Socrates proposition that the unexamined life is not worth living (Plato The Apology 38a) has intrigued me for a long time. In order to develop a sufficient understanding of what this proposition means, it is necessary to recognize the specifics of the philosophers approach to philosophy and how it relates to practical life (Cotterill). The aim of this paper is to defend the position that moral or examined life is worth living.
Debate
According to Socrates, the examined life is one that is characterized by a commitment to a philosophical inquiry (Plato The Apology 38a). In other words, it is an endless pursuit of virtue, which is not possible without regularly engaging in introspection (Plato The Republic 24c; Socrates: The Good Life ). My assertion in the debate is that the only life worth living is the examined one. It can be argued that virtuous or good life starts with the Ancient Greek dictum know thyself, which requests the dismantling of the most cherished beliefs and ideas in order to separate counter-productive and false ones from those that are valuable and true ( Socrates: The Good Life ). Such a life is full of self-examination and inquiry that are often followed by either refutation or confirmation of popular convictions and ideas.
Critical analysis of ones assumptions and beliefs is essential in the information age, which is associated with a barrage of various ideas and propositions. Without engaging in regular rumination and examination of ones values and attitudes, it is impossible to determine which of them are of significant value and gravity and which are useless enough to thwart ones pursuance of virtue. My argument for the good life is partially based on my personal experience of regular, protracted introspection that has helped me to better navigate the modern world and change my assumptions about the nature of the consumption-driven economy. Proponents of the unexamined life maintain that Socrates choice to opt for the examined life and take a poisonous drink is at odds with moral systems that consider lifes value as contingent on the fulfillment of other norms and values (Preda). However, by taking this line of reasoning, it is possible to justify the existence of communist and other murderous regimes that do not operate on an individual basis, and instead, place the highest value on a well-being of a collective. Interestingly enough, even within a capitalist framework, there is plenty of space for productive rumination on its virtues. A documentary titled The 11th Hour points to numerous ills of living the unexamined lifeglobal warming, mass species extinction, and deforestation among others (Conners and Conners). Platos allegory of the cave can be used to compare the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature (Plato The Republic 514a). Those who strive to recognize reality for what it is can understand the deleterious effects of human impact on the environment and change the course of the future by reducing the harm caused by unexamined actions.
Conclusion
The only life worth living is the virtuous or examined one. It is well within human capacity to transcend instincts shaping some behaviors and make deliberate and conscious choices. By regularly engaging in introspection it is possible to learn how to act in accordance with logic and reason instead of surrendering to the urgings of basic desires. An individual that spends their time in pursuit of virtue can rightfully claim that their life is examined one and worth living.
Works Cited
Conners, Nadia, and Lelia Conners, directors. The 11th Hours. Warner Independent Pictures, 2007.
Philosophy is often called the mother of sciences. Therefore, philosophic studies provide a gripping field for investigation. This paper aims to dwell upon one of the worlds most notable philosophers Socrates and reflect upon his biography and major ideas of his doctrine, including maieutics.
Biography
It is known that Socrates was born in Athens in 470 B.C. His father was a stonemason, whereas his mother was a doula. His teacher was Anaxagoras from Clazomenae, who was one of the most famous mentors (Colaiaco 15). Socrates did not travel much and hardly ever left Athens. He participated in battles in 432 B.C. and 422 B.C and is stated to have been a brave fighter (Colaiaco 17-18). In 399 B.C. he was accused of disrespect to gods as he believed in one god. Besides, he was charged with the corruption of the young as he taught his philosophy to them (Colaiaco 21). Thirty days after the verdict, he took a cup of water-hemlock in the presence of his students Colaiaco 25).
Studies
Socrates dialogues aimed to search for true knowledge, as well as an important step to the realization of its absence and comprehension of own ignorance. According to a legend, Socrates was called the wisest of the wisest. This might be connected with his statement about the lack of human knowledge: All that we know is that we know nothing. Using the method of irony, Socrates put on the mask of a simpleton and asked somebody to teach and explain something to him. There was a serious purpose behind the game. The interlocutor was supposed to discover his/her ignorance (Shoemaker 56).
Socrates addressed the issue of the person, the matters of the persons essence and nature. He stated that it was possible to study the laws of nature and the movement of stars. However, he questioned why it was necessary to go so far. Following Delphian Oracle, Socrates said: Know thyself (Voltaire 138). It means that it is necessary to go deeper into the near, and then, through the cognition of simple things it was possible to reach the understanding of sophisticated verities. According to Socrates, the person is initially the soul. In his understanding, the soul is the mind, which is the ability to think, and the conscience, which is the moral principle. If the essence of the person is the soul, it means that this is not the body that needs special care but the soul. Therefore, any mentors most crucial purpose is to teach the person to nurture the soul. Virtues make the soul perfect. Socrates related virtues to cognition which was considered as a necessary condition to do good actions. Socrates believed that without the understanding of the essence of the good, it was not possible to know how to act for its sake. The virtue and the soul do not contradict each other. The mind is vital to discover the good, the wonderful and the just. (Taylor 78)
Apart from that, Socrates revealed the notion of happiness and possibilities of its achievement. The source of happiness is not located in the body or something external. It is situated in the soul. Therefore, the happiness does not result from the enjoyment of things from the external material world. It is tightly connected to the feeling of internal fulfilling (Voltaire 37). Hence, the person is happy when his soul is kind and well-ordered. According to Socrates, the soul is the owner of the body. This ownership is the freedom which Socrates called self-control. The person should try to gain the control over himself/herself based on the virtues: The wisdom is to master oneself, whereas the ignorance leads to the defeat from oneself (Taylor 152). Socrates never wrote down his thoughts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that this paper has considered Socrates life and doctrine. It has outlined the most significant events from the philosophers biography. Besides, it has dwelled upon the most notable ideas of his studies.
