The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is focused on the definition of piety or holiness and is set up in a humorous and sarcastic tone. Socrates pretends to be unknowing of a seemingly straightforward concept of piety and asks Euthyphro to educate him on what it really means.
In the end, it is shown that neither come to a certain conclusion and Euthyphro realizes that he does not have a slightest clue what piety really means, which leads him to leave in frustration.
The dialogue is significant because it makes one think of the definition and understanding of piety, as well as the amount of knowledge a person has.
When Socrates and Euthyphro meet, they are both at court for their own trials. Euthyphro came to lay charges of manslaughter against his father for careless actions and negligence that led to a death of another man. Socrates came because he wants to charge Meletus.
The true reasons that each one has are questioned and so, Socrates asks Euthyphro how can he really know what is right and holy. Euthyphro shows that he is very knowledgeable and begins to tell Socrates what it means.
The fact that it is so hard to define, makes the man confused even more and a realization emerges that it is not as simple as one might think.
The first definition that Euthyphro gives pertains to his own actions and that it is the right thing to do. Socrates points out that his actions cannot be a definition of the concept, as actions are merely an example of the qualities that the method or definition contains.
The second definition given by Euthyphro defines piety as being “pleasing” in the eyes of the Gods and for them. But Socrates questions the definition of the word “pleasing” and asks how all Gods can agree on one explanation.
Socrates creates a doubt that Gods will disagree on the justifications of someone’s actions and it would be almost impossible to prove what was really beneficial or not.
The third definition that Euthyphro offers is centered on the sacrifices that people give to Gods, as well as prayers and respect. But Socrates responds with a question of how can sacrifices that humans make to Gods be of benefit to such high beings.
Euthyphro responds that they do not need any factual gain but must be simply in approval. This makes the argument return to the beginning where it was established that it is impossible to define what is approved by the Gods and by which standards or criteria (Plato, 2010).
In this dialogue and arguments Socrates wants to show Euthyphro that not everything is as simple as it might seem and that certain important things and definitions must be given a lot of thought and explaining before acting in accordance.
Socrates gives a type of his own definition but then questions his reasoning. This shows that his end goal was to establish the truth that there is no quick and concrete definition but one must be acquired through a lot of knowledge and comprehension.
Socrates demonstrates that this is his real point through his argumentation and own questioning. He is aware that it is extremely difficult for humans to define something so vast and complex and so, all he wants to do is contemplate, in order to come to a more specific answer.
This is seen through the fact that Socrates uses sarcasm and cyclical argumentation. He builds upon the previous reversion of Euthyphro’s argument and establishes how little information and fact it presents.
Piety or holiness, as Socrates mentions, has a lot to do with ethics, virtue and justice. The definition must be universal, as the laws of kindness and morality do not change through time. One of the most important criteria of piety is understanding and forgiveness.
Anything that is holy is based on the highest moral principles and understanding that people will make mistakes. There is somewhat of a separation between what humans define as holy and what the just principles of the universe are.
Humanity is rather young in its development and it is obvious that morals and ethics do not rule the world. Even though there are wars and misunderstandings, self-sacrifice, honor and kindness towards others stay the same through time and space.
To be truly virtuous, ethical and holy, a person must be able to look beyond the self and possess the ability to choose the greater good. Even in the case where one must sacrifice own well being and benefits, the right thing to do would be to choose over personal wants and needs.
But at the same time, it is possible to question what the greater good is and who the most correct person to define the highest moral principles is (Gardiner, 2005).
Is the greater morality important for the largest amount of people or is it an individual who is the most important entity in the definition?
Also, is it humanity that is most valuable in existence or could it be the planet, animals and other living creatures? It is evident that holiness is difficult to define and this is exactly what Socrates has established.
References
Gardiner, S. (2005). Virtue Ethics, Old And New. Ithaca, United States: Cornell University Press.
Plato. (2010). Euthyphro. San Francisco, United States: Cathal Woods.
To get a better understanding of why Socrates thought that Athenian democracy was unjust, a brief overview of Athenian democracy is needed. In Athens, only citizens were allowed to take part in debates and vote on issues of public concern. This sounds like a great idea and makes one wonder why all states did not adopt such a great system. Well, the answer to this is that Athens’ description of a ‘citizen’ is less than perfect. A citizen consisted of only “Athenian men who held property. Women, slaves, and foreigners resident in Athens were not allowed to participate in public debate or to vote in the Assembly”. (Plato, 65).
Socrates’ beliefs
Socrates believed that the Oligarchic system in Sparta and Crete was better administered than the democratic system in Athens. This is not to say, however, that he did not love living in Athens. As seen in The Crito, he did not want to live anywhere else. When Socrates spoke about the Athenian democracy, he mostly referred to its administration as opposed to its laws. About the administration of Athenian democracy, Socrates persuasively believed that it was unjust.
It is obvious that throughout The Apology Socrates did not make any real efforts to defend himself against his accusers. The reason he did not do such a thing is that he did not, “think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument”. (Gilbert, 87) Even throughout his trial, where he was sure he would be sentenced to death6, Socrates did not go against anything that he believed in. It was more important for him to die for his cause than to be acquitted and forced to give up philosophy.
Socrates never killed anyone, he never stole from anyone he never committed any crime for which he deserved the death penalty. He never asked anyone for money in return for his teachings. He lived his life for the sole purpose of trying, “to persuade each one of you not to think more of practical advantages than of his mental and moral well-being, or in general to think more of an advantage than of well-being, in the case of the state and anything else”. (Plato, 57) He dedicated his life, sacrificing his family and his wealth, to teaching Athens how to live a better life, and in return for his unselfish acts, he was put to death. A system that puts a just man to death must be unjust.
Socrates’ punishment
Socrates states that the will of the Athenian people was final, and whatever punishment they decided on, he would accept (Apology 29b). However, Socrates does say that he would not accept a punishment of him to stop philosophizing as it was against god’s will (Apology 29d). Socrates also says “be sure that this is what the god orders me to do, and I think there is no greater blessing for the city than my services to the god” (Apology 30a). In his conversation in Crito 50b-c, Socrates states his intention to disobey this punishment if it is what the jury decided suited his crimes. This too is contradictory to what Socrates says at 48a-c of Crito. It is at this stage where Socrates insults the majority and says that people who do not know about an issue or do not specialize in that issue, their opinions are not as valuable as someone who knows the issue. This can be interpreted into an argument that since the jury is not made up of lawyers (people who know the law) how can they determine the legality of Socrates’ actions? If Socrates’ actions were legal, and he doesn’t believe in the opinion of people who do not work in that field, i.e. law, then why would he obey their verdict?
There is a contradiction in Socrates’ argument. Socrates first says that the will of the Athenian people is paramount, and then later says that the will of the Gods is Paramount. These two perspectives are conflicting. As well Socrates disobeyed the orders of the Thirty Tyrants, who were at that time the lawmakers. According to Socrates’ argument, even if he disagreed with them he had an obligation to obey. Socrates said that no one person is above the law, yet he disobeyed because he felt the order was unjust. (Gilbert, 96) This is contradictory to what Socrates said before because one person’s values should not be above the law, yet he decided to disobey based on his opinion of the order. Since Socrates argues that it is wrong to inflict harm onto others, any law that ordered him to do this unjust action would also disobey.
