are arrived at (smith para 40).
Plato was a democrat who believed in the freedom of expression. That is why he was devastated by the Athenian governments decision to kill his beloved mentor Socrates, who held liberal thoughts and threatened the very existence of the Athenian government. Many scholars have argued that Platos proposal to abolish Socrates philosophical inquiries was designed to intimidate a free society.
However, Rowe explains that his abolition actually showed the need for democracy and tolerance to dissenting views (63-76). Because of his belief in a free society Plato allowed even women to enroll as students in his Academy and study any discipline she wished (Boeree para 10).
Plato taught his students that all people are naturally good-natured, that they are inclined to do good if they know what good is. He explained that the disparity between good and bad character is ignorance, not sin. What people called bad and sin is actually ignorance about the good. He argues that these disparities are not to be punished. A person had to be educated until all this ignorance is eliminated (Guthrie 56).
Continuous teaching and de-corruption of morals changes a persons bad character, creating a genuine genius solely made up of only the good characteristics (Guthrie 166). This theory is informed by the unjust execution of his mentor by the Athenian government. He felt that Socrates should not have been executed for his orthodox beliefs but should have been given a chance to unlearn his ignorance and replace it with knowledge about good character.
Plato had a very close and personal relationship with his mentor. The relationship was so close that Socrates, in his apology defending himself against corruption, motioned Plato by name as his most corrupted followers. As a result of his close relationship with Socrates, Plato forged a fatherly relationship with his students.
This is seen especially in how he mentored Aristotle one of his students. Karamanolis, in his 2006 findings states that Plato thought Aristotle as an authority in philosophy worth an extensive commentary (2). This highlights the fact that he extended the same intimate relationship he enjoyed with his mentor towards his students.
Plato also imitated Socrates ideals on souls and immortality. He recorded in one of his Dialogues tilted Meno that the human soul does not die. According to Plato, the souls existed prior to a persons birth. Socrates explains that the soul, before it was born, existed in the realms of ideas (Rowe Para 43). This immortal soul is what Plato called ideal form. Plato also argues that the ideal forms can be reincarnated as different forms.
Socrates influence on Plato was instant from the time Plato heard of him. Plato had begun his career as a writer of tragic plays. However, on hearing of Socrates talk, he immediately abandoned his trade and opted to follow Socrates (Smith para 30). Plato was so attracted to Socrates philosophy that he made him the principal character in his Dialogues.
Socrates preferred to have dialogue with his students, which Plato recorded. The reader is able to see Socrates through Platos dialogue. So much is Socrates presence in the dialogues that readers cannot easily distinguish between the real Socrates and Platos Socrates (Smith para 22). Some scholars have actually argued that Socrates was a creation of Plato but there is no evidence to that effect.
Platos idea of love also reflects a lot about Socrates philosophy on love. Plato describes love as a process beginning with the erotic love, what he called Eros. Eros is the kind of love that only satisfies the physical pleasures. This love is degrading, as it is only physical.
Like Socrates, Plato believed that lovers ought to seek to ascend the higher realms of love, which is the essence of attraction to inner beauty and intellect. Plato argues that lovers waste themselves by limiting their love only to the fulfillment of physical desires (Smith para 68). This witnessed the birth of what is nowadays known as Platonic relationships.
In conclusion, many scholars have not been able to differentiate the real Socrates and Platos Socrates. This is because Socrates is only seen through Platos literature. Socrates influence spreads out to different ideas such as the vanity of Eros love, immortality of the soul and justice, just to mention a few.
Socrates execution had a profound effect on Platos philosophy about government. He philosophized that a government must be just and should accommodate alternative views. This view is the basis of most modern day government. Socrates therefore made Plato.
Guthrie, William. A History of Greek Philosophy: The Later Plato and the Academy , New York: University of Cambridge, 1978. Print.
Karamanolis, George. Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonist on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphury, New York: Oxford University press. 2006. Web.
Rowe, Christopher. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies; The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 2001. Web.
Written by Plato, the book The last days of Socrates narrates the events following the trial of Socrates. It is a follow up of Platos The Apology and provides a description of the conversations between Socrates, and his disciples, Crito and the jailer.