Works Cited
Colaiaco, James. Socrates Against Athens: Phylosophy on Trial. Routledge, 2013.
Shoemaker, Jonathan Mitchell. Socrates and the True Political Craft in the Gorgias. Routledge, 2015.
Taylor, Alfred Edward. Socrates. Read Books Ltd, 2013.
In most modern societies, wisdom is viewed as a combination of an intrinsic insight and years of experience and is generally lauded as the desired state of mind. Wise people are seen as authorities, and their opinions are treasured and followed as the principles that one should consider essential for a happy and fulfilling life. However, the concept of wisdom is not a social constant and, thus may vary depending on ones values and philosophy. Keeping Socrates ideas in mind, I believe that my friends grandfather is the wisest person in my community since even in the times of social conflicts he promotes the ideas of compromise and cooperation, thus encouraging a peaceful resolution of any issue.
When applying the allegory of the cave as told by Socrates to the interviewee, I must admit that my friends grandfather neither would turn away from the truth nor would be shocked by it. Instead, he would observe it calmly and accept it as an integral and inevitable part of life. From the standpoint of proactiveness and the willingness to change the world for the better, the specified approach toward managing complex issues might be seen as the sign of weakness.
However, it seems that the ability to recognize the point at which one cannot influence the current state of affairs and, instead, focus on what can be changed is the sign of true wisdom. Rather than taking immediate actions, the interviewee would observe and make conclusions to finally arrive at the decision that seems most sensible. Therefore, I believe that this person is wise since he can align his priorities and refuses to focus on the negative issues that he cannot change. His proverbial peacefulness and willingness to compromise add to the overall impression of him being extraordinarily wise.
In addition, approaching the philosophical stance of the interviewee from the perspective of Socrates Apology, one will also have to admit that the interviewed man is very wise. Specifically, my friends grandfather showed no inclination to believe that his own opinion or life position could be defined as wise. Instead, he pointed to several issues that he deemed as philosophical and ethical flaws, thus being entirely certain that his philosophy required further improvements.
The identified phenomenon could be attributed to the interviewees humbleness; however, after a series of questions, it became clear that he was quite objective about his beliefs and philosophy. Therefore, the respondents recognition of the flaws in his arguments and the willingness to address them can be regarded as another sign of wisdom.
Finally, referring to Socrates opinion on Platos Symposium, one will have to agree that the interviewees wisdom is largely defined by his ability to experience, express, and share love. The respondents very personality was based on the idea of love, which stretched from having warm feelings to others to being protective and supportive toward family members. Thus, the interviewee proved to be a very wise person.
Following the traditional expectations of wisdom, the interviewee was very peaceful and focused on the idea of a compromise as the means of resolving both external and internal conflicts. His ability to embrace the principles of love and understanding, as well as the skills of resolving complex dilemmas by searching for the objective truth, are worth appreciation and have to be recognized as the manifestation of wisdom. Embodying the ideas of nonconfrontation and compromise, his philosophy is worth being considered exemplary.
In the book I of the republic, why does Socrates think that it is never just for one person to injure another, whether a friend or an enemy?
In their dialogue, Socrates and Polemarchus discuss what may be considered the philosophical implications of the notion of justice. According to Polemarchus, this notion can be defined in terms of ones ability to treat good people well and to strive to harm those, who due to being wicked, deserve to be treated wickedly. Socrates challenges this point of view by suggesting that it is in ones very nature to make wrong judgments, as to what can be deemed his friends and enemies. In other words, there can be no 100% guarantee that, while referring to a particular person as an enemy, one will be acting in a thoroughly appropriate manner. The same applies to a persons commitment to treat its friends in the best way possible the individuals in question may not be just as friendly, as it appears to be the case.
What it means is that, while living up to Polemarchuss view on justice, people will inevitably contribute to increasing the amount of injustice in the world. This, of course, implies that the mentioned definition of justice cannot be thought of as such that represents an undisputed truth-value.
While continuing to argue that it is never justified for one person to be trying to injure another, Socrates points out the fact that the very assumption that wicked people deserve to be punished, does not hold much water. In this respect, he comes up with the example of a would-be-punished horse, which in the punishments aftermath will not cease being what it is. The same can be said about people being subjected to punishment, will not result in the qualitative transformation of their existential essence. What it means is that injuring others for the sake of reestablishing justice, cannot be considered a right thing to do, by definition.
According to Socrates, the earlier mentioned considerations mean only one thing a truly virtuous individual will be trying to do his best while treating others regardless of whether the would-be-affected individuals happened to be his friends or enemies. This, of course, establishes certain discursive parallels between the philosophy of Socrates, in respect of how it tackles the notion of justice, and that of Jesus.
