Category: Socrates

Introduction

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 peoples 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 peoples 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 Platos 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

Socratess 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.

References

James, J. (2019). Socrates in Love Review: A Vigorous, Brilliant Young Man. [Online image]. The Wall Street Journal. Web.

Prior, W. (2019). Socrates. Wiley.

Schultz, A.-M. (2019) Socrates as public philosopher: A model of informed democratic engagement. The European Legacy, 24(7-8), 710-723. Web.

Taylor, C. (2019). Socrates: A very short introduction.Oxford University Press.

The Relationship Between Socrates and Plato. (n.d.) [Online image]. Famous Trials. Web.

Wolfsdorf, D.C. (2017). The historical Socrates, in: C. Bobonich (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Ancient ethics. Cambridge.

Socrates is one of the great thinkers of all times owing to the fact that his philosophy shaped the Greeks tread of thoughts. Although he was a great personality among the Greek people, Socrates did not record any of his thoughts making it difficult to trace clearly his early life. Nussbaum asserts that this historical Socrates did not write (125). However, the information we have about him is garnered from his disciples and contemporaries. Therefore, this paper seeks to present Socrates life, history, and thoughts in a historical context.

Although, the early life of this Greek legend is not well known, Socrates is believed to have existed around 470 BCE and was executed about the year 399 BCE. He hailed from Athens city in Greece at the time when the Athenians were at war with the Partisans. Although Athenians were at war with the Persians at the time Socrates was born, its cultural influence was felt in her neighboring cities.

Johnson claims that he lived his early life in great days of Athens, city at the height of its influence and its cultural flowering (9). Athenians were led by myths in interpreting every occurrence before the birth of Socrates. It is Socrates who initiated the new way of explaining the reality by reasoning rather than believing in myths for their answers. His ideas are based on his love for wisdom and the pursuit of what can actually be known.

Socrates is such a historic personality that he cannot be ignored in the history of the world. His influence is felt across all kinds of thoughts such as poetry, philosophy, cultures, history, ethics, politics, and anthropology. He is actually likened to the Historical Jesus in many ways since he stood for the truth and taught it to all and especially the youth.

He loved wisdom and he was executed innocently because he taught new knowledge to the society. According to Priestley both discourses and the general manner of life Socrates and Jesus have an obvious resemblance as they both went about gratuitously, doing good, according to their several abilities, situations and opportunities (36). Socrates believed that he was the gadfly of the society and the herald of the Truth.

Inspired by his mother (midwife) and his father (sculptor), Socrates analogically became a midwife in that he helped people bring forth their ideas by asking them questions which triggered their way of thinking. Christian claims that Socrates believed the only path to knowledge was through discussion of ideas, so he spent his life conversing with disciples, friends, and bystanders& (Christian 31).

His philosophy is based on his quest for knowledge and truth as well as justice in the society. He extensively discussed many critical issues that are still relevant in our contemporary time. Some of the fields that he dealt with are: Knowledge, truth, ethics, happiness, virtue, and justice; he believed that knowledge would make a man good which means living a virtuous life whereby truth, justice and ethics are put in practice.

In conclusion, Socrates is both legend and hero; a saint and a martyr of philosophy who should be emulated by todays thinkers in the society . People should cherish the truth, fight ignorance, and practice justice which will make them live a virtuous life. This will better human society.

Works Cited

Christian, L. James. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering.11 ed. 2011. United States: Cangaging learning. Print.

Johnson, Derek. A brief History of Philosophy: From Socrates to Derrida, London: Continuum International Publisher Group, 2006. Print.

Nussbaum, C. Martha. The Fragile of Goodness: Luckand Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy Part 2. 2 ed. 2000. England: Cambridge University Press. Print.

Priestley, Joseph, and Socrates (the philosopher). Socrates and Jesus Compared, Oxford: Oxford University, 1803. Print.

Socrates, a son of Phaenarete and Sophroniscus, born in 470 in Athens is charged with corrupting the youth by his teaching them the real causes behind the natural phenomena and profiting as a result. The essence of his crime lies in corrupting the youth by teaching them the subjects he himself does not know, by making the youth believe the information contrary to what the general public believes in, and by making the youth obey him and disobey their parents. This is considered to be a crime because, according to those who accuse him, his teaching negatively affects the youth and their perceptions of the world, as well as it undermines the authority of the childrens parents who prefer obeying to Socrates rather than to their parents. Socrates is innocent because all the charges presented to him can be refuted; his ignorance still betters the students, his erroneous teaching cannot be regarded as teaching as such for Socrates has never been anyones teacher (33b), and it is only his intelligence that makes the youth listen to him. This means that no corruption took place.