Plato, the author of the book, was one of Socrates best friends and students. Platos other works The Apology, Euthyphro, Crito and Phaedo depict the philosophical views of Socrates, especially before the trial, during the trial and after death.
In this book, however, Plato concentrates on Socrates view of life and death, society and family. In addition, it provides the reader with information about the ancient Greek culture and beliefs. Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant translated the book into English. Published by Penguin Books in England, the English version was released in 1993.
In this book, Platos main character is Socrates. As Socrates waits for his death, he talks to his students such as Plato as well as Crito, an elderly man who had been Socrates friend throughout his philosophical career. The conversations reveal Socrates thinking about life and death.
In addition, they reveal his thinking about the society, family and humanity. Arguably, Socrates believes in a better life after death, which he thinks is a solution to the social and family problems he undergoes during his life on earth.
Socrates view of family and children is depicted in his conversation with Crito. The conversation is in an Agoran prison room, where Socrates is held before execution. He is waiting orders from the jailer, and several people, including Crito, have come to visit and bid him farewell.
Despite the normal philosophical conversation, there is a sad mood in the room because his friends cannot believe that their teacher is on his way towards death. Nevertheless, Socrates does not show signs of fear or remorse.
Aspects of the family are portrayed when Crito asks Socrates to let them know what they should do to his children and family after his dead. However, Socrates tells them that they should not do anything to the family, but they should look after themselves instead.
According to Socrates, this is the best way of honoring him after his death. It appears that Socrates values individuals than the family. He thinks that his wife and children have a life to live and should work to support themselves.
The reader would expect Socrates to give Crito and other friends in the room some instructions on how to treat his family, considering that he had two small sons and an older one. However, he tells his friends to make professions according to his teachings. Nevertheless, Socrates valued his family, as did other people in the Greek society.
For example, his three sons, wife and other women from his larger family were brought to the prison cell to see him before his death. He appreciated them and gave them some instructions in the presence of Crito, but the author does not disclose the instructions. Nevertheless, it is clear that Socrates wanted them to live by themselves.
In addition, he did not want his family to endure the pain of witnessing his death. Therefore, he dismisses all the members of his family, including his wife and three sons. He was aware that they would offend him by mourning his death.
For instance, after taking the poison, Socrates becomes irritated by his followers because they started weeping. He asks them what is the strange outcry? (Tredennick and Tarrant 32). He tells them that he had dismissed his family, especially women, because they would offend him rather than let him die in peace.
The social aspect of Greek life, as well as Socrates view of social life, is depicted in the book. For instance, Socrates believes that the social life in Greece is full of desperations and that there is no happiness. He believes that death is a sure way of getting a better life.
For instance, when Crito asks him how they should bury his body after death, he told them to treat the body in any way they would like. According to him, they will only be burying the body and not the soul.
He tells Crito that his soul will leave the world and join the next world that has the joys of the blessed (Tredennick and Tarrant 26). This is an indication that he views life as full of sadness and not worth.
Socrates also views social life as the poison to the soul. He believes that the soul is naturally pure, but falsehood infect it with evil. For instance, he tells Crito not to consider how they should treat the body, but concentrate on the belief that his soul will remain alive in the next world.
He believes that Crito would be telling lies if he promised to treat Socrates body in a decent manner, yet he was aware that he was only dealing with the body and not the person himself.
Perhaps one of the evils of social life that Socrates refers to is the cruelty of gaining wealth. While other people were busy accumulating wealth, Socrates had been busy teaching philosophy. In fact, the book depicts the possibility that he died before clearing his debts.
For instance, when the impact of the poison was almost reaching his heart, he realized that he was about to die. Therefore, he requests Crito to pay a cock to Asclepius. Evidently, this is one example of the debts Socrates left behind.
Therefore, it is quite evident that Socrates view of life was negative as indicated in the book. It reflects his view of family and social life and the belief in a better life after death.
Works Cited
Tredennick, Hugh and Harold Tarrant. The last days of Socrates. London, UK: Penguin Books, 1993. Print.
Along with Socrates and Aristotle, Plato is one of the members of the Big Three that made a significant impact on the emergence and development of philosophy. Plato distinguished between appearance and reality while describing the systems of the universe. This philosopher also claimed that people have both opinion and knowledge about the universe, which should be considered separately. This paper focuses on examining the identified concepts and their relation to persuasion, as it was viewed by Plato.
