In The parable of the cave book vii, Socrates tells us about people who have lived in a cave since their existence and they know nothing more than the darkness and shadows in the cave. This is a world in which prisoners are chained in a cave. Behind them, there is a fire and puppets. The puppets cast shadows on the wall, and they can not clearly see some things that are passing by. The things are real in the world of light but they can only see them as shadows. Above the fire there is the sun which is very bright.
Definition of the Cave
The cave is the region which can be accessed by sight and unfortunately it is what the prisoner can access. The shadows of the puppet makers which are seen by the prisoners represent and/ or build a reality to them (Reeves 191). Socrates tells us that one of the prisoners escaped from the cave and at first he was blinded by the light he meets outside the cave.
After he spent time in the new world, he gets a different view of the world and he realized that his life was all along a mere illusion and controlled by other people.
Meaning of Fire
The prisoners are chained and they are unable to see the actual objects and the puppet makers since they can turn neither their heads nor their legs, hence they can only see what is in front of them. This is what Plato explains in the truth will be nothing but shadows of their images .
The fire signifies the sun and the sun represents the whole truth; the light that the prisoners need to see in order to gain their freedom from the world of darkness. Socrates says that the prisoner who went out of the cave and saw the light, represents the philosopher who is enlightened and goes back to the rest of the people to tell them about the truth they dont know.
Meaning of Puppets
Socrates asserts that, they seem less real than shadows. This implies that the prisoners can only see the shadows of the things reflected to them from the wall. They cannot give a clear account of what they see because it portrays half truth of the reality, which is the good in the world of light.
Glaucon says that people who are still not enlightened can construct justice by making agreements after deliberations among themselves. This means that the prisoners can only tell the truth based on the ability they see the shadows. The puppets are being held by the puppet handlers, who are the masters of the prisoners in the cave. In my own view, the puppets are the things and ideas used by the masters to continue keeping the prisoners in the dark.
The intensity of the fire is frightening and it is used to blackmail the prisoners. The prisoners will be frightened by the brilliant light of sun because it will burn their eyes so much such that, they may want to go back to the cave. Some people will follow the sun and will know the whole truth.
They may then go back to tell the others about what is found outside the cave, which is the light and the real truth. The prisoners believe in shadows because this is all what they have seen in their lives, hence their truth. The ignorance of some prisoners will prevent them from attaining the genuine truth hence they will continue to be chained in their illusions. The freed person is enlightened and goes ahead to face the truth.
Rene Descartes and the Parable of the Cave
According to Rene Descartes, people become what they think they are. He further asserts that people are only aware of what has existed around them. Based on his philosophy, the prisoners in the cave knew the life they were in and nothing beyond. Though we view their life as a dream, it was their reality (Wartenberg 56).
On the contrary, the reality could also be a dream. To some extent, Descartes defends the prisoners ignorance to the truth and reality because all they knew was their lives in the cave. Unless they were taken out to experience life outside the cave, they will strongly hold that the shadows they see are the reality.
Augustine and the Parable of the Cave
Augustine poses that people cannot say that they know the truth when they dont know how the truth looks like. On the same line of thought, people cannot say that A resembles B when one does not know how B looks like (Olivier 49). The prisoners in the cave do not know what truth and reality are because what they have seen are mere shadows and not the real objects that emit the shadows.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the parable of the cave takes place in the mind of Socrates and Glaucon, Platos Brother. From a general stance, Plato is concerned with the revelation of truth and the manner in which the psychology of people evolves. The cave is used metaphorically to portray how people are trapped in their ignorance of basic ethics.
Plato further seeks to dig into the truth of things that do not exist in reality. Following the parable of the cave, the power of an individual to interpret situations that do not exist in reality determines ones intellectual capacity. The prisoners in the cave perceived and understood reality as it was through the shadows reflected on the wall they saw inside the cave.
The whole difference comes out when one prisoner gets out and found a completely different world outside. It is obvious that people define their world based on their experiences of what surrounds them physically. The challenge is on whether people will give room for other influences on the truth they have.
Work Cited
Olivier, Bert. Philosophy and the arts: collected essays. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2009. Print.
Reeves, Francis. Platonic engagements: a contemporary dialogue on morality, justice and the business world. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2004. Print.
Wartenberg, Thomas. Thinking on screen: film as philosophy. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2007. Print.
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 gods 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 doesnt 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 persons 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 cant 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 citizens 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 Platos 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 Platos 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 persons 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 authors 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 peoples 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 persons 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.
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 someones 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 Euthyphros 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.
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 ones 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.
Born in either 469 or 470 B.C. [&] Socrates was son to Sophroniscus and Phainarete of Alopeke village under the jurisdiction of Athens (Brian, p.4). He was probably a trained mason like his father but his life was more prosperous as an army hoplite supplying personal war-gears and armour.