In the book I of the republic, what is Socrates reply to Thrasymachuss idea that unjust people are stronger and more powerful than just people?
While trying to convince Thrasymachos that there can be very little rationale in believing that unjust individuals are being more powerful, as opposed to what happened to be the case with their fair counterparts, Socrates mentions the following:
a) Ones tendency to treat others unjustly is nothing but an indication of the concerned individuals perceptual arrogance. Consequently, those who happened to be arrogant cannot possibly expect that, while confronting wise people, they will be able to gain an upper hand. The reason for this is apparent perceptually arrogant people will be less likely to adopt a circumstantially appropriate stance while facing a particular challenge, as compared to their not-so-arrogant counterparts.
b) Individuals, known for their unjust ways, will inevitably end up having a particularly hard time while trying to cooperate. The reason for this is that, while treating others unfairly, people automatically expose themselves as such that can be hardly trusted. Enough, this will not result in anything else but in undermining these peoples ability to form alliances with each other, which in turn will hurt the measure of their existential competitiveness.
c) Just as it happened to be the case with different parts of ones body, there is a clearly defined purpose to the existence of a person, as a whole. However, since an individuals life is being commonly discussed in the evaluative terms (good/bad), this presupposes that there must be an intrinsic quality to just about anyones soul. Consequently, this can be seen as the proof that, even though many unjust people do prove themselves rather effective, when it comes to claiming their place under the Sun, their success, in this respect, is being of a rather tactical than strategic nature. This, of course, implies that only evenhanded people can be considered truly powerful.
As the final proof to the validity of the idea that it is much better to be a just individual, as opposed to being an unjust one, Socrates mentions the fact that ones strong commitment to the virtue of justice qualifies the concerned individual to be able to experience happiness something that is being commonly perceived as the actual purpose of just about anyones life.
In Phaedo, Socrates maintains that to engage in philosophy is to practice dying. Explain what he means and why he says this
In the Phaedo, Socrates proclaims that to be considered a true philosopher, one must be attracted to the idea of dying. The line of Socratess reasoning, in this respect, can be outlined as follows:
All of the people, suggests Socrates, are endowed with some kind of intrinsic knowledge, which they seem to possess since the time of their birth, and which can be recalled, during the process of them interacting with the physical emanations of the surrounding reality. Socrates compares it to how people instantly recall their loved ones, after having caught sight of some physical item that used to belong to them. Therefore, our whole lives are nothing but the process of recollecting our long-lost essence, as individuals. In its turn, this implies that we have existed before ending up incarnated in our present physical bodies. This brings Socrates to conclude that ones soul is nothing but a thing-in-itself, much like the ideas of beauty, ugliness, tallness, hungriness, perfection, etc. To substantiate this idea, Plato refers to fire as an example. Fire relates to the notion of heat, but never to the notion of coldness. The same can be said about the soul since the notion of the soul is synonymous with the notion of life, the former cannot possess the subtleties of death, by definition. In its turn, this implies that ones soul exists forever quite unlike what happened to be the case with his or her body.
This, of course, implies both: that the soul is immortal and that philosophically-minded individuals should not be afraid of the thought of dying. After all, in light of the above stated, the concerned process can be well-referred to as being enlightening, in the sense of allowing a philosopher to come closer to understanding how the universe operates. According to Socrates, it is specifically an individuals commitment to trying to grow ever wiser about the ways of the world, which stands out as the clearest indication that he is indeed a highly virtuous person. Because, as it was pointed out earlier, whatever is being commonly referred to as the soul Socrates proclaims to be the source of all knowledge, this naturally brought him to conclude that, while living their lives, the wisdom-seeking philosophers should try to remain as much detached from their bodies, as possible. Hence, the beneficence of dying it is something that brings this detachment to a completely new level.
Explain Socrates three objections to the harmony theory of the soul that simmers puts forward in Phaedo?
According to Simmias, ones soul can be compared to the harmony of sounds, created by a playing harp. This, however, means that the soul is mortal just as there can be no music without a harp, there can be no soul without a body. While challenging this idea, Socrates came up with the following objections:
a) In this world, there is a dialectical relationship between what appear to be two mutually opposite notions. For example, whatever is currently being deemed big, must have been small at some point in its existence. This presupposes that these types of notions organically derive out of each other, which in turn supports the idea of the souls immortality ones birth can be discussed as such that came about because the concerned individual died in another body back in the past.
b) There are many notions, the discursive significance of which we recognize instantaneously, despite have not been provided with the chance to attain any experiential knowledge, in this respect. This, of course, presupposes both: the existence of non-material ideas as things-in-themselves and the possibility for ones soul to be immortal. After all, the most logical explanation to the mentioned phenomena is that, as they live their lives, people simply recall things something that could not possibly be the case, had the soul been solely the attribute of a persons physical body.
c) Had the conceptualization of the soul as harmony (which implies its mortality) been legitimate, the physical state of ones body would have a direct effect on the aspirations of his or her soul, just as the physical state of a harp affects the quality of music it plays. This, however, is far from being the case. After all, there are many people that despite being through their advanced years, nevertheless appear to be young at heart. What is more, in many cases people appear to be fully capable of acting in a manner that can hardly be considered beneficial to their physical bodies something that comes as a result of the concerned individuals ability to exercise control over their animalistic urges. This again suggests that the soul is not solely the property of the affiliated body it is something that makes this body to act in one way or another, which in turn presupposes the superiority of spirit over the flesh.