Prosecution is presented by Meletus who belongs to the Pitthean deme. Namely Meletus should be presented as the other side for he is one of those people who accused Socrates of corruption and who himself can be a witness in this trial. Meletus expresses an opinion that it is Socrates ignorance that corrupts the youth. Socrates appreciates his care about the youth For it is correct to take care of the youth first, to make them the best possible, just as its reasonable for a good farmer to take care of the young plants first, and all the others afterward. (2d) Meletus keeps to the point that Socrates corruption consists in teaching them [the youth] not to acknowledge the gods the city acknowledges. (26b) Meletus states that he heard that Socrates did not acknowledge any gods at all teaching the others that the moon was the earth and the sun was a stone (26d). Whats more, Meletus asserts that after Socrates teaching the youth starts obeying him more than their parents, which once again proves that he is corruptive.

However, Socrates is not guilty of anything he has been charged with. To begin with, he indeed taught children Math though he himself did not know much about the subject, but his teaching bettered his students and, at this, he never took any fees from them. Corruption is harmful and since his teaching brought no harm, it cannot be considered corruptive. Besides, he did not teach children but simply asked them leading questions: I am not teaching & anything, but all I do is ask questions. (226) This can be proved by Menos slave boy: Socrates: How many & are the two times two feet? & Boy: Four& Socrates: Then could there not come to be another area two times as large as this one&? Boy: Yes. Socrates: How many feet, then, will it be? Boy: Eight. (218-223) This means that Socrates teaching was not corruptive because it did bring benefits to the boy.

Furthermore, the charge that Socrates corruption consists in his teaching the youth not to acknowledge gods can also be refuted. Socrates refers to the books of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae which state the same ideas about the moon and the sun that he keeps to (32 e) The youth reads these books and finds out this information from them. Moreover, Socrates has never been anyones teacher though he never begrudged those who wanted to listen to his talking. (33b) This refutes the fact of corruption for no crime (teaching) in fact took place. As far as obeying the parents after his teaching is concerned, it is only the question of authority. Just like people trust doctors more than their parents and like Athenians trust those who have most intelligence, the youth trust Socrates. (20) The youth recognizes him as a more intelligent person whose advice should be taken into account, which makes them, the youth, obey him more than their parent. Therefore, this makes him not guilty of corruption.

In conclusion, Socrates actions can be totally justified making him not guilty in the crime he has been charged with. His ignorance does not do any harm to his learners. On the contrary, they benefit much from the studies. Socrates never teaches them but only asks questions. He cannot be accused of corrupting children for making them not acknowledge the gods for it is not only Socrates but a number of other books which state the same. The youth could find out this information from books rather than from him. Lastly, the youth prefer to obey to Socrates due to his intelligence. Thus, Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth and must be acquitted.

Works Cited

Plato, Anastaplo, George, and Berns, Laurence. Platos Meno. Focus Pub/r Pullins Co, 2003.

Reeve, C.D.C., Meineck, Peter, Doyle, James, Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon. The Trials of Socrates: Six Classic Texts. Hackett Publishing, 2002.

Introduction

The dialog Crito, in which Socrates explains his reasons for having chosen in favor of remaining at the prison and facing the execution, has traditionally been referred to as one of the most intellectually refined argumentative defenses of the very notion of a statehood. In its turn, this explains why, until comparatively recent times, people used to find it rather challenging to come up with discursively legitimate objections to Socrates pro-death argumentation, deployed throughout the dialogues entirety.

Nevertheless, as of today, this effectively ceased to be the case, because: a) the realities of a post-industrial living render the classical concept of a statehood/law hopelessly outdated; b) the recent discoveries in the fields of biology and physics expose the assumption that there should be an afterlife after ones death, conceptually fallacious. Given the fact that the notions of statehood/law and afterlife are prominently featured in the Socrates line of reasoning, the philosophers arguments can no longer be considered legitimate. In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length.

Analytical part

Socrates defense of his decision to remain in the prison makes a perfectly logical sense. First, the philosopher points out to the fact that it is only a righteous living, which can be fully enjoyed.

