Category: Plato

Introduction

Speaking about those who made a significant contribution to the development of philosophy, it is necessary to pay special attention to their ideas connected to the structure of a state. As for the latter, they may help to understand primary values and key ideas of certain philosophers deeper. Although philosophy is often regarded as the world of abstract ideas, many thinkers tried to express their attitude towards different government structures and present their concepts of ideal states with wise ruler or rulers and happy citizens. Plato who was one of the most famous Greek philosophers also described his vision of the ideal state in one of his works.

Ideal State Concept

To begin with, Plato was extremely interested in politics because he believed that its problems and challenges could be addressed only if rulers would be ready to consider the key notions of philosophy. Therefore, he claimed that it was impossible to conduct a policy that would make society better without applying the knowledge from different branches of philosophy. Reflecting on the nature of policy, Plato was likely to associate it with the act of salvation and protecting common people. To him, it was quite obvious that only those political leaders who were philosophers could contribute to the development of the ideal state. Speaking about the key values that such type of state could be based on, Plato paid special attention to the power of truth and the common good. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the great role of the state in the life of humanity that was another idea supported by Plato. To be more precise, he believed that the creation of the new state by the principles of justice working for both particular people and the entire society could become the process helping to understand the nature of humanity deeper. Therefore, one of the main concepts connected to Platos ideal state was justice that had to play the role of the key-value able to unite individuals.

Many philosophers who lived in different periods of human history were likely to have various opinions about social classes and communication between them. In many cases, their opinions were somehow connected to their origin. As for Plato, it is known that he was born in one of the richest and the most educated families of that time. Being a part of a group that had access to knowledge and power, he believed that the state needed to have some people who were cleverer than the others as it was one of the factors allowing the society to survive (Jackson 15). Reflecting on the ideal state, Plato singled out three functions of a state that he supposed to be the most important. They included control, production of material values, and protection. Taking into consideration these functions, he believed that it was necessary to have three social groups such as guardians, farmers, and rulers who had to be philosophers at the same time. Despite the differences between these social groups and various tasks that they were supposed to fulfill, Plato believed that such a structure would help the society to develop. To him, justice was impossible without allowing different types of people to devote their lives to the things that they liked the most.

Ideal State: the Division of Power

Moreover, Plato had a lot of ideas concerning the division of power in his ideal state. Although he believed that democracy could not help to create prosperity, it did not mean that his notion of justice was connected to the unlimited power of the rulers who were supposed to be driven by higher purposes, unlike other social classes. There is no doubt that Plato regarded the existence of social classes as a necessary division based on peoples primary values. Unlike guardians and farmers, rulers were supposed to possess the knowledge related to the meaning of life and the power of reason. The philosopher considered rulers to be not only the cleverest individuals but also the people who could promote moral values (Russell 14). Due to the power that they possessed, they had to be impeccable.

Platos Ideal State: Rulers and Guardians

Discussing Platos vision of the ideal state, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that two social groups such as rulers and guardians were interconnected. Thus, there was an opportunity for guardians to show themselves in the best light, demonstrate their courage and wisdom. Due to that, the best representatives of this group could join the ranks of leaders. Nevertheless, Plato thought that the supreme power had to belong to only one ruler. Thus, he thought that monarchy could be the basis of the ideal state. To become a monarch, one had to be part of the royal family. Moreover, Plato believed that it was urgent to educate future monarchs to secure the future of the state; in his opinion, being a child of the ruling monarch was not enough for the person to accede to the throne.

Platos Ideal State: Conclusion

In the end, Platos concept of the ideal state was based on the principle of justice and presented a kind of monarchy where citizens were divided into social groups by their primary tasks. Among other things, the primary values of this state were connected to education and morality, and this is why a lot of things that could become the sources of immoral ideas were banned.

Works Cited

Jackson, Jeff. The Democratic Individual: Deweys Back to Plato Movement. The Pluralist, vol.9, no.1, 2014, pp.14-38.

Russell, Bertrand. Philosophy and Politics. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

The Apology by Plato is mainly an account of Socrates speech at trial where he was defending himself against all the accusations put on him by Athenian leaders. Socrates was charged for corrupting the minds of the youths in Athens, for inventing many divinities in Athens and also for not recognizing and believing in the gods of Athens. However, he did not succeed in defending himself which led to his death.

For the most part of his life in Athens, Socrates used simple words to converse with Athenians until that day when Delphic oracle proclaimed him as the wisest man in Athens simply because he knew that he knew nothing (Plato 21d).

This paper explains the meaning of this statement and whether this famous statement is a contradiction or an apparent one. It also analyses Socrates wisdom or knowledge and his practice of questioning people. Lastly it addresses Socrates non-conventional and problematic relation with the divinities of his city.

Socrates changed the way he conversed with Athenians after Delphic oracle proclaimed him as the wisest of all men in Athens because he knew that he knew nothing. Immediately after this, Socrates assumed his stance of acknowledging and admitting his ignorance. He began to show that those who discussed him or talked ill about him were more ignorant than he was.