Socrates was however poor with a low standard occupation. Arguably, his lifestyle was out of choice and one would easily locate him at marketplace or city-square, which would otherwise become the municipal of Athens. According to Brian (p.4), Socrates was a brave fighter and campaigner at various encounters from 422 to 432 B.C. His military experience made him adequately famous as a philosopher or sophists. Sophists required payment for their educational or informative services.
The accusations against Socrates was based on misleading of young minds into perceiving the wrong as right or finding better reasons from what was against the Jurisdiction.
Socrates was a man of unfathomable religious convictions and a patriot, but most of his contemporary allies regarded him with suspicion and dislike due to his attitude towards the state of Athens and the various religious convictions. In 399 B.C., Socrates faced charges of abandoning authority orders and in support of introducing new divinities, which was a reference of his own demonian. He also faced accusations of corrupting morals of the youth by swindling them against democratic principles.
The main basis for Socrates defence is the apology he made at the trial. He clearly vindicates the true lifestyle of his entire lifestyle by ironically placing a counter position against the ruling of Athenians legal panel of judges. He proposed that the panel must consider a small fine for the reason that he had a philosophical value and role in the society.
These alterations angered the jury and a majority votes for his death penalty, despite voting by just a small number. This situation leads to his condemnation. This paper presents an argument for the acquittal of Socrates from the death penalty. It takes the situation back to 399 B.C during Socrates trait at Athens. This advocacy is therefore in present tense but based in the past.
Socrates maintains calm and collected status and unlike the other Sophists, the self-claimed philosopher does not accept payment for teaching his students (Poppas, p.17). The vindication that he had a lot awaiting his future is evidently a conscious state of expression out of utmost good faith.
The jury must accept that he does not impose personal claims out of arrogance and pride. His lifestyle in a clear indication that his refusal for payment by the students is for the fact that, he appreciate moral uprightness and is ready to assist others garner genuine knowledge about social morality, in the true spirit of promoting literacy.
Socrates indicates that it is possible to acquire genuine wisdom from personal believes and those of others. I also wish to strongly point out that Socrates has a genuine reason to stand by his philosophical point of view. His task is not to provoke peoples way of thinking; he genuinely teaches and emphasizes full existence of knowledge for each person, through decisive ability to gather or discover existence of knowledge within the soul.
He only works to encourage people to become consciously aware of the inner reflection. Socrates has a strong personality of teaching and guiding through knowledge acquisition or discovery. A good example of his endeavours is his guidance of an untrained person to formulate the Pythagorean Theorem (Poppas, p.17).
This is a clear indication that Socrates is truly committed to provoking peoples inner knowledge and abilities that lie within. He is in support of a moral logic that knowledge in mainly innate within the soul, and people mainly learn from inner thinking rather than experience.
He has a unique but logical way of life where the emphasis is on the need to provoke ways of thinking, rather than teaching people systematically what they ought to learn. Socrates contribution to education is through triggering of active thoughts as a way of living as opposed to a methodical doctrine. He definitely have a clear understanding of the need for acquiring basic concepts or fundamental knowledge, and thus the reasons he emphasizes on the need for analytical examination styles for rational or critical ethical problems.
Various philosophers such as Plato are able to stand in line with Socrates style of administering knowledge, and thus share similar insights regarding ethics as the best and strongest choice for acquisition of information (Saillant, p.1). I wish to acknowledge that Socrates stresses the intellectual basis of identifying ethical virtues and confines them within the basic human wisdom.
In investigating his moral point of view, the exploration touches a wide range of common human problems concerning politics, natural science, governance theories, metaphysics, religious conflicts in theology, and various hypotheses of acquiring knowledge (Saillant, p.1).
In line with Socrates apology, he has the chance of accept the ruling that the jury acquits him from the charges on condition that he stops philosophizing. He however decides to follow the order of his god and wrong the city due to what the law terms to be civil disobedience. Socrates understands the consequences of such defiance. In the apology he states that I do know [.] that it is wicked and shameful to do wrong, to disobey ones superior, be he god or man (Saillant, p.1).
This statement can be ambiguous depending on the interpretation. One of the interpretations of the understanding the jury ought to consider would be that the accused is trying to consider the superiority levels and decide the side one should follow given the situation at hand. The other interpretation the jury should critically analyze is defying serving civic authority for the divine rule that seem uncommon among faithful.
Logically even when the law fails to weigh and clearly stipulate the levels of authority and the difference between divine and civil authority, the divine authority give the impression of rational superiority for most believers. From any civil interpretation, assuming that the law is clear and rule do not conflict; the higher or superior authority overrules the lesser authority.