Second, in order for just about anyone to be considered a righteous individual, he or she must be courageous and intellectually honest enough to never cease being observant of the provisions of a secular law. This is because it is specifically this laws unconditional enactment, which allows the society to maintain its integrity  hence, making possible the continuation of a socio-cultural progress.

What it means is that ones willingness to disobey laws, regardless of how unjust they may appear for the concerned individual, reflects his or her lack of existential righteousness: He who disobeys us (laws) is& wrong, because& he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are unjust (58).

After all, by refusing to obey laws, on the account of their presumed wrongness, without trying to convince legislators to adjust them, one indirectly sheds doubt on the legitimacy of the state in which he or she lives.

Yet; whereas, the wrongful application of a law may only affect the well-being of a single individual, the active denial of a law (by the mean of refusing to submit to it) will inevitably result in the deterioration of the state/society, and consequently  in depriving the rest of the citizens of an opportunity to realize their full existential potential.

Nevertheless, in light of what accounts for the realities of todays living, Socrates line of argumentation, in this respect, cannot be referred to as such that represents an undisputed truth-value. This is because, as of today, the very concept of statehood continues to undergo a qualitative transformation.

Whereas, even as recent as a few decades ago, only the independent states used to be considered the rightful subjects of an international law, nowadays this is no longer the case. For example, even though the organization of the European Union is not considered the de jure state, it nevertheless exhibits the indications of the de facto statehood, such as the common currency (Euro), the unified government (European parliament) and the transnational police-force (Europol).

What is even more important, however, is that it is specifically an ongoing technological progress, which allows the citizens of the EU countries to enjoy a high-quality living, and not their willingness to adjust their behavior to the euro-centric provisions of a secular law.

In fact, because the earlier mentioned progress renders the postulates of a conventional law outdated, it is specifically ones willingness to violate this law, which should be thought of as the proof of the concerned individuals existential fitness. This, of course, suggests that Socrates idea that the extent of ones virtuousness is being reflective of the measure of his or her lawfulness, can no longer be considered discursively legitimate.

Another justification for Socrates to decide in favor of ending his life, as it was prescribed to him by the court of Athens, was his irrational belief that the death of his body will not result in the death of his soul.

The validity of this statement can be well illustrated in regards to Socrates suggestion that: We (laws) shall be angry with you while you alive, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us (60). In other words, the apparent ease, with which Socrates went about justifying his decision not to attempt the escape from prison, may in part be explained by his belief in the afterlife.

This, of course, implies that contrary to what Socrates wanted people to believe about himself, his resolution to lead a righteous life was not entirely motivated by purely idealistic considerations, on the philosophers part. In other words, had there been a good reason for Socrates to consider the possibility that the end of his physical existence would result in the destruction of his personality (soul), he would not remain quite as calm, while explaining his reasons to decide to stay in the prison. In fact, he might have decided to escape.

Yet; whereas, the idea that the death of ones body necessarily results in the death of his or her soul would be definitely deemed inappropriate in time when Crito was written, todays intellectually advanced people (specifically biologists, psychologists and physicists) regard this idea self-evident. The reason for this is apparent  this idea is utterly inconsistent with the most fundamental laws of nature.

There is no afterlife. After ones death, there is nothingness  just as it was the case before his or her birth. What it means is that Socrates suggestion that, after having died, he would be held accountable in the underworld, cannot be referred to anything but the byproduct of his unawareness of how the universe actually functions.

Conclusion

As it was shown earlier, there are least two good reasons to consider the line of Socrates pro-death argumentation conceptually erroneous. In its turn, this suggests that the appeal to morality can no longer be considered a discursively appropriate foundation for the philosophical reasoning to be based upon.

Apparently, it is the empirical science and not the vaguely defined notion of morality, out of which the legitimate set of ethically sound rules of behavior originates. This, of course, implies that despite the emotional appeal of Platonism, this philosophy does not resonate with the actual realities of todays living. I believe that this conclusion is fully consistent with the papers initial thesis.

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 societys 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 peoples 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 ones 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 childrens 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 ones 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 states 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 elses 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 philosophers 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 peoples obeying their states.

Work Cited

Cooper, J.M. and Hutchinson, D.S. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Introduction

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 Polemarchus 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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.

Pardon me, my excellent friend. Im in love with learning. Country places and trees do not wish to teach me anything, but human beings in the city do. But you seem to have discovered a drug to entice me to walk outside the city (Socrates, in Phaedrus, 7).