This is because they were not aware that they did not know anything and that is why Socrates questioned them but not out of self interests but out of concern. Socrates stated that great wisdom turns out, contrary to expectation, to reside in a humble acknowledgment of ignorance (Plato 20e).

Socrates believed that the fact that he humbled himself and acknowledged his ignorant made him recognize how much wise he was. After Socrates acknowledged his ignorance, he decided to pass his wisdom to those who could hear him out. Socrates greatest funs were the youths in Athens. This brings out the contradiction in Socrates famous sentence knowing that he knows nothing. After knowing that he is ignorant, Socrates decided to go ahead with his mission of passing his ignorance to other people.

He distinguished his ignorance in different affairs and concluded that his wisdom surpassed all human understanding since he was well aware that he did not know anything. According to Socrates virtue and wisdom are connected in some way and that is why his efforts were mainly to improve the society he was living in by impacting people with different knowledge based on what he knows best.

According to Socrates, human wisdom is having moral values. He believes that someone who is wise has morals and that is why they cannot do wrong. Such kinds of people are aware of who they are which leads them to living healthy and happy lives. Human wisdom entails acting in honesty and directness (Plato 20c).

The main reason why Socrates questioned peoples knowledge and wisdom was because he wanted to improve the society by questioning their actions and what drove them to act in a particular way. His practice of questioning people do not relate to Socrates wisdom or knowledge. Before realizing his wisdom, he too was like other people hence there was no need of questioning them; this action was not wise. Socrates should have taught the people first before questioning their actions.

He also thought that it was his duty as a person to question others since his wisdom surpassed theirs. He actually wanted to expose their ignorance and false wisdom. However despite it all, Socrates earned much respect and admiration among the young people in Athens though those who felt that he embarrassed them with his questions developed anger and hatred towards him. These people never liked Socrates actions, they thought he was acting based on self-interests.

If Socrates had human wisdom then Sophists and Presocratics whom he mentioned must have had something more. He claimed that his wisdom was greater than that of other humans which means that the judges and the accusers did not possess any of it for he believed that they were invented people who did not believe in themselves.

It is only the gods who are wiser than man and this shows that there was no relation between Socrates wisdom or knowledge and his practice of questioning people if he thought that he was the wisest man on earth yet he proclaimed of gods wisdom surpassing that of humans.

Socrates was then prosecuted, put to trial and found guilty of not believing in the gods of the Athens. Socrates thought that his accusers and Athenian superiors did not obey him. According to Socrates he owed his greater obedience not to man or the authority but to God only.

He also confessed in the courts that he will not stop spreading his thoughts and questioning people; only death will stop him from his practices. This shows how much stun Socrates was; nothing could change his believes whether its death or law. He claimed that the only person who could stop him was God.

Socrates also claimed that Athenians had never faced any good and that his actions were mainly based on his concern for the citizens of Athens. Socrates believed that there was no wealth in Athens because of lack of goodness among Athenians. He stated that God does not permit a better man to be harmed by a worse, and that, in the strongest statement he gives of his task, he is a stinging gadfly and the state a lazy horse (Plato 21d).

Socrates told the people in the court that unless the people changed, God will never settle in any part of Athens because their deeds drove him away. He therefore believed that by addressing and informing the court and the people about their wrong actions and questioning what they believed in was a way of fulfilling a religious task.

Socrates also saw that reminding the court about the truth was his task and that is why he considered it a supernatural experience. He told Athens that they were not fair since they believed not in truth but in invented beings and that is why they prosecuted him. He did not make any concession for his actions or situation.

Socrates claimed that he was never a teacher but instead he was imparting the right knowledge on other people. He blamed the court for holding him responsible for the change within Athenian citizens. He believed that lack of evidence was a clear show that he was not guilty of the charges. The relatives of the victims whom the law claimed that Socrates poisoned their mind could have easily stepped in as potential witnesses 19d.

Socrates disagreed with Euthyphro when he said stated that anything approved by the gods is holy. Socrates argued that anything considered holy is approved by the gods, so it is the gods who approves what is determined as holy (Plato 23e). He further reasoned that not everything holy is approved by the gods because one of the two determines gods approval while the other is mainly determined by what the gods decides to approve as holy.

When Euthyphro suggested that anything holy should be just, kind and anxious about looking after the gods, Socrates disagreed with him again. Socrates claimed that the gods were omnipotent and therefore humans cannot look after them. He stated that humans cannot help the gods in any way instead it is them who look after humans.

Socrates further disagreed with Euthyphro when he claimed that holiness is the way in which humans trade with the gods whereby they offer sacrifice and in return their prayers are answered. According to Socrates, human sacrifice cannot help the gods in any way instead they basically gratify them.

In conclusion, indeed Socrates defence against the charge of being a non-believer is convincing despite his contradicting statements of being ignorant and at the same time not knowing that he knows anything. After being declared by the Delphic Oracle as the wisest man in Athens, Socrates decided to change the way he conversed with Athenians.