Socrates considers that the divine authority is superior to the civil authority thus the reason he certainly consider the divine orders. If one faces two superior orders, it is only possible to obey one order at the expense of the other. Arguably, the way the accused presents his choice is interpretable to the second sense where he may appear committed to being a disgrace to his choice of the lower authority.
If the jury consider either of the interpretations, the course of action must prevail alongside the divine order. Socrates supports this action. Considering the level of superiority will nullify the rules by civil authority and the accused will not have committed civil disobedience. The jury should not consider any form of harm to the lesser authority.
There are various reasons to support Socrates point of view. Socrates decision postulates the existence of higher authority thus invalidating the orders of the lesser authority. I urge the jury to consider pre-empting the principle of weighing amount of disgrace over the level of authority, as the basis for deciding superiority complex.
I object to those who consider determining the level of authority as a disgrace. Socrates case brings less shame and disgrace to the jury, when he interprets his point of reasoning over achieving educational goals. The amount of shame or disgrace one may endure for the achievement of a goal, [&], ought not to be a deciding factor is the resulting shame or disgrace (Pappas, p.13). In determining the orders to follow, the level of authority is the determining factor of shame.
The authority has right of command and Socrates acknowledges the policy. Since the law fails to outline clearly the cause of action for conflicting cases, the right of command must vanish in cases where two or more orders conflict. The law must therefore present all forms of authorities and weigh superiority. Socrates claim is only normative one indicating the existence of superiority for god or man. His apology supports the claim of divine power.
From his disagreement standpoint, disrespecting a judgment or escaping the city or evade the death penalty is wrong because he would cheat a just agreement with the city and its laws and, thereby, harm them (Pappas, p.13). The accused responds to divine orders to analyze his inner soul and those of others thoroughly to remove any inconsistencies. I support his point of view that the soul is divine since it reveals personality and fights ignorance.
Works Cited
Brian, MacArthur. The Penguin Book of Historic Speeches. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1996.Print.
Pappas, Nickolas. Review of Socrates Divine Sign: Religion, Practice and Value in Socratic Philosophy. Michigan, MI: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 2005. Print
Saillant, Said. The Role of Inconsistency in the Death of Socrates. Prometheus.
It is a reality that societies tend to have individuals who question the way things are done. These individuals also known as philosophers feel that their responsibility is to question why things are the way they are. These philosophers usually work in places where they were born. This article will focus on one Greek philosopher who was recognized as Socrates.
In the era of ancient Greece, approximately forty years before the commencement of the Peloponnesian battles, an infant by the name of Socrates was brought into the world. This child is said to have been born in Athens in 469 BCE to Sophroniscus and Phoenarete. He was notably intelligent at a very tender age. Before the wars emanated in the region, Socrates used to hang out with the unchanged intellectuals that Pericles did. This comprised of the sophist named Protagorist, the scientist Archelaus and Damon the musician.
It is therefore clear that Socrates existed during the times of war. Socrates emerged from a well-off family. There are several instances of substantiation that have been elucidated to attest to this fact. One of them is that he served in three diverse occurrences during the Peloponnesian war.
To begin with, Socrates was a hoplite fighter during warfare. This duty necessitated an individual to purchase his own equipment as well as body armor. Socrates served as a soldier at a place called Delium in 424 BCE as well as in Amphipolis, Potidoea in 432 BCE. He did not stay as a bachelor for long. He was married to Xanthippe who was known well in the region due to her irritability. Consequently, Socrates had a family of three boys who played a great role in promoting their fathers thinking after his demise.
Socrates used to question each and every person within the society. His interrogations were extended to the streets. Socrates would stroll along the streets where he would come across different people. In the process, he would challenge an individual who he met among others on the streets with questions that appeared quite uncomplicated. His seemingly easy questions would leave plenty of doubt in the intellect of the individual.
This was how Socrates gained his superiority in being a philosopher. Socrates would ask his questions regardless of the individuals age. Through Socrates interrogations and answers many people benefited by getting education. The method that Socrates used to educate people was referred to as Socratic dialect. Some people referred to this method as the Socratic Method.
Surprisingly, Socrates neither wrote books nor papers regarding his philosophical sayings. Similar to lots of philosophers, Socrates was seeking for the meaning of living or rather life. Socrates philosophical sayings were based on his own beliefs. Socrates had a belief that each and every philosopher was seeking answers not only to life but also what happens when one passes away.
Most of Socrates efforts were concentrated on the search for questions rather than answers. Through his efforts and interrogations, peoples morals were highly criticized. However, Socrates did not provide the people with solutions to the questions that he posed to them. This made most people within the society dislike him.