Socrates does make an adequate case that you must either obey or persuade. Socrates did make some very strong arguments about why each citizen had a responsibility to its countries laws. If every citizen were to follow the laws based on what they thought about them, then most people would do what they wanted and claim they do not agree with a certain law. This would lead to anarchy. Athens was considered to be a civilized city of intellectual people. If someone believed that a certain law was unjust then they had a few choices, to obey, to leave, or to persuade people to change the laws because it did not correspond to the “nature of justice”.
Socrates believed that Athenian democracy was unjust, in terms of the individuals that represent it, because from the time that many of his jurors were children they were approached by individuals who spoke ill of Socrates.
A jury can’t vote fairly and justly on the outcome of Socrates’ case when many of them held biases towards Socrates. Even though Socrates could try to paint a better picture of him, as he did later on in The Apology, he can never completely change the minds of those who wish him ill.
For Socrates’ trial to have been just, which in turn would make Athenian democracy just; individuals who disliked him should not have been allowed to participate in determining his fate. Especially individuals who had been made to believe that Socrates was a bad person from the time they were children. It is difficult enough to try and persuade jurors that one is not guilty of a crime; it is even more difficult to do such a thing when many of the jurors have detested one for many years.
Conclusion
Socrates spent his life trying to improve the condition of his fellow citizen’s lives. He never once asked to be paid for his generosity or to be rewarded for it. He freely accepted his death based on the belief that that is what the laws of Athens wanted his fate to be. Socrates proved his accusers were wrong in their accusations against him. The fact that the Athenian jurors still sentenced him to death supports the statement that about the administration of Athenian democracy Socrates persuasively believed that it was unjust.
In any event, one concludes that the Delphic Oracle was a definite turning point in Socrates’ life. Perhaps it changes Socrates’ interest from the physical and astronomical studies with moral and political thought. This turning point brings Socrates into conflict with the city of Athens. His doubt of the opinions taken on authority also concerned the cities god and the cities laws. That made him dangerous in the eyes of the leaders. Socrates’ thought was a painful sting to the glorified convictions of human conduct that meant so much to the city. Socrates made the political and moral questions the focus and theme of his ‘second sailing’ as he suggested in Aristophanes ‘Clouds’. By Socrates’ turn, philosophy now becomes political. The ‘Apology’ presents a critique of political life from the view of philosophy. Socrates disrupts prevailing opinions without providing a substantial opinion to replace them. This may be intentional as to let the man decide between his longings and the necessity of political life. The problem now is how to make philosophy friendly to politics.
References
Plato, “The Trail and Death of Socrates”, translated by G.M.A Grube, Indianapolis, Indiana. Hackett Publishing Company Ltd: 1975.
Plato, “Plato: Apology” Edited by James J. Helm, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers; Rev Sub edition: 1997.
Gilbert P. Rose “Plato’s Apology (Greek Commentaries Series)” Bryn Mawr Commentaries: 1989.
Some professional philosophers today deny that there is any objective truth about how we ought to live. They deny that there is some one way to live which is right and does not depend on any human opinion about it. Yet both Socrates and Boethius are committed to the opposite view, that there is a body of objective moral truth that all people must recognize as the best, provided the right questions are asked of them. What evidence for their position do Socrates and Boethius provide? Does it convince you? Why or why not?
Introduction
Under relativist viewpoint on the concept of truth, no truth bearer can be objectively true. Under this view, a truth bearer, at most, can be true relative to a conceptual framework, parameter, or a definite situation. As such, a truth bearer does not have general implication; instead, it can be true only for a relative given “X”. Despite the fact, that this is a general viewpoint of most of the contemporary philosophers, neither Socrates nor Boethius share it. According to the two scholars, there is a difficulty with ideas expressed by relativists. In this paper, ideas of the two scholars on the matter of truth will be discussed. Firstly, the criterion of truth will be discussed, as viewed by the two scholars. The concept of truth arises from the complexities of the relationship between an individual and others; consequently, the notion of truth, in the work of Plato, will be discussed from the perspectives of responsibility and shame. The process of purification and redemption are also covered. The focus will then be shifted to the “Consolation of Philosophy” written by Boethius and the discussion of internal and external sources of human knowledge with God being the real knower through whom human beings can actually obtain access to the universal moral truth. Finally, the concluding remarks will be made on whether articulations of the two philosophers are convincing.
Socrates: Criterion of Truth
The criterion of Truth in “Gorgias” can be derived from the dialogue in which Socrates contrasts his own form of refutation with that of Gorgias and Polus. The criterion offered in this case is not self-evidence or analytical clarity; instead, it depends upon the agreement with the opponent. Socratic method of refutation derives its’ significance from the fact that it is directed at a particular audience. Consequently, the concept of truth is inter-subjective even though there are places in the text, where Socrates claims to have discovered the concept of truth that all human being should rely upon. Still, it should be noted that the universality of truth is not rooted in the epistemological grounds; instead, moral knowledge is grounded on the political notion of knowledge, which relies on “communications with others with whom I share a world” (Plato, 1987).
In a similar way, Boethius in “The Consolation” views moral truth as being universal and applicable to humanity overall. To be more precise, the external world is viewed as being distracting and people must “dispel this darkness of confusing emotions, which arises from… false opinions and which dazes the true vision” (p.20), whereas the “sights must be set on the divine, for goodness, happiness and godliness are one and the same thing” (p. 101).
Having established the criterion of truth, in the next sections, we will discuss the underlying reasons as to why moral truth appears to be universal being seemingly based on epistemological arguments. In particular, the notions of responsibility, shame, and redemption will be discussed from these perspectives, as the reaction to shame can either lead to discovery of new moral truth or can be regarded as an attempt to hide from truth, which means that the concept of truth is universal and can be discovered by an individual. When it comes to the notion of responsibility, the inner source that comes to be the source of knowledge about own guilt and wrongdoing can be viewed as the ultimate source of moral knowledge that is universal for humanity overall. In a similar way, philosophical ideas of Boethius will be discussed in order to understand the login underlying the concept of “universality” of moral truth.
Socrates: Truth and the Concept of Responsibility
The concept of Responsibility in Plato’s “Gorgias” is most representative in terms of moral truth. According to Plato, Responsibility is the continuity of the Self through the series of the life stages. Given a man is the cause of all actions for which he/she can either take pride or blame, the man firstly becomes conscious of Self as the continuation of own experience. The are two “Selves” – firstly, the active one, that is responsible for morality and acknowledged by a human being prior to acknowledgement of a passive and sensitive Self in which sensory impressions are reflected. As such, there is clear idea of soul in work of Plato, which is a strictly natural representation and is a continuity and sameness of active, responsible and moral. The idea of soul can be represented only through the vision and not scientifically; it is represented not only through responsibility, but also through hope and fear, given it is represented through the vision of Judgment, Purification and Penance. Human beings are in this case not the passive followers, but, instead, those how develop their native powers on the way to purification through correction.