He publicly assumed his stance of acknowledging and admitting his ignorance and began to show that those who discussed him or talked ill about him were more ignorant than he was. However despite it all, Socrates stood for the truth and out of concern, he decided to question Athenians with a notion that he was fulfilling religious task.

Works Cited

Plato. Five Dialogues, G. A. (trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett publishing Company, 2002. Print.

Introduction

The LAWS is one of Platos most difficult books, whose subject is of great significance. In the dialogues, we are able to see Platos thought on the relationship between political theory and politics in practice.

Through the dialogue, we also witness the laying out of a new political system (in the new colony city of Magnesia), with his reflection on family, the status of women, rights concerning property and the role of religion in a republic. The dialogue makes use of dramatic details such as oaths, repetitions and hesitations.

The setting

The laws is a dialogue of three men travelling through the road of Knossos to the mountain caves. The three men are a Spartan, an Athenian named Megillus and a Cretan named Kleinas. The Athenian suggests to the two friends that they could engage in some political conversations on the regime and laws so as to reduce boredom in their journey.

The laws and implications

The laws of Sparta and Crete were presumed to be the best in Greece. The Athenian asks Megillus and Kleinas about these laws. After listening to the setting of the laws, the Athenian disputes the fact that they are the best by convincing the two that the ancestral laws are not all that wise. In his argument, he lays down three things that the lawgiver must achieve in setting out the laws.

These include: ensuring that the city/town upon which he legislates enjoys a substantial amount of freedom, the city and its people are friendly towards each other and that the people are intelligent and capable of making wise decisions.

Kleinas informs the other two that him, together with a few others have been selected to come up with laws to govern a new Cretan colony. He therefore, seeks the ideas of the two on what sort of legislations could be ideal for the new colony.

The Athenians contribution to the would be laws of the new city is impressive to the Spartan and the Cretan and they therefore recommend him to be part of the team founding the new city called Magnesia.

From the conversation, the emergent main theme is how to establish the rule of law among a people, who naturally do not feel obligated to obey the law. To these people, the rule of law has never existed. It is an alien concept to them and hence; quite challenging to convince them of the benefits of observing the rule.

The Dorian laws, as they were later called, if well implemented would solve the problem of legislation without much a task. These laws made by people to whom divine authority had been conferred would demand absolute obedience from the people. Obedience would be ensured through coercion.

This solution is seen to have worked successfully when applied in Sparta by enabling the city to maintain long stability. The case is not similar in Athens.

In the conversation, the Athenian disputes this predicament of assessing the laws success by traditional history. Instead, he proposes a model whereby what ought to be and not to be done is explained to the people first so that they understand why and/ or why not to do or not to engage in activities.

The laws themselves are the ones to explain this to the people so that they are self explanatory. The role of authority, therefore, was only to implement these laws and not to impose laws upon the people. Obedience would be ensured not through coercion but through this understanding of the laws.

To support his argument, the Athenian uses medical analogies, which state that people who disobey and do not conform to laws are sick and suffering from some soul disorder.

Therefore, like any other patient, they deserve treatment. In this case, the legislator is the equivalent of the healer and the citizen is the equivalent of the patient. The Hippocratic physician, unlike the physicians assistant who does not give detailed and specialised medical care to slave, carefully consults the patients (free man) condition with careful study into his symptoms and administers any medication with the patients consent.

This similar concept should be applied to the lawgivers, in conducting detailed study of the citizens, analysing what affects them positively or negatively, discussing possible solutions with them, and eventually coming up with a well informed laws which are agreed upon by both the citizen and the lawgiver.

Pangle (86-87) says that the traditional norms and laws to which the Spartan and the Crete give allegiances are challenged. According to the Athen, the laws need rational examination, philosophical view, and revision so that they can meet the demands of reason.

The Athenians reasoning is an important message to the young who require to be healed from the indifference they exhibit to death, and also their inability to control and restrain their bodily wants.

The Athenian stranger in another case rejects economic communism and private families. These are the two key institutions that Socrates talks about in his Republic.

For the new city of magnesia, he proposes private ownership of property and families based on traditional principles where women, children and property should be common to everyone to access. The Athenian bases this view on Hippocratic practice which ascertains and justifies ones strict adherence to reason and understanding, and not compulsion or coercion to following rules and general behaviour.

This philosophical approach by the Athenian to the matters of politics in resemblance to the application in the medical world, only serves to show the readers that philosophy cannot wholly be applied to political matters and work (Baldwin 102-103)

The Athenian also in his reasoning exemplifies the use of magic using drugs, spells, sorceries and fetishist objects in healing. In this case, rational persuasion cannot be achieved. The magic healer cannot explain the significance of the objects used in the process nor the formula behind the working of such processes.

The same way, the lawmaker will and must at times persuade without convincing the people. The people may fail to understand the logic behind following and obeying some rules and therefore they must be persuaded to obey though.