Socrates also got himself involved with two associates of an oligarchy of thirty individuals who played a greater role in conquering the democratic state of Athens. As mentioned earlier, Socrates had his own beliefs which he thought to be true. Basing on Socrates assumptions, democracy never existed.
Due to his beliefs, Socrates received a lot of hostility as well as resentment from most people within his region. Most people really hated him. According to Socrates, any given government ought to be ruled by knowledge. In his point of view, democracy should be done away with by the government while administering its rule.
There are indications that Socrates was the first and foremost human being to come up with the idea of the soul. The idea of the soul is presently well built among members of each and every society in the present day. In line with this, Socrates revealed that there is no truth except that there is no truth and that he does not know anything except that he does not know anything. After coming up with this, Socrates was able to boost his level of understanding and thinking and was equated to the greatest thinkers of all time.
Socrates spent the largest part of his life confidentially. He never took part in affairs of the public and never got involved in activities that were anticipated by the citizens of his country. Socrates never considered them as activities of great knowledge. As a philosopher, Socrates was not only an educator but also a father. He did this for a considerable duration in his life. His philosophical sayings educated several people.
Being a teacher, some of the well known followers of Socrates were Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon. One of the eulogies of Socrates was written by Xenophon. Plato also wrote several critiques regarding Socrates with the inclusion of Apology that demonstrated Socrates radiant defense. He wrote with illustrations from key words in Socrates philosophical sayings, for instance [Socrates] spent his life in search of such truth as was arrived at by logical reasoning, starting from a rational hypothesis.
The real philosophical acts of Socrates have been shown when Plato wrote what was said by Socrates during his defense i.e. I have never been a teacher to any man, but if any one, whether young or old, wished to hear me speak while carrying out my mission, I never grudged him the opportunity& And whether any of my hearers become better or worse, for that I cannot justly be made answerable&
Socrates was neither a product of the social order nor a modernizer. His way was known by many. He could stroll around the streets and then engage in a conversation with a person he came across. Without hesitation, Socrates would make sure that he interrogated the individual on his beliefs.
Even though this seems to be a direct influence on people, Socrates is considered to have influenced most peoples way of life indirectly. Apparently, we are made to believe that new trends were obligatory when a person exhausted his chat with Socrates. However, Socrates never did trend setting save for that.
In 399 BCE, Socrates was charged with transgression and corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates was blamed by Meletus. During these times, the punishment for such crimes was death. The reason behind his alleged transgression was lack of recognition of the same gods as the state. Socrates was blamed for corrupting the Athenian youths. This was after the youths started questioning their parents beliefs. The youngsters also questioned the beliefs of some of the significant social elite in a scornful way.
The entire matter appeared frivolous. In spite of Socrates outstanding defense, which was possibly misinterpreted by most of the 501 jury of the subordinate category of the Athenian general public, he was proved guilty by a margin of merely sixty people. Most people wanted him to be evicted from the city. However, this never happened. Personally, he requested to recompense a fine but his efforts were futile.
A larger margin of individuals won the case. They proposed the death penalty on Socrates. He was to drink poison. The death sentence was later deferred. This was as a result of a religious festival that was to be performed. The festival was for the sacrifice of the seven young men and maidens towards the Minotaur in the maze inside the holy place on the isle of Crete.
It was during this time that his friends proposed to organize a getaway for him. But Socrates refused to escape. He claimed that his escape would be contrary to all his teachings as well as the years he had lived. He took death as a light matter. He perceived death as at last getting to know all that happens after death which is considered as the ultimate quest of all philosophers. Plato denotes that Socrates said: But now it is time for us to go away, I to die, and you to live. Which of us is going to a better fate is unknown to all save God.
Socrates was a great philosopher. The absence of his philosophical sayings would have resulted in the absence of philosophies from Aristotle and each and every successor of his teachings. The functioning of the world at present, particularly the western world would have been very different. This would have consequently reversed the configuration as well as the workings of the globe.
In conclusion, Socrates was the greatest philosopher/ theorist in the world. He took the planet by storm. He left a lot of suspicion and doubt in the minds of the greatest leaders of the era and beyond. There is a well known painting that depicts Socrates death. Weeping friends surround him as he moves to drink the cup of poisonous hemlock.
The holder of the cup who is a servant also weeps on seeing what he was doing. The fact remains that Socrates was, is and will always be missed. Socrates discovered the truth regarding prejudices that are pushed on us by our own insecurities.
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 anothers 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, Diotimas 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 Diotimas 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 Diotimas 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 Diotimas view of love, society could be full of wisdom and societal values that uphold humanity. Diotimas 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, Diotimas 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.
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 everyones 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.
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 Glaucons 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 philosophers 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.