In book VII of the republic, what is Socrates explanation of the meaning of the parable of this cave?
In Book VII of the Republic, Socrates engages in dialogue with Platos brother Glaucon, while trying to enlighten the latter onto the true essence of ontological knowledge, as an objective category. He presents Glaucon with the vision of the cave, which contains prisoners chained to the walls. These prisoners had spent their whole lives inside of this cave ever since the time they were born, with only the link that was connecting them to the outside have been the shadows of people moving in front of the caves entrance, projected onto the wall in front of prisoners eyes. Given the fact that the prisoners had never been outside of this cave, the shadows of moving objects they are being exposed to and also the sounds, associated with these objects, are only the mean for them to make judgments about the realities of the outside world. It is needless to say, of course, that the prisoners idea as to what this world might be all about, would have very little to do with the actual state of affairs, in this respect. Thus, Socrates implies that our sensory perception of the surrounding environment may not necessarily be thoroughly adequate, because it can be well assumed that what we see with our eyes is being only partially reflective of the perceived objects true essence, as abstract ideas.
After having established the conceptual premise of his argument, Socrates moves on to describe what will happen if a few prisoners end up being allowed to venture outside of the cave. According to the philosopher, as a consequence of this, these prisoners will end up regarding their former worldviews thoroughly fallacious, because they would realize that the world outside of the cave is so much more than they used to think of it. As a result, the concerned individuals will experience the sensation of awe/happiness, which in turn will prompt them to try to educate the rest of the prisoners in the cave that the world is not what they believed it was. The enlightened prisoners, however, would not be able to succeed in it the rest of the imprisoned individuals will simply end up calling them liars.
Hence, the discursive significance of the allegory of the cave we are being surrounded by the invisible (metaphysical) reality, the existence of which one may construe from several what can be considered this existences implicit signs. The fact that this reality cannot be perceived directly does not make it less real. It is understood, of course, that this justifies the quasi-religious outlook on what may account for ones life.
Describe Socrates method of Elenchus. How does he use it to search for truth?
Socrates favorite method of eliciting responses from those he talked to is known as Socratic Method or elenchus. Socrates did not lay claim to knowledge, instead he went around the city of Athens, meeting and questioning people about religious and moral issues. It was intended to convince Athenians that they were ignorant of things that they thought that they knew.
Socrates would curiously pose questions to his interlocutors in a kind of cross-examination, which could strengthen his position on mostly epistemological and moral matters. In elenchus, a response to a question elicits subsequent questions. Inconsistencies in responses lead to a determination of truth of earlier statements; in short a question is broken down to a series of smaller questions in order to ultimately arrive at a more refined for answer for Socrates
Seeking a definition of piety, Socrates stumbles upon what has come to be known as the problem of divine command. Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? According to this reasoning, why is the relationship between the divine and the good so Problematic?
In his pursuit of truth, Socrates stumbles upon a problem of divine command: whether morally acts are determined by God because they are morally good or they are morally good simply because they are determined by God. The big question here is Gods role in what is considered morally good. The relationship between the good and divine is investigated; whether morally good acts are desired by God because they are good morally. If that is the case, then such acts are morally good irrespective of Gods will which downplays the need to worship God because his ability to determine what is good or not is diminished in that instance. On the other hand, if acts are morally good because of Gods will, then such acts are dependent on him. In this case, Gods moral good is not as important as what he holds to be good which might diminish importance of worshipping him because all that counts is what he hold to be morally good. People will stop at determining what is morally good on the basis of the fact that God in himself determines what is morally good or not due to his divine nature. Both arguments therefore lead to consequences that present contradictory nature of good and divine. This reasoning presents the problematic nature of this argument since it has two alternatives which refute the very reasoning behind the original statement. How define what is moral without reference to God?
At the end of the eythyphro, as in many other Socratic dialogues, nothing is really resolved. What value do such exchanges have when in the end, inevitably, it is clear that nobody understands anything? What is the message that Plato is trying to send here?
The dilemma is however important as it sparks an inquiry about piety. It lays the basis for development and explanation of theories on divinity. By presenting this dialogue, Plato is trying to lead us in to an understanding of elenchus. Plato is showing that Socrates elenchus did not always lead to solutions; sometimes it led to more controversy or a chance to examine an issue more closely as seen in this case.
Why did Socrates use of elenchus lead to his arrest? In what way does this reveal, according to Plato, what most people really care about? Would you agree that the unexamined life is not worth living ? Thinking critically, in your opinion, what is the measure of a life well lived?
Continued use of elenchus by Socrates leads to his arrest and trial in Athens. He is accused of misleading the youth. For his accusers, his methods of inquiry are annoying since he challenges what they hold as truths. During his trial, he confirms the widely held opinion of an irritant when he informs the jury that he has been searching for a wise man and there is no wiser man than he is. He details how he has traversed Athens in search of a wiser man but has not come across any. He has been meeting people who are extremely proud of themselves yet they do not know much about themselves, he has surely confirmed that he is the wisest since he knows that he knows very little. It is possible that such people would have wanted to get rid of a perennial nuisance who, in their eyes, pretended to know everything. According to Plato, this revealed that most people cared about are material things and do not spare a thought about the well being of their souls; a view he shares with Socrates. He alleges that people are more concerned with wealth and earthly happiness but have no consideration for eternal happiness which is more important.