According to Baldwin (102-103), there is no contradiction between the two. The rationality employed by the physician helps reinstate the importance of philosophy and its emphasis and respect of volunteerism, mutual consent between the lawmaker and the citizen in the application of laws.

The extent to which a healer manages to heal his patients with magic is used to show the limits of rationality and does not have to be the case always. Some things must be done without rationality.

Conclusion

At times, this argument fails to hold. The Hippocratic practice is used to represent philosophy and at the same time pragmatism, which is not consistent with philosophy and actually limits it. There is therefore no clear cut distinction between the two.

As much as it reinforces the notion of philosophy, it limits it as well. This is the impression that exists in the real political world that no rule or set of laws or rules can be perfect. The laws cannot totally be delinked with one another. They exist in interplay of the sets at every stage so as to achieve an effective regime with a close resemblance to the rule of law which cannot perfectly exist.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Randal. The Law Most Beautiful and Best: Medical Argument and Magical Rhetoric in Platos Laws. Lanham, MD: Lexington books, 2003. Print.

Pangle, Thomas. The Laws of Plato. New York: Basic Books, 1980. Print.

Plato was a prominent philosopher whose works inspire millions of people. Among his writings, The Allegory of the Cave attracts much attention due to its symbolic suggestions. The analysis of a hidden moral meaning in Platos allegory is necessary. My goal is to understand what Plato wanted to say about reality, false truth, human progress, and the intention to use education as the only means to transform and deal with challenges.

The illustration of Platos case represents a prisoner who tries to escape the cave and discover the outside world. The author used the light of the fire and the shadows to be taken as reality. People are not ready to accept other realities except the one offered by the shadows in the cave. Therefore, the inability of individuals to discover the truth and leave the cave makes them unable to choose between actual reality and the world that they falsely believe to be true. However, Plato showed the way of change by looking toward the real light. He applied metaphors like the need to escape through the fire, with its light hurting the eyes, and liberation to provoke movement and decision-making as a part of education.

When a person emerges from the cave, the first emotions disturb and frighten because it is never easy to leave a routine. People suffer from sharp pain in their legs, necks, and eyes because they see reality from a new perspective. For a long period, they have been chained and lived under the already established rules. Now, they become free, and their eyes have never seen the sunlight, which causes new sensations. The same happens to people who choose education for their progress. Education is a step out of the cave, but it is never straightforward. Knowledge, as well as the escape, is just the first goal after which new decisions and options occur.

Still, not many people want to leave the cave as they believe that unpredictable harm waits for them behind the fire. They decide to stay in the cave, the symbol of safety and ignorance, and forget about those who left their ordinary environment, relying on their illusions. The light of the fire represents false senses, from which it is impossible to learn the true reality. People, who leave the cave, never come back because they can see and use the power of the sun that represents the higher truth.

In college, I could change my mind on some issues, and my friends and family would positively react to my achievements. They have already experienced the power of knowledge and expect me to do the same. Plato admitted that education should not be directly related to professions people choose. Education efforts are never used to tell students how to behave but to provide them with knowledge and engage in discussions to make them able to decide, solve problems, and develop (Johnson 47). I think that Platos view of education differs from the modern interpretation. He believed that art and the development of extraordinary qualities introduce the fastest way to get out of the cave and reach reality. It is expected of young people to get themselves prepared for college by learning history and following the standards. Creativity and uniqueness are usually allowed when some experience is gained.

In general, Platos opinion about education as a profound transformation cannot be ignored today. Although people understand the necessity of change and development, they are afraid to take new steps and try to resist. Some families do not want their children to be hurt by the outside world, while many young people want to discover the world. I believe that my academic experience might be painful at first because I do not know what to expect from peers and educators. Still, I consider this challenge worthy because education opens a new door in my life. If it is necessary to deal with some discomfort and pain, I am ready to manage it and use my skills for good.

Reference

Johnson, Craig E. Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach. 4th ed., SAGE, 2018.

Introduction

Platos Euthyphro is one of the most well-known Socratic dialogues written in ancient Greece. The dialogue was written as a discussion between two figures, the famous philosopher Socrates and a man named Euthyphro. The setting of the dialogue is near the Athenian courthouse where the two meet to discuss of the notions of holiness and piety (Woodruff, 2018). Socrates is someone there to a trial for being impious, while Euthyphro is presented as a figure that will be prosecuting his father in a murder trial. The dialogue between the two is presented in the traditional manner of a Socratic dialogue, where each person expresses their opinions and further inquiries about the others position to reach a broader understanding of the subject. As a genre of prose developed and practiced in Greece, the Socratic dialogue is effective in discussing philosophical topics on such things as religion morals law, or other aspects of the human condition. I think that this dialogue to the citizens of the Athens, as their perspective on the issue at the time like, Euthyphro, Was limited by religious belief. A fresher, more radical outlook that allowed people to form their conclusions is surely to yield good results in teaching the individual.