Following this view, wrongdoing and fear are both conscious acts that spring up from the personal endeavor after the good. The very punishment that is feared by people is intended for the ultimate good, since future can still be modified through punishment, whereas past remains unchanged. Pardon, then, cannot be founded on the real of science; instead, this is a natural process which comes of the grace of God. As such, the inner self is the ultimate source of all knowledge about the moral truth.
Socrates: the Concept of Shame
The concept of shame is used by Socrates in order to ensure the necessary emotional support to his arguments by enabling the truth of the conclusions by incorporating them into the person’s principles of life and the internal principle of action.
The concept of truth enters the writing through the refutation of Gorgias. Since the rhetoric presented by Gorgias is morally neutral, Gorgias claims that he cannot be responsible for the behavior of his students when they choose to use the rhetoric unjustly. The formal structure of the argument is as follows:
Rhetoric taught by Gorgias is neutral; consequently, teacher cannot be held responsible for unrightfully actions of his students;
Rhetoric taught by Gorgias in concerned with both justice and injustice; consequently, when a student comes to the teacher asking to teach him, he will be taught by Gorgias;
Given a student knows what is right and what is wrong, he or she will be acting solely justly, being just by nature;
Consequently, students that will learn about the notion of justice from Gorgian rhetoric will never act unrightfully.
The notion of shame enters the dialogue, as Gorgias is ashamed of accepting a premise that the rhetorician will end up teaching students being just, which the leads to a contradictions with the earlier thesis that rhetoric must be neutral. Consequently, truth in this case is incorporated as the internal principle of action for people with the logic being the general line of reliance to which they cannot contradict, whereas shame acts as a guardian of truth.
The refutation of Callicles is much longer as compared to that of Gorgias with the importance of the refutation being rooted in an attempt of Socrates to understand the nature of opponent in terms of what should be considered shameful and honorable. In the first argument, the hedonistic pursuit of maximum pleasure is being compared the owning a leaky vessel that must be replenished. Socrates then argues that the best life is the life of minimal desires, as a vessel would then have fewer holes and, consequently, this vessel will not have to continuously replenished. The argument can be summarized the following way:
Good and the opposite of it cannot be found in the same subject and, consequently, cannot cease together;
Pleasure and paid can be present in the subject;
Consequently, pleasure is not pain, as the two are mutually exclusive.
Noteworthy is how Callicles responds to sexual example presented by Socrates, as it shows how the feelings of shame can be competing within the same individual. Shame in this case it turned outwards to how he will be seen if he looses his argument rather then to how he would view himself. Further articulation of Socrates shows that he now suspects Callicles of not engaging in the search for moral truth; instead, Callicles is now arguing in order not to loose.
The revealed concept of shame is very representative. In the case of Gorgias, he is ashamed into insincerely professing to teach his students to be just, as he knows that the public will then condemn the moral neutrality. Then, he is shamed into holding on to the hedonism thesis, since he does not want the audience to catch him in a logical contradiction. In both situations, the feeling of shame is prospective, as in involves author’s thoughts being revealed to third party in an inappropriate context. Insincere reply in both cases is a way of concealing of hiding the truth. When it comes to Callicles, the situation is reversed, as the hedonism thesis is revealed as being inappropriate or untrue to him. As such, he then retreats to the thesis being false and further replaces it with the thesis that some pleasures can be better than others. The teaching about moderation is being justified by the moral truth that the opponents have agreed upon: some pleasures can be better than the others.
The concept of shame, as presented by Socrates reveals a number of things in terms of the role of shame in case of others witnessing another people’s actions and also the relationship with “self”. To be more precise, the experience of being ashamed involves others witnessing the faults, whereas own feeling of shame can be defined as the internalization of expectation of others of what appears to be morally correct. Following the same logic, there is a mutually accepted notion of moral truth which human beings follow in their thoughts and in their actions. Yet, it should be noted, that the mechanism of shame involves personal “Self” as being the ultimate judge to decide what the truth is and what is not. The experience of being ashamed involves being unmasked as a result of being seen inappropriately by others, whereas the “Self” is what decides what the expectations of others are. Consequently, revelation of self can be referred to as the ultimate moral rightness.
Based on the discussion above, one can logically conclude that for Socrates, the moral belief becomes knowledge when it is re-affirmed with another person’s moral knowledge. Since there are cases when there are no moral experts and, consequently, moral belief cannot be re-affirmed, one must move on to the moral knowledge that is universally true. Moral truth can be achieved through connection to the inner self that is not corrupted. Given human beings are mutually interconnected; the supreme good is the source of genuine moral knowledge.
Boethius: Knowing and the Nature of Knower
According to Boethius, all knowledge results not from being known in accordance to its’ nature, but, instead, to the nature of its’ knower. As such, the real source of knowledge is self-knowledge, which is the guiding theme of instructions in the life of human being. Since God is the only real knower according to Beothius, the knowledge of human beings is limited by the extent to which they actually know God. Given God is the only source of knowledge and Boethius refers to Christianity, which is a monotheistic religion, there is universal knowledge, which is God himself and how he knows the world.
Human beings can know the God, who is the source of moral knowledge, only to the extent they actually know themselves (Astell, 1994). As such, a human being must establish the connection with God in order to receive access to knowledge. Still, reason alone is not sufficient enough for absolute self-understanding. In the final part of Consolation, Boethius provides a full definition of a human being and positions humankind within cosmos. This once again refers to God as being the ultimate source of universal knowledge that cannot be attained through reason, but, instead, will be revealed through the connection with God.
Boethius: Outward vs. Internal Sources of Human Happiness
Given human being cannot know God due to the fact that God is omniscient, whereas human faculties are limited, degree to which a human being can know God is a factor of how well a human being is able to emancipate from control by external sources.
According to Boethius, nothing external can actually destroy or cause human happiness. Instead, the loss of external goods assists in discovering of what really endures. Due to the fact that temporary material things result in the level of happiness that incomplete in nature because it lacks spirituality, they point beyond the material world, eternal good that result in lasting happiness. As such, external sources if human happiness are nothing but only a partial expression of the higher good that can be attained through a complete relationship with God.
Following the logic of Boethius, external sources of knowledge and material factors that stimulate human desire and subsequent action are distracting, whereas internal sources and establishment of the identity with God is the source of happiness. As such, God is the end and origin of human nature with creator being the ultimate source of knowledge.
Conclusion
Having assessed the positions of the two philosophers on the subject of objective moral truth, a number of issues do raise doubts. Firstly, existence of objective moral truth is dependent upon religious beliefs. To be more precise, the views of Boethius are based on his theological position and tied to God being the only one. If a person belongs to polytheist religion, augments of Boethius in favor of objective moral truth are invalid, as given there are more than one God, consequently, the source of truth must also be more than one. In a similar way, arguments of Plato are not based on epistemological grounds; they are subjective to what a person actually believes. Furthermore, the very process of purification through which human beings go on the quest for moral truth is based on societal norms, which are learned rather than in-born. Consequently, existence of single moral truth becomes doubtful, given conscious and “Self” are learned.