To better understand the distinction between reality and appearance, it seems to be important to clarify the metaphysics of Plato. It was stated that metaphysics refers to the matters of substance, while Plato used the concept of metaphysical dualism. On the one hand, the realm of ideal forms was characterized as stable, eternal, and being beyond the space and time. On the other hand, the realm of everyday reality was defined as a subject to the space and time, finite, and flexible ( The big three , n.d.). Regarding reality and appearance, Plato thought that there are truths that are to be discovered in the real world. In this context, the reality is objective as it does not change depending on a persons perceptions or any other factors. By developing knowledge, people can obtain the understanding of the universe as a set of forms (Borchers & Hundley, 2018). In this way, it is possible to achieve an ideal. The forms were considered to be the most real and perfect representations of objects.
The concept of appearance, according to Plato, meant the way a person perceives the reality through his or her feelings, emotions, and experiences. The world of appearances is not false, but it is different for every person. It is viewed through the senses and composes the notion of opinion. Namely, beliefs about objects and conjectures, including images and shadows, are integrated into opinion. Opinions were viewed as the reflections of the changing world of sensations, and knowledge as a certain issue. At the same time, it should be stressed that opinion and knowledge are not mutually exclusive ( Plato and persuasion , n.d.). They can be used in combination or separately to learn the world around, focusing on reasoned understanding or sensory beliefs. Both opinion and knowledge can be true, but in the first case, a person cannot justify it, and, in the second case, there are undeniable arguments that the person knows why it is true.
The views of Plato on opinion and knowledge, as well as reality and appearance, are related to his rhetoric, the key purpose of which is persuasion. As stated by Borchers and Hundley (2018a), in Ancient Greece, rhetoric was used to pass laws and make legal decisions, which means that to promote an idea, it was necessary to be a good orator. As a philosopher, Plato wanted to disseminate his ideas in society, and his speeches were based on the identified distinctions. In general, Platos rhetoric was established on three components, such as ethics (morality), metaphysics, and epistemology (the matters of truth) ( The big three , n.d.). Most importantly, this philosopher considered that speech is an effective method of directing peoples souls. It was useful to protect personal assumptions in battles with other philosophers, which was a common issue in Ancient Greece.
In Gorgias , Socrates aims to understand the nature of rhetoric and its role in persuasion. This work shows that any professional needs to be persuasive, for example, teachers should convince students that mathematical equations are correct by means of knowledge (Jowett, n.d.). One may suggest that persuasion is associated with the notions of right and wrong, and another example is a courtroom. Gorgias states that rhetorical oration is a useful tool to convince people, and no expert can be more persuasive than an orator, who uses justified arguments rather than opinions only (Jowett, n.d.). Through the words of Gorgias and Socrates, Plato provided arguments to his opponents. The philosopher discusses the beliefs of Athenians, applying rhetoric as a foundation for convincing the readers and clarifying false and true issues ( Plato and persuasion , n.d.). The passionate content of Gorgias explicitly shows the distinction between knowledge and opinion, as well as reality and appearance.
Another benefit of Platos dialectic is the promotion of debates on such important areas as justice, morality, politics, and so on. For example, in Gorgias , the author gives a topic and asks questions, and when the answer is received, a new follow-up question is given ( Plato and persuasion , n.d.). Such an approach contributes to further thinking, which shows that the understanding of common things can weaker compared to how people used to consider them. Thus, According to Plato, rhetoric was regarded as the tool to serve ethics and morality to address social atrocities and achieve a more just condition (Borchers & Hundley, 2018a). It is possible to conclude that Platos rhetoric and the distinction between knowledge and opinion were used to find and translate the truth, while the differences between reality and appearance reflected the ways of thinking.
References
The big three. (n.d.). [PowerPoint slides].
Borchers, T., & Hundley, H. (2018). Defining rhetoric and rhetorical theory. In Rhetorical theory: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 3-24). Waveland Press.
Borchers, T., & Hundley, H. (2018a). Rhetoric as persuasion. In Rhetorical theory: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 27-56). Waveland Press.
Jowett, B. (n.d.). Gorgias by Plato, pp. 59-151.
Plato and persuasion. (n.d.). [Lecture notes], pp. 1-47.