Socrates inquires Euthyphro on the nature of piety and justice with the latter being presented as a figure knowledgeable in the topic. The dialogue starts with the suggestion from Euthyphro, who poses that Holiness can be described as persecution of religious offenders. Socrates counters that notion by stating that there are other processes described as holy that do not involve persecution. The prosecution of offenders can be described as only one of the aspects and examples of piety, but not its full definition. The term is then changed to the arrangement of practices that are deemed agreeable by the gods. This explanation, however, is once again shot down by Socrates, who notes that the Gods are unable to find universal agreement within themselves. If the gods are unable to come to a universal conclusion, that means an action would be pious and impious at the same time, making the explanation insufficient. Euthyphro, in an attempt to find a definitive answer to the problem, then poses that something is pious when the gods have reached a universal agreement on that subject. In response, Socrates points out a theoretical contradiction in his argument. The man argues that if the Gods agree that something is holy, their decision must be based on a set of characteristics that also have to be determined by them, meaning that their definition of holy must be based on an already existing one, creating a paradox (10e).

Euthyphros next attempt to define the term starts with the proposition that piety is a form of justice centered on looking after the Gods. The notion is countered by Socrates saying the Gods do not need human oversight, due to their omnipotence, making the point invalid. The other man then amends his statement, saying that piety is a process of trade, where humans fulfill their part in exchange for divine favors. This last definition brings the dialogue back to its last ending point, with Socrates implying that such a form of fulfilling Gods desires is just another way of saying that godly approval constitutes piety. Unable to further handle Socratess style of debate Euthyphro exits from the conversation in frustration. The dialogue was, therefore, left unfinished with the questions posed by the two sides being generally unanswered. While such a conclusion may seem like a negative aspect of the narrative at first, it is important to understand that the questions of justice or holiness are open to interpretation and the answers the participants arrive at can vary from individual to individual. The dialogue exists as a great exercise in critical thought, which discusses the nature of established norms and challenges the religious understanding of the issue. From the presented information the reader can more fully form their own opinions on the points presented by both sides and, potentially begin to more thoroughly examine the things they deem mundane.

Is the Questioning Beneficial?

The dialogue is beneficial not only for the reader but for the people inside its narrative too. A known fact of Socratess life is that he was executed for his impiety and continued practices of questioning religious teaching. The dialogue presented highlights Socratess thoughts on the nature of justice and distinctions between piety and impiety. The work He specifically designed in a way to counter many of the times religious teachings that were designed to be followed without any questions. I think that the questioning Socrates participated in was beneficial to the residents of Athens as his perspective, is effective at recognizing the major flaw of religion. Piety is a concept is responsible for distinguishing between Moral and immoral actions that which is accepted by society and that which it condemns. It is presented in a form which instinctively. Its a reader into forming their conclusions and realizing the reasoning behind Socratess position. While Euthyphro is set up to be the Knowledgeable one on the subject of holiness. The dialogue leads the audience to believe that Socrates is trying to make a particular point during the discussion is the real source of information in it. I think that by writing this exchange Plato wanted to teach people to Exercise critical thinking in engaging with other peoples beliefs as well as to reduce the amount of persecution awaits upon those that are considered outside the religious norm.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that Euthyphro is an important piece of creative prose that can both engage the reader and teach them a valuable lesson in understanding morality. In peoples daily lives, morality is partially dictated by society, with various norms, traditions, and habits that enforce particular mindsets and actions. People are encouraged to behave in a certain way to better find connection with others and bring benefit to the general community. However, it is far more difficult than it seems to understand where the notions of holiness, justice, and morality come from. The religious understanding of the subject has persisted over the years and has been used as an explanation for a number of harmful actions in human history. Plato, using the image of Socrates, argues against the religious understanding of justice and morals, saying that they are based on a philosophical contradiction that cannot be resolved. The actions that are deemed moral are perceived as such because they are believed to be favorable to the gods. The gods, in turn, are said to be unable to come to a decision that would define morality as a set of inherent characteristics, instead of being fully based on their definition of it (Westacott). Because morality cannot be accurately measured or judged, the decision of the gods has no more value than that of other people, making it an unsuitable standard to base ones actions on. During this dialogue, Socrates, and by extension Plato, secretly argue that religious persecution faced by figures such as Socrates is unjustified and can only bring harm to the general public. The perspective, in my opinion, was beneficial to the people of that time as it further spread philosophical understanding in the masses and led to the furthering of the discussion on the inherent qualities of goodness.

Works Cited

Plato. Euthyphro. Heinemann, 1977.

Westacott, E. (n.d.). Summary and analysis of Platos EUTHYPHRO.

Woodruff, P. (2018). Platos shorter Ethical Works.

Obedience to the law is an important component of citizenship, and various philosophers have attempted to determine if this compliance with the norms established in the community is always ethical or rational. This issue is explored by Plato in his famous dialogue Crito.