In as much as I would have disagreed with some aspects of Socrates life, I share his attitude towards life. He believed in self enrichment through pursuit of knowledge and the truth and shunned preoccupation with material things. To him, true happiness would be achieved if one possessed virtue. It is for this reason that he dedicated his life to what he considered to be true good. Socrates believed that people should be loyal to the state, which I concur with. It is important to give selfless service to ones nation to which one owes allegiance. Worldly matters should take a back seat to the integrity of ones character
During the trial, Socrates turns down a plan for his escape even as it becomes clear that what lies ahead is nothing short of a death sentence. He in turn urges his colleagues to move on in their pursuit of what he calls self knowledge. He will not be forced in to silence and neither will he give up on his quest. He states that unexamined life is not worth living; implying that he would rather die than stop his philosophical inquiry. I agree with him entirely. For one to have a fruitful life on earth, it is important to question the order, status quo, trends, traditions, personal beliefs and all other aspects of life. The strong statement about human life is revolutionary. Socrates states that life is based on spiritual growth, which entails an examination or reflection of life itself. It calls for dialoguing with a view to revealing undesirable spots.
A life well lived is one, short or long, which is full of happiness that emanates from self discovery. Human beings are endowed with immense intellectual powers. Of what use is an inquiry about matter and what surrounds us if we do not inquire about ourselves. An understanding of self is the beginning of knowledge: a characteristic of good life. Material possessions, education and money may facilitate life but they do not by themselves, enrich it. Compassion towards others, spirituality, health and a god relationship with state are important for achieving genuine happiness. When one lives such a life, it is not difficult to face death, as was the case with Socrates, who felt that he had fulfilled what he needed to.
Although the utility of so extensive a doubt is not readily apparent, nevertheless its greatest utility lies in freeing us of all prejudices&.
Descartes first mediation helps us free our minds from prejudices by encouraging us to doubt everything. According to Descartes, we should doubt everything including what we have learned, and what we have always believed to be true. For example, most of us believed that God exists, but Descartes argues that we should doubt such assumptions, and start to seek knowledge afresh. Another reason Descartes encourages us to doubt everything is that we acquire most of our knowledge through senses, which are imperfect and deceitful. An example that may prove this fact is dreams.
When we are dreaming, we can never tell whether the events we are experiencing are real. Therefore, dreams are a result of our senses deceiving us, and also this may happen when we are awake. Doubting everything, according to Descartes, helps us get rid of prejudices, and enables us to start acquiring real knowledge. However, Descartes also cautions that we should not doubt basic components that make material things such as size, shape, amount, and time. In Apology, we learn that Socrates also advises us not to accept knowledge without doubting. For example, he admits that the youth of Athens should not believe in gods that the majority in the city are worshiping.
Like Descartes, Socrates also believed that we should free our minds from prejudices. He stated that for us to acquire knowledge and wisdom, we should start by admitting that we know nothing. Doubting is useful because with its help we can separate facts from false information and hearsay. However, doubting everything as proposed by Descartes is wrong because it may make us discard almost all of our knowledge.
&.in preparing the easiest way for us to withdraw the mind from the senses
Descartes questions and doubts the things we have always accepted as facts, and the issues we perceive through our senses. Ignoring things we perceive through our senses prevents our minds from being influenced by sensory experiences. Moreover, Descartes argues that we should discard our initial knowledge that is mainly acquired through senses, and start acquiring real knowledge through introspection. The concept of introspection is based on the belief that knowledge is innate to humans, and if we think hard we may find answers to everything. Empiricists like Plato and Descartes advocate for the withdrawal of the mind from senses because they believe that human beings are born with some concepts, for example, the knowledge that God exists.
In Phaedo, Socrates stipulates that everything we see in the world is a reflection of the perfect form that exists in our minds. This means that Socrates encourages people not to pay attention to what they perceive through their senses because they are inferior forms. Just like Descartes, Socrates also advocates for the withdrawal of the mind from senses because perfect knowledge exists in the mind. Socrates considers that the soul is immaterial, and belongs to the world of forms.
According to Socrates, knowledge emanates from the soul because the soul is capable of perceiving the universal truths. Descartes helps us understand Socrates arguments by stating that humans possess an immaterial mind that performs the same function as the soul, i.e. thinking. According to these two scholars, knowledge emanates from the mind/soul and anything perceived through senses is deceitful and should be doubted.
&.and finally, in making it impossible for us to doubt any further those things we later discover to be true.
In mediation II to VI, Descartes tries to find out the truth through several doubts. He outlines that what he sees and perceives does not exist, and he even goes ahead to conclude that the physical world including his own body does not exist. In his quest for the truth, Descartes acknowledges that there is only one thing that exists, the mind. According to Descartes, the mind thinks, and this is what confirms his existence. This is captured in his famous statement I think, therefore I am . In Phaedo, Socrates also disputes the existence of the physical world and argues that everything exists in our minds. Therefore, the truth cannot be perceived through senses, but through introspection.