Introduction

The divide of a man from the nature represents lots of amenities of city life. On the other hand, get involved with business of city life a man loses connection with the roots of essence, namely countryside. This dichotomy is emphasized by the eminent statement of Socrates in Phaedrus and ideas of H. G. Wells in The Island of Dr. Moreau. This dilemma concerns the issue of man and nature, business of city and relief of country. In fact, the idea stated by Socrates thousands years ago and repeated by Agamben and Wells deserves to be evaluated in detail.

Socrates Idea

First of all, Socrates directly outlines the benefits which an individual can achieve living in the city and in the country. Knowledge and harmony are two alternatives which are related to the city and to nature outside it respectively. The philosophical position of one of the greatest luminary of all times corresponds to the significance of the city. It is the place where culture, science, and education on the whole find their beginning. It is the centre for social, economical, and political relations. The growth of the nation stands on the activity of its cities. In ancient times Socrates did not hesitate to mention this very feature.

Herbert Wells View

Herbert Wells provides the significance of country for the protagonist of his book. Dr. Moreau loses inner balance when being outside the country, regardless the fact of his cruel experiments: The doctor was simply howled out of the country (Wells 29). He seems to lose his ability to create out of the place where the nature subtly touches upon the fibres of creative mind. This philosophical assumption represents a background for the significance to make no divides with nature. The example of Dr. Moreau emphasizes the role of the country, as the source for inspiration.

Differences between Socrates and Wells points

On the other hand, such point of view contradicts the position of Socrates. This philosopher believed that the divide between a man and the nature lies in the rejection to follow the way of a civilized world. However, he cannot but agree that there is an invisible thread between a human being and the wilds. It is seen at the place where Socrates compares the nature and the atmosphere of the country with a drug. Humans are separated from animals because of their more active way of development at least in three directions: social, cultural, political. This makes the distance between creatures of instincts (animals) and creatures of Reason (human beings).

Conclusion

All in all, the antinomy between humanity and the world of the nature and animals, particularly, represents the discussion about universal truths. The significance of city life becomes prior when looking at the perspectives of progress. On the other hand, people need to have inner relation to the nature. There should be an awareness of how to make a supposed divide reduced. Unfortunately, it is a matter of long discussion. People are more apt at complicating life than at improving it. Hence, the separation between men and animals seems to be constant in the contemporary world.

Works cited

Plato. Phaedrus. London: Forgotten Books, 1972.

Wells, Herbert George. The Island of Dr. Moreau. London: 1st World Publishing, 2004.

The essay focuses on Platonic literature about the later days of the Socrates who existed in Athens, Greece during the early centuries. Plato, an Athenian, was born on 427B.C. to an elite family that was greatly involved in the politics of Greece during the rule of Pericles, who was his step-father. Plato studied under the Socrates whom he developed close friendship though when they were executed in 399B.C, he distanced himself from the Athenian politics and ventured into Western philosophy.

As a teacher, he extended Socrates inquiries to his students, one of them being Aristotle. He founded an educational institution, the Academy, which focused on philosophical studies.

Furthermore, Plato wrote several works including the famous one, The Republic, which was edited by two authors, Hugh Tredennick, who was a professor of classics at London University Faculty of Arts, Royal Holloway College, and Harold Tarrant, who was also a professor of classics and head of the School of Liberal Arts at University of Newcastle, Australia. What were some Platos ideas concerning the Athenians focusing on Socrates?

Platos ideas focused on education, poltics, religion and legal systems of the Athenians. Socrates was born between 470-469BC, ten years after the conclusion of the Persian wars, at a time when Athens economy, military and education sector were recovering. Born in a family where his father was a stonemason, he was not able to get good education.

Socrates made strongly efforts to ensure that the Athenian youths were well educated, his point of focus being the quality of their souls. Most of the education that existed was basically practical skills that were geared towards transformation of the life of the young men. Socrates concern was mostly on the young men of Alcibiades and Charm ides who were most sought-after at that time though his feelings were much erosious leading to an unusual course (Plato 27).

Plato, just like Socrates, had a great passion for knowledge, although he lacked finances to fund formal courses, he preferred engaging the professional intellections in conversations. It is the lack of formal education that portrays him as having not acquired wisdom what could lead to him being famed by it (361d-e). Plato vividly points out that it requires philosophical experience in order to be able to arrange the universe and this philosophy is got through the formal education that one gets in school.