Overall, the view of two scholars complement in many ways to the recent religious trend of Transcendentalism. Under this position, there is a unified source of knowledge to which all human beings are connected; as such, the issue is whether a person will actually be able to find this connection in oneself and in such way reveal the genuine knowledge that be attained through rejection of material world and complete reliance on God as the only guide.
As such, the positions held by the two philosophers are very subjective and in case if God is not recognized as the only sources of knowledge or “self” is viewed more as that of being learned rather than in-born, the argumentation falls apart.
Works Cited
Astell, Ann W., Job, Boethius and Epic Truth. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Relihan, Joel C., trans., Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 2001.
Plato. Gorgias. Translated by Donald Zeyl. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1987.
Epistemology, as a branch of philosophy, largely deals with the concept of knowledge; of how this is obtained, its basic essence, and any boundaries within which it (knowledge) may be confined. Various schools of thought have worked towards deliberating this topical theme in-depth, and a great many ambiguities and/or differing points of view are prevalent. A group of philosophers believed in the notion of knowledge being justified true belief, to mean that not only did one have to believe in a certain truth, but also, it was necessary to have sufficient grounds to buttress that argument. Others (philosophers) in opposition subscribe (d) to the mantra that all knowledge is theory-laden. The field of rhetoric also attracts those inclined toward epistemology. A lot of skepticism way-lays most of the claims presented in the discipline of knowledge, as well as the means employed to produce the same.
The discourse on ‘Socrates to Sartre and beyond’, deals with a number of related topics, including “Ancient Greek Philosophy”, wherein great thinkers of the time, such as Socrates, and other lesser-known schools, particularly the Sophists, are accorded due credence.
Worth noting is the fact that Socrates, although largely infamous over the times, did not actually have any written works, but his ideologies and/or maxims are manifested in the dialogues of other renowned philosophers, mainly his student, Plato the idealist, and Aristotle.
This notwithstanding, the Socratic method was developed as influenced by Socrates, involving coming up with several questions and subsequent responses in a bid to decipher the truth of matters, commonly referred to as the Socratic method. Such step-by-step analysis ensures that truth is gradually discerned while considering a wide variety of viewpoints and/or perspectives. This ‘dogged’ search for the truth facilitated self-examination of one’s own beliefs and the validity of such stances. For example, in one of his better-recognized quotes, Socrates stated,
“..One must know thyself to be wise, and an unexamined life is not worth living…” ( qtd in Samuel E, p. 94)
On the other side of the philosophical divide were the Sophists, traceable back to the fifth (5th) century B.C., who can be regarded as a class of professional traveling teachers who, at a fee, taught any subject that was widely popular, including mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric. Fallacious reasoning was their cornerstone in their quest for power. Sophists heavily criticized the law, contemporary religion, and basic ethics, as they held a relativistic stance on all matters of knowledge, to mean that they considered some aspects and/or elements of experience and culture to be dependent upon other elements and/or aspects.
The man was the focal point of reference, as the sophists turned from concentrating on natural science to rationally examining human affairs with the betterment of the human race in mind. The common philosophy among sophists is the element of skepticism, whereby doubts are cast on various states of being. This skepticism is in several distinct forms, namely:
Phenomenalism, which bears the notion that we only know ideas that are already in our minds
Empiricism, which dictates that experience is the only source of knowledge
Relativism, a doctrine stipulating that truth has no independent absolute existence, but rather, it is more dependent upon an individual, and their particular situation.
Considering the above arguments, greater weight is exerted by the Socratic Method, as the strategic analysis of information before finally arriving at the eventual truth is a far better way of discerning situations. Also, one of the shortcomings of the philosophy of Sophists is the fact that their motivation was financial gain and a hunger for power, not to mention their fallacious points of view.
References
Samuel E. “Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A history of Philosophy.” Touchstone 2002:24-120.
Socrates and Agathon were in deep dialogue trying to define love. Ultimately, they agreed that love must have an object and that the object must be in short supply and beautiful, or amusing. In their dialogue, they asserted that love desires and is always in want of beautiful and praiseworthy things; for it triumphs in happiness and wanes in sadness.
In their view, love does not desire emptiness or ugly things because it has to adore something or beautiful things. Therefore, Socrates presumed that love is a god of beautiful and marvelous things only. However, Diotima disputed this view because gods own both beautiful and ugly things. According to Rouse, Diotima views love as one of the spirits that mediate between human beings and gods, and mortal and immortal things (98).
Diotima argues that love is the offspring of gods of Plenty and Poverty and that is why he (love) desires beautiful things for his father is Plenty, and he dwells in want because his mother is Poverty. Therefore, Diotima views love as a continuum of beautiful and ugly things that human beings desire to achieve and attain happiness.
Love of Beautiful Things
Since love is always in want and seeks to achieve beautiful things, it has compelled human beings to strive for beautiful things. Human beings struggle to achieve beautiful things that they lack in life, and in so doing they obtain happiness. Hence, human beings are in love with beautiful and smashing things for they need happiness.
It can be conclusive to say that, all human beings are lovers of beautiful and praiseworthy things, but human needs and means of achieving these things vary from one lover to another. Diotima asserts that human beings always desire to have beautiful and pleasurable things, and this constitutes love (Rouse 101). Human beings are willing to sacrifice themselves to obtain their desires, since love is always wanting and pursing nifty things.
Diotima adds that one tends to view own property as valued while views another’s property as worthless because his/her love seeks fair and beautiful things only. Viewing love to have a lack of healthy and beautiful things is contrary to the common view that love is generous. In the perspective of common view, Diotima’s view begs a question that, how can love be generous yet wanting at the same time.
Given that love pursues courteous and beautiful things, a human being use various approaches to satisfy his/her unique needs that love compels him/her to obtain in life, for it is always lacking. Since love seeks to obtain decent and beautiful things, immortality is one of the things.
Diotima argues that, the process of pursuing and expressing love is divine as human beings are pregnant in body and soul, yearning to immortalize themselves through procreation. Women are pregnant in the body, for they desire to immortalize their existence and live happily. Likewise, human beings can also be pregnant in soul because they are yearning to bear wisdom, virtues and ethics that build a better society, which bestows happiness to all.
Procreation of human desires provides the means of achieving immortality and happiness in life. Diotima argues that love occurs when a human being is pregnant and desires to bear beautiful things that are not only immortal, but also wise and virtuous (Rouse 104). It implies that love is assurance of immortality and happy live through procreation of body and societal values. Thus, love is not instantaneous feelings but assurance of the future and better life that is full of happiness.