The new quest for the truth by Descartes and Socrates is not that successful because these two scholars undermine the role physical experience plays in gaining knowledge or knowing the truth. Descartes doubts the existence of the physical world, but human beings learn what they know from the world. We acquire all our knowledge through experience that comes from the physical world. According to philosophers like Kant, knowledge is not innate to humans. Moreover, it is the experience that comes from the physical world and enables us to acquire knowledge and know the truth.
Kant and other relativists state that at birth the human brain is like a blank slate, and it does not have any preconceived concepts apart from certain instincts. It is the experience from the physical world that writes on the human brain and gives humans knowledge. Relativists dispute the idea that we should doubt everything and disregard information that we receive through our senses. Therefore, we may never know the truth by doubting everything or completely undermining the role of our senses and the physical world.
If you follow Socrates advice you will have an unsatisfactory life. He does not arrive at any particular conclusion. You must accept that you are ignorant and can never know. One constantly strives for truth but never finds it. This makes for a frustrating, unsatisfactory life. You would have a more satisfactory life by simply accepting the beliefs and values of the society that you grow up in.
As long as philosophy exists different thinkers try to define the boundaries of human knowledge. Socrates strivings to understand the limits of wisdom present especial interest for the learner. Someone might consider Socrates position as far as the problem of human knowledge is concerned a rather controversial one, some believe that it lacks human sense; others suppose that it leads to an unsatisfactory life.
As for me, I am inclined to think that Socrates views on human knowledge and truth are logic and reasonable. The Greek philosopher thought that people always strive for truth but never find it. This happens because of their ignorance. According to Socrates, people should accept that they are ignorant and never know. The only thing where they can be considered wise is their awareness of their own ignorance. The latter serves as a driving force for human wrongdoings. If a person did wrong it means, going by Socrates, that he or she knew no better.
As for the philosophers own knowledge, he never called himself a wise person, as he understood that there are countless steps that a lover of wisdom (that is, philosopher) should take in pursuing wisdom.
Socrates theory appeals to me very much. For several times in the course of life I became convinced in the fact that the more a person knows the more he or she needs to know. Once a person acquires some new knowledge numerous opportunities are offered to him/her to apply it. But as the scope of knowledge broadens, this person realizes more and more aspects of it that she or he is not aware of. Therefore, there exists a constant challenge for the learner who, if ambitious enough, strives to face it with flying colors. If this does not happen a person should not give up and should keep on trying to fill in the gaps in ones knowledge. I do realize that one cannot know everything in the world but there are no limits to human striving for perfection.
I do not agree with those who say that understanding of human inability to cover all fields of human knowledge makes people unhappy and turns their lives into frustrating and unsatisfactory. Personally I when face some difficulty in this or that field, try to do my best to acquire the necessary knowledge. Thus, my life becomes full of imaginary steps to go up. The more valuable information I get, swallow and digest , the higher I ascend the staircase of my personal development. And realization that I will never achieve perfection does not poison my life, but, on the contrary, fills it with a sense to keep on living.
Nearly the same goes with the problem of truth. None can answer the question of what truth is and where it can be found. Socrates always stressed that humanity constantly strives for truth but never finds it. Truth in this sense is close to the knowledge I have talked above. But the difference is that the dimensions of knowledge are more definite than the dimensions of truth. The latter is a more subjective concept than the concept of knowledge. And, as a result, to achieve perfection in it is much more difficult.
Different people have different views on truth: what is true for ones, will be considered as absolutely unacceptable for others. Actually, in this contradiction the main problems of humanity are rooted. If we imagine that all people have the same notion of truth humanity will forget about misunderstandings that cause numerous conflicts. But this sounds too idealistic and will never be applicable to our life.
When Socrates spoke of impossibility to grasp the truth he did not imply that humanity should accept the situation. In Phaedrus Socrates reveals his views on truth: he states that first and foremost a man should know the truth about any subject he deals with, as he has to be able to define it at least generally. Then, after defining it, the man will be able to define it into the smallest pieces until he reaches the limit of divisibility. Therefore, according to Socrates, people should start with acquiring the general idea of the thing and then specify it to get to the point.
Socrates position that the only absolute truth is that there is no truth might find a lot of exemplifications in modern life. Especially it concerns issues that always remain controversial. For example, if we consider the problem of abortion, we will see that there is no absolute truth here. Supporters of anti-abortion views claim that potential mothers should give birth no matter what their physical, social and economic conditions are. They are convinced that delivery is not a problem of personal concern, a potential mother is not empowered to choose whether to have a baby or to kill it, rather, this is the problem of the whole society where the mother lives in.
Opponents of this position view the problem in a more comprehensive way. They take into account the conditions that the first group disregards. So, where is the absolute truth in this case? I am inclined to believe that the answer is nowhere. The absolute truth does not exist. And if it really existed we all would live in a sort of idealistic society. This would be a society where all members are blind and deaf, as they do not need any organs of perception because everything is clearly determined, taken for granted and does not require an investigation.
Socrates opponents claim that for a person it would be better to simply accept the beliefs and values of the society that he or she grows up in, without checking them and seeking for alternate truth. Being a person who always seeks for truth though realizes that there is no absolute type of it, I cannot agree with this position. I cannot imagine myself blindly following the rules of the society without checking them for validity. I suppose that in my strivings to understand this world better my personal search for truth consists in. Step by step, it goes along with my becoming wiser.