Overall, Plato emphasizes the necessity to comply with the decisions of the state, even though they may seem to be unjust; however, this approach can eventually turn injustice into something acceptable. This is the main flaw of Platos arguments.

In this work, the author describes the conversation between imprisoned Socrates and one of his friends, Crito, who urges the convicted philosopher to escape from prison and leave Athens. More importantly, this person offers his assistance to Socrates, but his offer is declined.

Socrates argument is largely based on the premise that a citizen accepts the laws adopted in the society and should not resist the decisions of the state represents the interest of the community. To a great extent, this dialogue can be viewed as the precursor to social contract theory that began to be elaborated much later. These are some of the main details that should be taken into consideration.

It is possible to identify several limitations of Platos position. In this dialogue, Socrates accepts the death penalty imposed by the state since this state represents a higher ideal. The main problem is that this worldview can legitimize every form of cruelty or injustice that can be perpetrated by the government. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about the rise of totalitarian regimes that emerged in the twentieth century.

Socrates does not consider the possibility that the government can brutally suppress every form of disagreement with its existing social norms. To some degree, Socrates becomes the victim of this policy. Secondly, this approach can diminish the role of an individual who can be victimized by the majority. This is another pitfall that should be avoided.

Additionally, the conversation between Socrates and Crito implies that a citizen is fully aware of how the law functions. Thus, it is not permissible for this individual to escape the law that he/she tacitly accepted.

This is one of the reasons why Socrates refuses to leave the city. However, this argument is not fully applicable to contemporary communities which have extremely complex systems of laws and regulations. This is another detail that should not be overlooked.

Additionally, one should speak about the ethical implications of Socrates decision to accept the decision of the court. This philosopher does not believe that the verdict is just, but he is convinced that one should not respond to it by violating the law. However, Socrates behavior may prolong injustice and make it more acceptable.

If every person tries to follow Socratess example, the very idea of social change will become impossible. This is one of the issues that Plato does not discuss in this work.

On the whole, it is possible to argue that this reading illustrates various views on the behavior of citizenship and obedience to the law. Through Socrates, Plato introduces the idea of social agreement, which is recognized and accepted by the members of a community.

In his opinion, it is unethical to respond to disobey the laws in response to injustice. However, Plato does not consider the possibility that the state can become totalitarian and punish every form of dissent. These are the main issues that can be identified.

In this allegory, Plato described the reality ob manifested to ordinary people, as the movement of shadows along the cave wall. He conceptualized it as a projection, a reflection of the world unfolding in front of the cave entrance and inaccessible to the observers sitting with their backs turned to it. The central point of the allegory  the ascent from the Cave into the light  signifies the path of cognition of the intelligible, unchanging Truth (Lawhead, 2014). This point can be utilized in political philosophy: the one who has learned the meaning of things and is not content with speculations and assumptions will manage a state better. Blind is the ruler who has little knowledge of the essence of anything and who does not have a clear image of it in his soul. The sense of opposing the reality and the perceived in the Cave myth is epistemological and is tied to the replacement of reliance on sensory cognition with mental comprehension.

The reality of the Cave is the illusion of the Truth of our sensory knowledge. The eyes cannot be trusted, and only in the bright sunlight one can cognize the idea of the Good (or strive for it, recognizing it in the beautiful). Looking at the shadows in a cave is like not seeing anything. The first world  the world of sensory cognition  is not worthy of trust: feelings are changeable, chaotic. The second world  the kingdom of reason and measure  the world of Ideas, the world of true knowledge.

This allegory is part of Platos reflections on the essence of the state and public administration. The state should be governed by a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, who does not limit his knowledge to the sensory world (Lawhead, 2014). His goal is to see things as they are, to know the idea to which all of them are subordinated. Everything is subordinated to the idea of Truth and strives for it.

Comprehending the idea of the Virtue is a complex process. Only a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, can cognize Ideas since this lot is exceptionally challenging. First of all, the philosopher must see and discard all the impurities that connect him with the world of sensory knowledge. To cognize the Virtue, one must be patient and cognize it in separate parts (C Luce, 2017). If we are not able to grasp the good with one idea, then we will capture it in three  beauty, proportion, and Truth. Putting them together, as it were, we say that this is the real reason for what is contained in the mixture, and thanks to its goodness, the mixture becomes good.

Not everyone can contemplate ideas, see them, and, probably, only a philosopher can do it. Things, as opposed to ideas, can be seen and grasped by anyone, and the area of sensory cognition is appearance. However, visibility is an illusion of reality, and according to this, things are illusory. The World of Ideas is the true reality, and the Cave myth in Platos representation of assimilation to misconceptions in which sensory cognition results. Thus, the Plato represents metaphysical dualism, the idea of splitting the body and soul and approaching the two as fully separate entities (Lawhead, 2014). The Cave is likened to the appearance and illusion of feelings, the Sun  to Truth and ascent to the idea of Good. In his myth, Plato unambiguously opposes the world of ideas and its flat projection, perceived by people as a sensory reality.