Mysteries of Love
Despite the fact that love seeks beautiful things only, all bodies have their inherent beauty that depends on different perceptions of lovers. Beauty in one body relates with beauty in other bodies because all are objects of love. Diotima advices that human beings need to pursue beauty knowing that beauty in all bodies is similar, for it is sheer folly not to believe so (Rouse 105).
Thus, if one needs to appreciate beauty, one should realize that beauty exists in all bodies and that there is no single body that is beautiful, making it a mystery. Diotima further advices that, unseen beauty of the soul is more salient and precious than physical beauty of a body, which is particularly deceptive. Beauty of the soul is precious because it begets wisdom and virtues that are critical in loving and caring others.
In her view of mature love, Diotima argues that one needs to grasp the essence of love, as it is knowledge that recognizes and contemplates about world of beauty, and ultimately give rise to wisdom. Thus, Diotima views love as one of the qualities of the soul that enables human beings to desire wisdom and values, unlike common view of beauty that concentrates only on physical attributes.
The best approach of pursuing desires of love is to begin from one body, then to many bodies and ultimately to knowledge and wisdom for one to attain perfection of beauty and love. The reason why love does not grow is that humans base their desires on physical attribute of bodies and neglect beauty of the soul.
According to Rouse, Diotima argues that human flesh and colors have defiled and adulterated perception of beauty because human beings hardly consider beauty of the soul (107). Desire of physical attributes of a body is not only deceptive but a sign of immature love that lacks wisdom and values.
In this view, Diotima perceives that physical attributes of a body obscure and obstruct real attributes of beauty that lies in the soul. Wisdom and values are indispensable elements of the soul that guide human beings in pursuing their desires according to passion imbued by the love. Thus, human beings need to focus on beauty of the soul since they derive considerable benefits such as wisdom, virtues, ethics and other values that are essential for personal development, unlike the body that hardly has any benefits except sight.
Critical Analysis
I agree with Diotima’s view that love always desires pleasurable and beautiful things that make human beings achieve their happiness due to the satisfaction of their needs.
Love compels people to pursue different interests with a common objective of attaining excellence and becoming happy in life. Since love is always in want of finest and beautiful things, it means that love would cease to exist if human needs become satisfied. In nature, expression of love is evident in instances where there is a need and plenty, for instance, when the rich express love to the poor by helping them.
Moreover, given that human needs are infinite, the need to immortalize their existence and values are also expression of love. Immortality and societal values are courteous and beautiful desires that human beings struggle to achieve. I also agree with Diotima’s view that beauty of the soul is more powerful as compared to the beauty of the body. The beauty is soul is paramount because from it springs out wisdom, virtues and ethics that are higher values in the society.
If human beings were to accept Diotima’s view of love, society could be full of wisdom and societal values that uphold humanity. Diotima’s argument that human beings are pregnant in body and soul has deep implication as it means that everyone is full of love and ready to pursue its desires using all means possible. Desire of healthy and beautiful things that are inherent in love could be applicable in a positive manner if humanity concentrated on beauty of the soul rather than the physical body, which is deceptive.
Moreover, human beings need to know that everything is beautiful and that there is no single beautiful thing in the world, thus for one to obtain unwavering love, there must be wisdom and knowledge that emanates from the soul. Therefore, Diotima’s arguments are honorable for they enlighten humanity that even though love seeks reliable and beautiful things, it must focus on unseen attributes of the soul.
Conclusion
Love desires pleasurable and beautiful things because it is always deficient. Love that human beings have for things has prompted them to utilize all means at their disposal to fulfill their desires. However, Diotima cautions that all things are trustworthy and beautiful in their own right, and therefore, no one should compel things that are not trustworthy or beautiful to look crooked or ugly.
Diotima asserts that unseen beauty of the soul is more powerful than mere physical attributes of a body. Thus, attributes of the soul such as wisdom, virtues and ethics should form the basis of moral and beautiful things that love desires.
Work Cited
Rouse, John. Great Dialogues of Plato. New York: The New American Library, 1956.
Throughout the history of humankind, almost every religion and philosophical teaching have sought to define what good and what evil are. Those opposites have preoccupied the minds of many scientists, politicians, psychologists, and researchers. One may readily see how establishing the causes of evil deeds could benefit society through crime prevention. However, the outlooks on the issue vary: for instance, Socrates was convinced that evil was born out of sheer ignorance. His opponent Glaucon, on the other hand, reasoned that people misconduct out of the possibility of impunity. This essay will examine Socrates’ views in detail and will support Glaucon’s hypothesis with two examples from history and criminal statistics.
Socrates’ Views on the Roots of Evil
Socrates developed the first systematic approach to morality even though, as of now, his findings may not be considered exactly comprehensive. To Socrates, a human being was a creative species that thrived on ideas and knowledge. The philosopher’s inquiry into the nature of human morality was closely tied to the examination of how one could live his or her life in the most fulfilling manner. Back in Ancient Greece, there were two schools of thought that dealt with the issue of practical life philosophy: stoics found solace in resilience, whereas hedonists prioritized the pursuit of happiness.
Socrates stated that the meaning of life was in being happy; however, an average human being was confronted with significant inhibitions. The greatest obstacle, according to Socrates, was ignorance about what constitutes happiness. To overcome that fundamental presumption habitual for every human being, one needed to awaken to moral wisdom (Ahbel-Rappe 180). As opposed to intellectualism, true wisdom allows for distinguishing between good and evil, endowing a person with practical life advice. Thus, if a person knew what he ought to do to be good, he could not do evil deeds – that was improbable (Ahbel-Rappe 180).
On the contrary, those who committed crimes or acted immorally could not be held accountable since they were in the dark and lacked awareness. Even though the idea of ignorance as the root of all evil is worth taking into consideration, it is practically inapplicable, and below are two reasons why.
The argument against Socrates’ Point of View: Military Crimes
One of the darkest pages in the history of humankind is undoubtedly the Nazi regime in Germany and the crimes against humanity committed by its leaders and adherents. Among the most heinous deeds were medical experiments on human beings. There is an extensive body of evidence describing the atrocities that took place in concentration camps. For instance, many prisoners were frozen to death in an array of scientific trials aimed at determining deadly temperatures and the limits of human aptitudes to survival (Weindling 20). Other experiments served medical purposes: professionals studied the pathology of contagious diseases by making the victims contract the viruses (Weindling 101).
Now, if one takes Socrates’ explanation of the nature of evil, it is abundantly easy how wrong it is. The doctors at the concentration camps were aware of the impact of their actions – both moral and physical suffering. Moreover, medical professionals are usually taught ethical principles such as non-maleficence. Hence, the perpetrators were not ignorant – they merely did what benefited their causes.
The argument against Socrates’ Point of View: Recidivism
Recidivism is a phenomenon characterized by the repetition of misconduct or criminal behavior even after facing the consequences, such as having to pay a fine or serve a sentence. The existence of recidivism undermines Socrates’ views on the causes of evil. Nowadays, in many Western countries, criminal justice prioritizes reformation over strict punitive measures. Instead of merely punishing a person found guilty of a crime, legal authorities seek to provide moral guidance and give the said person opportunities to change his or her life for the better. Yet, in the United States of America alone, the statistics on recidivism rates leave a lot of space for improvement.