I am thankful to Socrates who raised up the burning issues of knowledge and truth in his philosophical doctrine. He is known as a man who asked a lot of questions and I believe that they were destined to lead others to truth. My personal strivings for knowledge and truth encouraged by Socrates theory make my life full of various questions to answer, and, in the long run, make it painted with bright colors. And this is really essential, isnt it?
The portrayal of Socrates in various novels and plays differs according to the epoch and according to the writer who describes him. It is argued, that the three most well-known literary works which portray the image of this philosopher are The last days of Socrates The Apology and The Clouds . All three works show the image of Socrates in different ways, and each emphasizes different details.
Accomplishing the first claim of the assignment, it is necessary to emphasize, that Socrates as a historical person is viewed as the philosopher and sage who always lived in poverty, and Socrates is often regarded as the archetype of the heroic professor. An analysis of the career, character, and teaching methods of Socrates is used to identify essential qualities which define the professoriate. Further, the example of Socrates can inform and inspire our teaching today. It must be said, however, that Socrates was the author of the Theory of Ideas. Strictly speaking, of course, Plato was the author of none of his doctrines, which are identical with the wisdom revealed by the ancient Hindu sages. The Platonic shapes or archetypes were symbols of the world as it existed in Universal Mind, as pointed out in The Secret Doctrine I, 200. The devotion to the Platonic account of Socrates makes him presume that the Theory of Forms or Ideas was an innovation of Platos teacher, as the doctrine is pronounced by Socrates in the dialogues. It seems probable that this highly metaphysical clarification of the nature of belongings originated with Plato and only was stood for by him as being skilled by Socrates. Aristotle, who had no motive to hide the truth of this theme, says in his Metaphysics that Socrates occupied himself only with issues of ethical philosophy and that Plato commenced both the name and the commencement of the Ideas. It is said that Socrates is often pictured, insofar as philosophical teaching is concerned, as Socrates as comes into view in Platos writings, and not Socrates the historical character.
Although there is a bit of the real Socrates in the Clouds by Aristophanes in the character of the same name in the play, it is clear that Aristophanes description of Socrates in the Clouds is in good part a comedian deformation. Socrates was a well-known person in Athens who was commonly distinguished as an intellectual. Aristophanes, taking benefit of this fashionable awareness, randomly places him at the head of the Thinkery, in which topics such as rhetoric and astronomy are taught. As will happen to be evident in the Apology and the Republic, Socrates was not a tutor of rhetoric or any of the other subjects taught in the Thinkery. He was not alarmed with teaching students to attain material achievement through rhetoric; in fact, his main attention was to hearten young men toward religious, not material development. Despite Socrates atheism in the Clouds, he was not a scorner at conventional religion, but a dutiful believer in the gods.
Strepsiades
Ive been ravaged by diseaseIm horse sick. Its draining me most dreadfully. But please teach me one of your two styles of arguing, the one which never has to discharge any debt. Whatever payment you want me to make, I promise you Ill payby all the gods.
Socrates
What gods do you intend to swear by? To start with, the gods hold no currency with us. (Clouds, p. 22)
Plato in his Apology has assumed that either we must appreciate the influence or obey doctrine as leaving open the option of justified noncompliance or we should convict Socrates of totalitarianism and self-challenge. It is meant in the following passage Well, then, I will make my defense, and I will endeavor in the short time which is allowed to do away with this evil opinion of me which you have held for such a long time; and I hope I may succeed, if this be well for you and me, and that my words may find favor with you. But I know that to accomplish this is not easy I quite see the nature of the task. Let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defense. (Apology, p.3)
Aristophanes and Plato devote so much attention to Socrates, as they both were not indifferent to this character. Plato was Socrates student, and Aristophanes decided that it would be unfair to leave such a well-known personality without attention, and also envy played some role, as Aristophanes probably wanted to surpass Socrates in wisdom and popularity.
The genres of the regarded works are claimed to shape the image of the main characters in different ways. The comedian genre of The Clouds shows the comic character of Socrates to deride Socrates wish to study and to cover as many spheres as possible in his studies.
The philosophical dialogue/ monologue of The Apology shows Platos respect for the teacher, and reveals the details of the philosophical thoughts that could be missed in the records of those monologues.
It is necessary to mention that The Apology is often regarded as the kind of exaggeration, where Socrates is viewed too perfect and too much respect by Plato is shown. But it is necessary to underline, that this aspect is present in the work, but the main emphasis is not on this. It is claimed to transfer the thoughts of the great sage through the centuries.
References
Plato, Harold Tarrant 1993 The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro; The Apology Penguin Classics Aristophanes, William Arrowsmith, Richmond Lattimore, Douglas Parker 1994 Four Plays by Aristophanes: The Birds; The Clouds; The Frogs; Lysistrata Plume Taylor, C. C. W. Socrates A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
In the dialogue between Socrates and Meno, the two men start their discussion with the definition of virtue (Plato 1). It occurred, however, that virtue is complicated to define in its global sense. Accordingly, the philosophers came up with an idea that in order to understand what is virtue, they should understand if the virtue can be taught or is it a natural gift. The discussion showed that the history had no examples of teachers, who would be able to explain the virtue to their students (Plato 28). Consequently, if there were no teachers, who could teach people how to be courageous, wise or tolerant, and the virtue itself would not be studied.