References

C Luce, D. (2017). The Cave of Oblivion Platonic Mythology in Child of God. In C. Eagle (ed). Philosophical Approaches to Cormac McCarthy. Routledge

Lawhead, W. F. (2014). Cengage Advantage Series: Voyage of discovery. A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Cengage Learning.

The article Euthyphro presents a Socratic dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates. The Euthyphro dilemma appears to take different forms or interpretations. The dilemma in this dialogue is whether God says actions or things are morally acceptable because they are naturally good, or such practices become moral because God appears to declare them to be ethical (Harris 69).

This dilemma tries to explain why things are morally acceptable because they are good. When the above happens, such acts will always be independent of God. Such actions will also be good. The next thing is for God to appeal to such things in order to find out what appears to be good or acceptable.

The other scenario is when something becomes moral because God has already commanded it to be good. This situation means that goodness is arbitral (Harris 57). This evidence also explains why God is the determinant.

He is the one who defines what ought to be evil or good. It becomes evident that God can permit bad actions such as murder. Such a practice is acceptable because God believes it should be good (Harris 68). God can also treat honesty as something bad. This description explains why many scholars and philosophers have analyzed and studied this dilemma in details.

My Response to the Euthyphro Dilemma

The dilemma presented in the dialogue is nothing but a refutable dichotomy. This dichotomy is erroneous because it does not solve itself. This ethical dilemma proposes only two options. The reader does not get his or her answer from the dilemma. The dialogue also fails to propose a better option. Every reader should analyze this dialogue from a critical perspective. The third possible option is that human beings can treat some actions to be good based on Gods commandments (Harris 69).

Human beings can always differentiate the bad from the good using Gods nature. This dilemma fails to present this option thus making it questionable. The scriptures and other religious traditions explain why God will always appeal to his own image and character. He shows humans what should be good. Gods nature also portrays every good practice. The Euthyphro dilemma presents a dichotomy that does not deliver any meaningful information about the definitions of evil and good.

This dialogue is challenging because it does not teach us anything new. The dichotomy does not help human beings understand the meaning of good and evil. A third option is necessary in order to define every good action based on Gods teachings and nature (Harris 89). God will never lie. This practice portrays Gods nature. Human beings should not lie because God cannot do so. It is agreeable that God does not have to declare the practice unacceptable or discover whether it is wrong or not.

God does not create a standard to measure what might be bad or good. He also does not declare any bad or good action (Harris 74). The best thing is for every believer to follow the biblical option because it portrays Gods image and nature. Good has always remained good naturally. He has always revealed his nature to every person.

The dilemma portrayed in this dialogue is meaningless because it does not offer any religious theology. Every person might interpret this dilemma differently. The best practice is to consider the importance of morality and ethics. This approach will help more people to do what is right and avoid evil.

Works Cited

Harris, Harriet. God, Goodness and Philosophy. New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2013. Print.

The Gyges mythology by Plato involves a shepherd who found a ring that enhanced anonymity for the individual wearing. The philosopher uses the urban legend to articulate that peoples behavior is unpredictable in the absence of law. In this case, any person wearing that invincible ring attains the power determine justice and injustice and focus on achieving the desires (Kenaan, 2017). The construct by Plato is an insight to the current global phenomenon based on the emergence dynamic online platforms. Over the decades, the intensification in the flow of information and automation of the communication domains provides an opportunity for anonymity. On the one hand, the situation fosters the prominent insight on the distinguishing value between a good and bad character. On the other hand, Platos concept draws in relevance to the current worldwide ideology of social media channels. Since the advent of the distinct interactive frameworks, the users attained the power of obscurity to accomplish a particular task. I do not believe that anyone who wears the ornament engages in unjust acts based on the modern aspect of concealing identity while using the digital rostrums.

I would trust myself not to wear the ring due to the temptation from the anonymity. Human behavioral system depends on the environmental state hence the relativity to the response. In this case, I would avoid the ornament since it enhances the illusional ideology that is beyond moral and virtue conduct within the social mainframe. Although I believe in integrity, the opportunity to participate in any form of activity without restrains or disciplinary measures challenges the phenomenal exploration of the cultural norms. Primarily, rules and regulations foster the development of structural entity that distinguishes just and unjust acts akin to Platos mythology of Gyges.

Reference

Kenaan, V. L. (2017). Spectacles of a Dormant Soul: A Reading of Platos Gyges and Apuleius Lucius. In Cultural Crossroads in the Ancient Novel (pp. 341-360). De Gruyter. Web.

The symposium is Platos work written about a friendly speech contest of several notable men. The word symposium itself describes a literary form used by Plato in his works where he features speeches or essays on one topic from the point of view of different people. Eros is a concept in philosophy that means a deep passionate affection for someone or something. Eros in philosophy can also be perceived as the drive that keeps persons living in the world.