This is seen when he points out that Socrates is in charge of a weird school of philosophy (Plato 28), yet in real sense such school never existed. Most of Socrates guidance was intelligent governing principles that are why he was seen as being very clever. Acknowledging Plato, the Charmides and Protagoras painted an outstanding youthful picture of him having a conversation with Charmides and he is portrayed as being much contentious and headstrong.

Plato views the Apology as a struggle between two centers of piety where one overlooks the others religious duty which are fused with ones duty to the traditional values of the city.

Thus, for an individual not participating in religious ceremonies but giving respect to the political institutions and social principles, could have a social breakdown if he or she keenly follows it. The dispute between Socrates and Athens is looked at by Euthyphro as the piety that preserves both private household and the cities and that the results of impiety were felt by both families and the cities.

Socrates believed that trespasses can cause harm to an individual and that divine law does not permit the better individual to be harmed by the worse (apology 30b-c). He says that laws of justice should not be used to suppress and oppress guilty individuals especially on the Socrates like him. Plato exemplifies this to Georgias view 474d-480d, he says that punishment is due for an individual who has broken the law as it relieves him injustice and that it is this justice that determines the individual will act justly (Plato 33).

Though he did not like the Athenian laws, he was forced to adhere to them as because higher law calls for obedience to just agreements, and that by one deciding to reside in a given city means that he or she has agreed to abide by the laws stipulated. Apology 37 further points out that the higher authority associated with God and individuals perception precedes the derived authority of the city laws. It is this that leads to the Socrates following the Athenians and even supporting them in everything that came about.

In conclusion according to Plato, education is a key element in an individual as it invokes ones thought and actions, and this is what that thrives a nation. By being a philosopher one is able to understand the laws and interpret them effectively thus preventing a conflict from the centers of authority.

He demonstrates this practically when the people vehemently resisted to follow the Athenians laws due to misconceptions of the law, but they finally accepted to abide and work closely with the authority after being taught about the law. Intelligence is an important tool in a human being as it gives him or her knowledge and experience to act with respect to the law.

Works Cited

Plato, Tredennick. The last days of Socrates. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003. Print.

The story is set up in ancient Greece. It is about two friends, Socrates and Phaedrus. Phaedrus had just returned from a famous patriarchs home, where he listened to a speech on love.

Socrates has a high affinity for hearing speeches and begs Phaedrus to repeat the speech for him. They decide to walk along a nature trail into the jungle to find a serene environment, where Phaedrus offers to read him the speech. It is noteworthy that Socrates marvels at the surroundings, claiming that his passion for knowledge often guides him to the marketplace where he can listen to various speakers (Plato, Hamilton, & Cairns 475).

As they walk towards their preferred site, Phaedrus takes it upon himself to find out the degree of legitimacy in the fables and orations that have been propagated through different generations, including those of their time. Socrates offers that he does not pay attention to myths, since he does not like instituting lucid explanations for them. He further cites the discrepancies in varying accounts of the tale, with reference to revised versions explaining the nature and factors that instigated the death.

From these occurrences, it is clear that the crisis involves Phaedrus, who lacks the ability to make speeches of his own. This occurs because he is poor at analysis, hence faces challenges when trying to decipher facts from orations. This explains his eagerness to engage Socrates after he leaves the home of Lysius. He does this with the hope that Socrates will help him make sense of the facts argued by Lysius from the speech he gave about love.

From his preferences of crowds, as opposed to nature, it is clear that Socrates has a craving for knowledge. This is further illustrated when he reiterates his passion for speeches to Phaedrus. He practically begs Phaedrus to go over the speech for him, and even promises to recite his own version after the reading is finished.

After the recitation, he shows his analytical prowess by pointing out all the shortcomings of the speech. He makes out the poor application of rhetoric as a style and the incoherence of ideas in the body of the anecdote. He highlights Phaedrus inability to formulate speeches and recite those that have been told to him. This explains his incapability to figure out facts and themes from tales, hence his preference or Socrates company.

In view of this, Socrates helps Phaedrus comprehend the facts in the narrative, the main theme being that love clouds a persons ability to make sane judgments.

He argues that people make compromised decisions when they deal with persons to whom they are affectionate. Drawing parallels with the present-day scenarios, many promising ventures have gone wrong due to such affiliations. Records tell of deals gone sour; disagreements at the workplace, and businesses that have been run down as a result of having persons in love with one another at the core of affairs.