For instance, within the first three years after release, 67.8% of former convicts get rearrested, within the first five years, two-thirds are facing new charges (“Recidivism”). It is safe to assume that punishment and counseling (if provided) would allow delinquents to know better. However, even in the absence of blatant ignorance, these people decide to continue with their former lifestyle.
Conclusion
With time, each human society has developed its notions of justice and morality – two overlapping but not interchangeable concepts. To this day, people cooperate, solve their problems, and maintain order operating on the principles of what is fair (justice) and what is right (morality). It is important to note that justice and the systems built around this phenomenon – such as criminal justice systems – deal with the consequences of harmful intentions or poor judgment by punishing the perpetrators. Morality, on the other hand, sets goals that transcend minimally acceptable human behavior and seeks to find the origins of evil.
Socrates claimed that all evil was born out of ignorance, and if a person were to be shown the right way, he or she would never do harm to others in their lifetime. Such an argument can be debunked by two prime examples of people possessing enough knowledge and yet committing crimes. First, some doctors in Nazi Germany were involved in human experimentation even though they were cognizant of the sanctity of life. The other illustration is the phenomenon of recidivism: punishment and advice do not compel the majority of criminals to change their behavior.
Works Cited
Ahbel-Rappe, Sarah. Socratic Ignorance and Platonic Knowledge in the Dialogues of Plato. SUNY Press, 2018.
“Recidivism.” National Institute of Justice, 2014. Web.
Weindling, Paul. Victims and Survivors of Nazi Human Experiments: Science and Suffering in the Holocaust. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
The history of mankind is full of controversial points connected with the people who were more educated than the rest. Being out of the mass of average human beings always hurts as people do not like admitting that there are other people smarter than they are. Socrates is one of the first clever and educated people who were wrongly punished only because they spoke of real things that no one else understood. Therefore, the argument Socrates suggested for his defense in the Athens court of law was directed at the rationales of those people as Socrates was trying to show them that he spoke only of the things he knew and anyone other could have known. This is why Socrates stresses the importance of examination and learning for the very lives of human beings.
Accordingly, the essence of the aforesaid Socrates’ argument in the court is the focus of the Apology written by the student of Socrates, Plato, sometime after the court decision was taken and Socrates was killed. In this argument, Socrates claims that “the unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Plato, p. 41), meaning that people should always desire to learn what they do not understand. This desire for education and knowledge should be the focus of everyone’s life. And, moreover, this desire does not mean any deviation from the accepted religion, betrayal of the Gods, etc. Faith and knowledge are different things. If faith is a spiritual phenomenon, knowledge is basically a practical one as it helps people understand the world they live in and love it more. But Socrates’ ideas were ahead of the time, and the philosopher ended up sentenced to death at the age of seventy.
The background to Socrates’ argument and to the court trial, on the whole, was unprecedented, as for the modern times, claim that Socrates was to blame for “wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worst into the strongest argument, and he teaches these same things to others” (Plato, p. 24). Thus, people who were afraid of Socrates’ intelligence and excessive, as they thought, knowledge, sued the philosopher basically for the fact that he knew too much and wanted to know more. No matter how absurd this reason for the court trial might sound today, in the ancient world of religious domination and fear for the natural phenomena the people who could easily explain them were considered the rivals of the rest of the society.
However, even despite the fact that Socrates failed to convince the court of his being not guilty of any crime, there is a substantial rational core in his idea of overall education and its promotion among people. It can be observed throughout the apology by Plato that Socrates was trying to show his thirst for knowledge not for interfering in some divine matters. Understanding, however, that the people he was talking to were reluctant to believe him, Socrates tries to explain the kind of reputation he had by the wisdom that people interpreted in a wrong way: “What has caused my reputation is none other than a certain kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom? Human wisdom, perhaps” (Plato, p. 25). Thus, showing to the court that his reputation was misinterpreted, Socrates tried to stress the importance of learning, knowledge, and wisdom in his life. This wisdom was harmless for humans, except those angry that they know less than Socrates.
Although implemented in the wrong place and at the wrong time, the argument by Socrates is a rather strong one. The philosopher tries to build his defense in the court not by merely begging the jury not to take his life and not by fierce disputes. Socrates appeals to the rational thinking of the court members and people of Athens and tries to explain his vision of the world. Being asked about his shame and fear of the possible death, Socrates answered that the person fully committed to what he/she does can be considered only a hero, but not the shame of his/her nation: “This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: wherever a man has taken a position he believes to be the best,…there he must I think to remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace” (Plato, p. 33). Drawing from this, the firm commitment of Socrates is the best proof of the correctness of his view on the world and the role of knowledge in it. Having been punished for the desire for knowledge, Socrates remained a hero for the numbers of next generations of people.
To conclude, education and knowledge have always been controversial phenomena in the history of mankind. Socrates was one of the first people to be punished for the simple fact that they knew more than others. Socrates’ claim about the absence of the goal of living without examination was rather a strong one, but it did not find many supporters in ancient Athens. Although Socrates was sentenced to death for his desire for knowledge, his views remained to be the inspirations for many people striving to learn as much as possible about this world.
There is no figure in the history of philosophy more famous than Socrates. To pronounce his name means to evoke in the human soul one of the best historical memories. Even in ancient times, in people’s minds, he became the embodiment of sapience and the ideal of a sage who put truth above life.
‘Socrates in Love’ Review: A Vigorous, Brilliant Young Man. (James, 2019).
A vast amount of literature has accumulated about Socrates, his personality, and his doctrine. And, nevertheless, in the history of philosophy, there is no person more mysterious than Socrates. The fact is that Socrates did not leave a written inheritance. People learn about his life and teachings mainly from the writings of his students and friends, including the philosopher Plato, and the historian Xenophon, or his ideological opponents, for example, the comedian Aristophanes, as well as from the books of later authors, including Aristotle. However, the attitude towards Socrates at different times was ambiguous, often diametrically opposite. Some of his contemporaries saw in him a dangerous atheist and sentenced him to death. Others considered the accusation of godlessness groundless and considered Socrates a deeply religious person. In subsequent times, up to the present day, Socrates was also evaluated and appreciated in different ways. For some, he is a great philosopher; for others, a boring moralist. Nevertheless, the fact remains undeniable that Socrates significantly influenced both his modernity and the future development of society, demonstrating his unsurpassed oratory, proposing his method of refuting statements, and making his splendid contribution to the development of philosophy and the transformation of social values.
Mastery of public speaking
Socrates himself did not leave a single line, but Plato was precisely that student of his who, with his deep and penetrating spirit, was most capable of conveying the essence of Socrates. There is a mosaic depicting Socrates with his disciples, including Plato.
The Relationship Between Socrates and Plato. (n.d.)