Philia is one of the words used by Socrates to define different types of love. In general, Philia means a demonstration of fondness expressed towards an item or person. Eros is different from Philia, as Eros implies deep affection for someone, while Philia is being fond of someone. Eros is more profound as compared to Philia, and Eros takes part in relationships between lovers, while Philia is found in friendships.

Each speaker in the symposium has different opinions on Eros, its relations with love, and the contexts of attractions. Phaedruss speech on love was focused on its divine origins and implies that love provides moral guidance for people who perform good and honorable deeds as acts of love. Pausaniass speech centered around the different types of Eros, with one being a common type of physical affection and the second being a Heavenly Eros, designated for more honorable love that involves an intellectual side. Aristophanes perceived love as a connection between souls that provides people with a sense of gratitude and allows them to feel whole. On the other hand, Socrates viewed love as unwise and ugly behavior and rejected love due to its primary involvement in reproduction function.

Phaedruss speech focuses on love in general and its divine origins, rather than Eros with desire or affection. In his perception, love and affection are acknowledged as moral guides because affection cultivates the need for admiration. He mainly viewed attraction in the context of private individual relationships, even though in his examples, the deeds conducted as acts of love were evaluated by gods and later became known to the public. Phaedrus characterizes Eros as a force of desire by showing a story of a woman named Alcestis who died for the sake of Apollo. Her bravery impressed the gods, and they brought her back to life. He also draws a negative example of Alcestis, who was in love with Apollo but failed to impress him.

While Phaedrus did not specifically address the aspect of erotic longing, he suggested that the specific object desired by people in love is the lovers admiration. Therefore, in most cases, the product of love, or Eros, is the fulfillment of the need for admiration. Loving the right person and being loved back brings joy to both parties. In Phaedrus speech, the relationship between morality and Eros is organic, as Eros, or desire for affection, supports high morals. Moreover, Phaedrus thought that young people could only get great rewards from becoming devoted lovers. In his perception, love guides men into living extraordinary lives as opposed to money. By drawing different examples, he illustrated how good actions performed as an act of love create pride in a person while misbehaving brings shame.

Platos symposium presents a collection of speeches on the topic of love and Eros from different points of view. The work features speeches, or essays, from Phaedrus, Pausanias, Aristophanes, Socrates, and Alcibiades. All speakers have different opinions on the topic of Eros, or love, and its contexts and connection to morality. Phaedrus viewed love as a source of moral guidance; Pausanias defined two types of Eros with different moral characteristics, while Aristophanes expressed a human-centered approach to Eros through the concept of self-love. On the other hand, Socrates was more attracted to the inner beauty of people and rejected love expressions.

In Pausaniass speech, love presents a force of desire when adequately pursued. Pausanias suggests that love that started in an honorable manner is most likely to last longer. Eros, in his understanding, represents a sexual desire sourced in common or body-centered affection without the involvement of intellect. Therefore, common love is easily achievable and is rated lower than love sourced from honorable intentions. Pausaniass speech acknowledges attraction as an element of private and individual relationships. In common love, the specific object desired by erotic longing is the partners body, while higher love strives for honorable acts fueled by peoples desire for the lovers admiration. Therefore, the product of love is gratification and honorable acts caused by the need for admiration. Gratification makes people satisfied when they achieve a goal, and when people desire true love, finding it makes them attain fulfillment.

Aristophanes speech was the most interesting as it gave the listeners many memories of being a myth needing interpretation. This speech dwells on how love displays itself in people and states that there are three genders. Aristophanes suggests that Females originated from the earth, while males are linked to the sun. In addition, androgynous types of humans came from the moon. Aristophanes argues that men who love other men have the most vital kind of love, as, in comparison to men who love women, their love is bold. Therefore, attraction in Aristophanes understanding exists in the human context without binding to genders, which presents a phenomenon of love. People who search for partners to stay with them with no aim of separation intend to make themselves whole, meaning that wholeness is the product of love. Love is not about physical attractions; it is about the souls of the people that want to stay connected. The role of self-love in Aristophanes speech is to inspire people to find lovers that connect to their souls. His speech states that sex and other desires cannot fill the emptiness in ones soul, while love satisfies a person.

Alcibiades discusses Socrates, saying that the behavior of Socrates is like that of Marsyas and Silenus, where he deceives people through the use of words. The problem in the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades is that Socrates rejected the advances of Alcibiades. Socrates is interested in the beauty that exists in people; however, he does not love the person. Socrates loves chasing amazing things, such as the beauty that exists within people, which is not spoiled by unwise or ugly behavior. Therefore, he is not willing to contribute to any loving relationships as they cause unwise decisions. Alcibiades was attracted by the bravery and smartness that Socrates displayed to people. The failure of Socrates to reciprocate the feelings of Alcibiades created an argument between them. They were very close to each other in different meanings, as Socrates viewed Alcibiades as a son, while Alcibiades viewed him as a lover. The conflict caused discord in their relationships, as both had their interests and wanted different things in relationships with each other.