Socrates put forward the idea that it is not necessary to study a subject in order to know it. To prove his theory, he talked to a slave boy about the geometry and, by the set of leading questions, he pursued the boy to give logically-granted, right answers about the subject, which he had never studied (Plato 18). Socrates called this phenomenon a recollection. He explained it by the statement that our soul is immortal and, whereas our body dies, the soul continues to live and collect the information about the surrounding world. Accordingly, it is possible that the soul, which lives in our body, had numerous previous lives, during which it was able to obtain the knowledge of geometry. Thus, the slave boy was able to answer the questions intuitively, without actually studying the subject.
The same explanation is right in regards to true belief or true opinion. A person may have a true opinion, which is not grounded upon any knowledge or experience. The true opinion is just an inner voice, which is telling the right answer or the right way in the majority of cases. The true opinion, however, may be false. It happens, when our surroundings or circumstances change and make our true opinion change as well. Accordingly, under such conditions, our previous true opinion happens to be false.
Knowledge, on the other hand, is a constant virtue. We acquire knowledge through learning and it does not change with the flow of time. Socrates explained the difference between true opinion and knowledge by saying that true opinion is something that we had tethered to us by force. While it stays tethered, it can be helpful; however, once the chains are removed, the true opinion is not able to assist us in making the rightful decision. The knowledge is tethered to us voluntarily; accordingly, it cannot leave us and will always help us to act rightfully. This is what makes knowledge be a virtue.
Judging from the above, can we claim that knowledge is more significant and precious than true opinion? Definitely, knowledge is the grounded experience, which has proved its importance throughout the centuries.
However, as we remember, Socrates considered knowledge to be a virtue and he had proved that virtues cannot be taught (Plato 33). This leads the discussion to the conclusion that most politicians or men, who have the authority to administer the lives of others, are guided by true belief, rather than knowledge. This allows us to draw a parallel between true opinion and divination, because prophets usually say or do the right things, without having any explainable basis under them.
To sum it up, the discussion between Socrates and Meno ended by claiming that the majority of the important deeds were produced under the true opinion, rather than knowledge. However, knowledge is much more precious, than true opinion, because only the knowledge is able to stay true under changing circumstances and the flow of time.
Works Cited
Plato, Meno, South Australia: The University of Adelaide Library, 2010. Ebooks.
The video of interest is that by Demizmue, who gives a history of sophistry. The video shows that Socrates is not a sophist. Therefore, he is a role model for successively arguing that truth is not relative. Socrates stands out from the rest of the philosophers of his time. The case is so because of his unique way of thinking about reality, human nature, and existence.
Socrates was murdered for having a different perspective on life and society from the general public. He questioned the status quo by differing from the sophistry. Notably, sophistry refers to the art of developing persuasive but eventually misleading and fallacious arguments (Demizmue, 2020). Sophistry resulted from the widespread notion of the time that truth was relative. As a result, the philosophers believed in the independence of their opinions and the right for others not to infringe, mock, or question their worldviews. For instance, Protagoras convinced people that truth depends on the ability of an individual to convince others about a given concept regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) embedded in the reasoning (Demizmue, 2020).
However, as Demizmue (2020) informs, sophistry brought about a conundrum about the relationship between law and nature, the social and natural world, nomos and physics. The puzzle made people have opposing and irreconcilable claims about different things in areas of religion, politics, and art.
However, Socrates believes that truth is not relative, and through continuous investigation, one may become exposed to the truth about a given subject. Socrates idea of non-relative truth made him conflict with many people from different fields and backgrounds because he believed that only God was all-knowing, and people needed to accept that man is not a measure of all things. Socrates believes that nature had more answers in pursuing truth than man. In this context, a man refers to either an individual or a group of people with commonality, such as working in the same profession. Socrates found out that people know most things about a given subject. Therefore, they remain clueless about numerous things.
Therefore, it was improper for people to depend on their relative perception of truth since they do not have the whole perspective. For instance, he asserted that he is better than politicians, artisans, and poets because he has consulted them all and has a wider scope of knowledge than the others. He stated, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know (The Center for Hellenistic Studies, 2020). His idea was that sociological constructions do not represent the truth as much nature does, and it is through the naturally existing curiosity of humankind that truth can become known.
For this reason, he revolutionized the focus of philosophy from looking at the outside world to concentrating on peoples inner selves (History, 2019). As a result, he dismissed the idea that human beings have a weakness of will. Based on self-reflection, he argued that people always have the power to resist what they know is wrong or bad, but they weigh the benefits and costs of their actions to decide what to do (History, 2019).
The idea is correct (truth) because it remains a significant concept in criminology called the rational choice theory. In other words, criminals are not weak in choosing the right thing to do, but they weigh the possibility and repercussions of punishment for committing a crime and evaluate it against the benefits to decide whether to offend others. As such, Socrates brought forth the idea that there is a single truth about each subject, but it takes humility to accept one does not know everything to begin understanding reality objectively. He modeled the philosophy of inner reflection to understand the world.