Prior (2019) notes that Plato has a beautiful image depicting the influence of people on each other, according to which the soul, meeting with another soul, kindred to it and high, receives wings and the ability to spiritual flight. This ability to inspire other people’s souls is highly characteristic of Socrates. Even now, when many centuries later people read about Socrates and hear the sound of his invigorating speeches in the classical transmission of Plato, they feel that they are captured and lifted by the spirit of good genius. The reader learns about the influence he had on his contemporaries from the testimony of Plato. According to Wolfsdorf (2017), not one of the Athenian orators acted so strongly and deeply on listeners, men, women, and young men – as Socrates with his simple speeches: tears flowed, beat heart, a soul was embarrassed and indignant against its slavery.
Thus, the living force of knowledge and goodness was embodied in Socrates. When what people are so longing for and so looking for – peace of mind and confidence in the meaning of life – is displayed in a specific person, in a living image, this convinces better than any systems and theories. This is why his listeners are going to Socrates, and everyone wants to listen to this amazing man who, in an era of general skepticism and disintegration, walks with such a cheerful air, a comforting speech, and a genuinely philosophical view of things.
Socrates method
Moreover, Socrates is best known for the method of conducting a conversation, which was named after him – the Socrates method. Taylor (2019) affirms that this method was first described in Plato’s work and consists of refuting statements. Socrates’ approach to the questioning method is based on a consistent, thoughtful dialogue. Socrates, asked sequential thoughtful questions, which stimulated learners to logically verify their thoughts and assess their reliability. Within the framework of this method, he portrayed a complete ignorance of the topic to provoke a dialogue with the apprentices. The Socratic method is widely used to this day, especially in the law schools of American universities. First, teachers invite students to summarize the position of the judge. They then ask if the student agrees with this position, and then the professor asks a lot of questions to get the student to defend his opinion. Due to the Socratic method, students learn critical thinking, logical construction of their arguments, as well as the ability to find and obviate weaknesses in their position.
Changing values in society
Socrates’s philosophical works and ideas established the foundation for Western philosophy and reoriented social values from material to spiritual. Schultz (2019) states that Socrates is often associated with saying: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates was persuaded that to become profound, persons should understand themselves. He supposed that people should be engaged in self-development, rather than focusing on material values. Therefore, Socrates’ unique approach to cognition, conscience, ethics, and morality became a critical momentin ancient philosophy and changed the value orientation of society.
Conclusion
Thus, although Socrates himself did not leave the slightest information about himself and the basic knowledge about him is known thanks to his environment, the image of this philosopher is associated with great wisdom. This personality not only had an incredible impact on his contemporaries, but also influenced the future. First, Socrates was a master of public speaking, and his speeches inspired many people to change and take action. Secondly, Socrates proposed his method of argumentation, which is currently actively used in jurisprudence. Thirdly, this philosopher drew attention to spiritual values instead of material ones and turned the value orientations of society. Therefore, the influence of Socrates on both his present and the future is significant.
Justice is one of the most essential moral and political notions in both contemporary and traditional worlds. According to the modern definition of the term, the concept refers to actions that are morally right. They are also those acts that respect the freedoms and rights of all individuals in society. On their part, philosophers define justice in both moral and political aspects. The scholars try to understand how the notion applies to social and ethical decision making processes in society (Plato 140). In Greek philosophy, for example, justice was termed as a virtue in action. To most philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the concept was used in reference to goodness and the desire to abide by laws. It was regarded as the true principle of social life.
In this paper, the author will look at justice by highlighting Socrates’ critique of Cephalus and Polemarchu’s view of the concept. To this end, the author will address two key questions. They include the view of justice that forms the basis of Socrates’ criticism and the reason why the philosopher found Cephalus and Polemarchus definitions and views of justice unsatisfactory.
The View of Justice that Forms the Basis of Socrates Critique
The idea of justice forming the basis of Socrates’ criticism is the varying definitions by different philosophers in his time. There were various views and theories of justice that were formulated and promoted by a number of scholars. Plato saw justice as a virtue that involves developing a rational order. Each ‘branch’ of this virtue carries out the ‘right’ duty without interfering with the functioning of other parts (Plato 45). According to Aristotle, justice is a concept used to refer to lawful and fair actions carried out by individuals in society. The just acts entail equal distributions and correction of what is unfair.
Cephalus was a rich and highly respected elder of Socrates City. He was a scholar in his own right. He defines justice as an endeavor to express the basic Hesiodic conception (Plato 128). The elder believed that the notion means living up to one’s legal obligations. In addition, he viewed honesty as an important aspect of justice. On the other hand, Polemarchus defines the concept as the idea of owing friends’ help and enemies’ harm. It is clear that the definition differs from that of Cephalus. However, the two descriptions also have a close relationship. The reason is that they have a similar imperative of depicting what is due to all persons in society.
The imperative forms the basis of Socrates’ principle of justice. To get a clear picture of the view of justice, which is at the core of his criticism, Socrates demolishes both Cephalus and Polemarchus’ simplistic views with counter-examples. In spite of the fact that he makes an effort to counter the two views, Socrates does not completely reject Cephalus and Polemarchus’ definitions of justice (Plato 130). The reason is that each explanation has a common-sense conception of fairness. Socrates uses the notions in later discussions about the concept of justice.
Why Socrates Finds Cephalus and Polemarchus Views of Justice Unsatisfactory
Socrates regards Cephalus and Polemarchus’ views of justice unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. For example, he argues that the two arguments have numerous inherent inconsistencies (Plato 88). The discrepancies are made apparent in the counter-examples used by Socrates in his writings. In the case of Cephalus, the elder defines justice as being honest and living up to one’s legal responsibilities. Socrates finds the view of inadequate and unconvincing. He uses the example of the mad man and the weapon to counter this view. Socrates asks Cephalus whether it would be right or not to give an insane man back his weapon (Plato 131).
Socrates claims that you owe the mad man his weapon. The reason is that it legally belongs to him. However, giving it back to him would be unjust. The ‘unjustness’ comes into play given that the action would put the lives of other people in danger (Plato 100). Cephalus agrees with Socrates that giving back the weapon to the mad man would not be the right course of action. As a result, Cephalus’ view is found to be unsatisfactory because justice, in this case, is seen as being dishonest and failing to honor expected legal duties.
According to Polemarchus’ conceptualization and way of thinking, justice entails the act of giving people what is owed to them. When this definition is used, it becomes clear that individuals are obliged to do good to their friends, while harming their enemies (Plato 22).
Socrates finds the view unconvincing. He criticizes it by analyzing its core tenets. He argues that treating one’s enemies harshly may make them more unjust. In addition, Socrates claims that people do make mistakes. As a result, judging others and attempting to differentiate between an enemy and a friend can lead to a situation where the bad are helped whereas the good are harmed. In the view of Socrates, people become worse in terms of virtues when they are harmed (Plato 33). The philosopher drives his point home using the analogy of the behavior expressed by a harmed horse. The counter-example makes Polemarchus concur with Socrates’ view that justice should not be used to harm anyone regardless of their standing in society.
In spite of the fact that Polemarchus view is deemed as unsatisfactory, the view may be justified by the actions of most people. For example, the actions of heroes and gods in Greek mythology seem to reflect this argument of justice (Plato 99). The main idea supported by Polemarchus’ argument is paying back. It is what people would call ‘tit-for-tat’ and an eye-for-an-eye. For instance, if individual A does a favor to person B, then the latter owes the former a favor in return.
Similarly, if party C does harm to D, then D should hit back or revenge on C. The concept of justice as expressed by Polemarchus was evident in both social and political arenas of the time. Some of the areas where the form of justice was witnessed include family rivalry in politics and hostile relationships between cities in ancient Greek. According to Socrates, the form of justice as explained by Polemarchus involves revenge, which may result in war. In addition, the view leads to a cycle of violence, which is not suitable for the wellbeing of people in society (Plato 81).
Another reason why Socrates found Cephalus and Polemarchus’ views unsatisfactory is because they did not define the nature of justice itself. Socrates explained the concept of working towards what is naturally best suited to the welfare of the community. In addition, he claimed that fairness involves minding one’s business and not being a ‘busybody’ (Plato 78). Socrates felt that Cephalus and Polemarchus’ views did not portray the three cardinal virtues. The virtues are wisdom, temperance, and courage. According to the notions supported by Cephalus and Polemarchus, justice exists within the human soul. On his part, Socrates believes that justice is a result of a well-prearranged soul.
As a result, humans and their actions can be put into three groups. The categories include a ruler, soldier, and producer. Socrates believes that if a leader makes just laws, a warrior administers the rules. Consequently, the ‘producers’ would abide by the regulations as required, leading to the creation of a just community (Plato 78). According to this explanation, justice in individual lives entails the existence of different parts of the soul, which are situated in the right place. In social life, fairness is a situation where each person and class is placed in their proper ‘situates’. Polemarchus and Cephalus’ views did not take these factors into consideration.
Conclusion
The definition and view of justice was a subject of raging debate during the Socrates era. In this paper, the author highlighted the dispute witnessed in the dialogue between Socrates, Cephalus, and Polemarchus. Cephalus’ view of justice represents the outlook of an established and elderly business person. On the other hand, Polemarchus’ definition reflects the thoughts of a young politician. In the dialogue, Socrates finds the views of Polemarchus and Cephalus as unsatisfactory. In his critique, Socrates gives examples of a horse and a mad man. In addition, he considers justice to be like a form of art or craft.
Work Cited
Plato, The Republic, London: Digireads, 2008. Print.
The question of whether people should treat the others in a way they are treated by them has always been rather controversial. On the one had, it seems fair to do wrong in return, for if a person does something evil, he/she has to be punished for this. On the other hand, however, this in no way promotes public good because, if every person follows such a system, the evil will continue breeding evil and there will be no place for the good. In his moral argument at Crito Socrates expresses an idea that “neither to do wrong not to return a wrong is ever correct, nor is doing harm in return for harm done” (49d). By this argument Socrates aims to convince people that doing wrong in return only contributes into the society’s injustice. Socrates succeeds in making moral argument at Crito convincing for obeying the state and its laws through drawing parallels between the state and the parents, though calling for people’s patriotism, and though pointing at the possibility of choice which each state offers to its citizens.
Firstly, Socrates’ moral argument about wrong-doing is convincing for obeying the state and its laws because Socrates draws a parallel between the relations of a person with his parents and the state with its citizens. This allusion creates an idea that every citizen owes his/her state, just like all the people owe their parents. For instance, when discussing the significance of laws, Socrates states, “We have given you birth, nurtured you, educated you; we haven given you and all other citizens a share of all the good things we could” (51d). This creates an idea that doing wrong to one’s state is inappropriate because, even if the state has wronged a person, he/she has no right to blame it for this for together with wrong-doing the state has brought the good to this person. Drawing parallels with family relations, as Socrates does it, facilitates the comprehension of this idea. For instance, the parents that have “nurtured” and “educated” their children meant them only good; they gave the children a chance for life and provided them with all the means to make this life better. However, the parents, just like other people, are capable of making mistakes, and this does not mean that their children should do them wrong in return. The parents did their best to improve their children’s lives and it is rather ungrateful to punish them for wrong-doing. The same goes for the state and its laws: the citizens are expected to obey these laws for they are meant to do good to them; when, for some reason, the contrary occurs, the citizens should not stop obeying them or try to destroy them for those were the state and the laws that begat them. Therefore, Socrates succeeded in making his argument convincing through drawing parallels between the state and the parents.
In addition, Socrates’ argument convinces the readers that one should obey one’s state and its laws through calling for patriotic feelings of every person as a citizen. Socrates believes that every citizen should be loyal to his/her country, “You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey” (51b). This means that patriotism should be an integral feature of every citizen and that the law of the state should be of great authority for all the people. The history abounds with examples of how people sacrificed their lives for their states. The brightest ones are those people who fought for their states during the wars. On the one hand, the states did wrong by putting the lives of their citizens at risk for their own purposes; on the other hand, however, the states got convinced that their citizens were loyal to them. People whose hearts are felt with the desire to improve the life of their state will never think of disobeying the state or its laws for their primary objective is to give them as much as they received from it and to express their gratitude for courage, obedience, and decency which their state nurtured in them. In this way, Socrates makes his argument convincing through evoking patriotism in each citizen and through appealing to their conscience and the duty they have to fulfill to prove their worth to the society.
Finally, Socrates’ moral argument convinces people to obey the state and its laws through giving them a possibility to show where they are wrong. The laws of any state do not emerge from nowhere; as a rule, they are a result of the state’s going through an ardent fight for social, political, and economic rights and freedoms. It is not for nothing that the law prohibits or allows certain things or actions. The laws of any state are well-balanced and, if they are not, they are altered or amended by the government. These amendments and alterations appear because of reporting of the laws being incorrect or unfair. This is what Socrates is trying to prove by his argument. He states that a person is expected to either obey the existing laws or to prove that these laws are wrong. Simply doing wrong in return is senseless either in life in general or in citizen-state relationships, “… the one who disobeys … neither disobeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better” (52a). Though the state imposes its laws on the society, it is never categorical in this imposition and it always gives its citizens choice, “Yet we only propose things, we do not issue savage commands to do whatever we order; we give two alternatives, ether to persuade us or to do what we say” (52a). Thus, Socrates’ moral argument that doing wrong in response for somebody else’s wrong-doing convinces the citizens to either obey the state and its laws or to persuade the government that they are wrong and by so doing to offer corrections.
In sum, Socrates’ argument is applicable not only to personal relations but to the relations between citizens and their states. The philosopher’s stating that one should never do wrong even if somebody did wrong to him/her convinces the people to obey the state and its laws. This is achieved through Socrates’ drawing parallels between the state and the parents, as well as calling for patriotism and proving that people have the power to change the laws they consider wrong. In this way, Socrates’ argument regarding wrong-doing contributes greatly into the people’s obeying their states.