Socrates warns the populace to shy away from engaging in development oriented practices with lovers. It would be of immense benefit if persons undertook ventures with those they have moderate affection for, if they are to make progress in their undertakings. If this is observed, the result will be of mutual benefit, given that all parties will profit from the proceedings.

The moral of the story is that mutual affection is necessary for peaceful coexistence of persons. Lack of this will cause disharmony, hence numerous social ills in the society. While it is not an awful idea to have romantic feelings for one another, these should be restricted to social circles and family circles.

After this analysis, Phaedrus dares Socrates to issue a personal address concerning the same matter after he had discredited that of Lysius. He consents to this after a long argument, where he cites the fact that matters of love are not his specialty. This would bring shame on him if his peers found him issuing a discourse on the same.

He also cites that offering an entirely overhauled version is almost impossible, due to the numerous similarities that exist as a result of the narrow scope presented by the topic. After persuasion and threats, he gives in, speaking about love with reference the effect it has on the nature and ability of the soul to perceive reality. This is clearly supported by the evidence he adduces with reference to the topic.

From all his speeches, it is clear the he perceives the soul to exist in three different forms. Each form responds to a different phenomenon in the environment. This gives credence to his belief that they are adapted for different responsibilities in someones daily life. He also cites that desire finds completion in these forms.

Summarily, he believes in the immortality of the soul. He argues that the soul has no beginning, given that it is a self mover. The soul is also indestructible, since it is the basis of everything also which practices motion. This also implies that objects moving from without lack souls, while the presence of souls in those that move internally makes them indestructible.

Most importantly, he notes that a persons desires and preferences are determined by the soul. He contends that while all the three divisions of the soul are essential, it is imperative to for a reason to rule, since those led by appetite or emotion are mentally and emotionally unstable. This makes it easy for their actions to provoke disharmony at personal and social levels. It is also in order that people establish a middle ground in their soul.

There is the mantic soul of rational sanity in existence. This sphere governs the human ability to reason. This refers to the intellectual part of the soul which fails to find the truth by weighing all options, and deliberating when presented with alternatives, all these under the influence of the hubristic soul. It is advised that persons refrain from making crucial decisions under the influence of this segment of the soul. It is advisable to restrict these feelings to social circles, in addition, to family and personal relationships.

There also exists a wanton nature, which refers to a hubristic soul of irrational desire. It may also be called the appetite. This is a dangerous state if left unchecked. It fails to find the truth since people are controlled by their desires, whether material, biological, or of any other nature.

These people opt to feed their craving at the expense of other pursuits, which may be equally fulfilling. The main characteristic is the predominant desire and cravings of the highest degree. As a result of this, people are insensitive to the desires of other persons. This makes it dangerous to act on the premise of impulses drawn from this part of the soul since they are mostly self seeking. Acting on these feelings increases the possibility of persons being at logger heads.

Lastly, the Socratic nature of the soul is mentioned with reference to the philosophical nature that governs temperance and rational desire. It is referred to as the spirit in some quarters. This sphere of the soul draws to the emotional and passionate side of a persons character. It succeeds in establishing the truth by driving persons in pursuit of status on a social level. It evokes ambition for nobility and magnificence, ethical indignation and hankering for approbation.

Since love relationships can be slotted under this cluster, interactions with others are a source of experience that manipulates emotional growth. Plato favors placing the mantic in control due to its respectable counsel and tendency to search for insight before acting. It equips persons with credible contemplative faculties, hence are unlikely to act hurriedly irrespective of the situation. In order to comprehend the benefits of the divergent nature of the soul, it is imperative to study the real-life applications.

From these deliberations, it is evident that Socrates defines rhetoric as the general art of enchanting human minds with arguments and is practiced in courts, public assemblies and private houses. It deals with all matters, irrespective of the magnitude, time and place of composition. They differ on the most salient aspect with respect to oratory; between competencies with regards the topic of discussion or familiarity with persuasion as an art.

Socrates argues that mastery of persuasion is of more importance to aspiring orators. This assertion is disputed by Phaedrus, who argues that lack of knowledge on the subject will yield substandard arguments by the orator, hence a poor speech altogether. Socrates responds by drawing attention to the fact that conviction is only achieved if the orator knows persuasion. He concludes that both factors are necessary for success in this field.

In the itinerary of their discourse, it is established that the act of persuasion is the skill that governs all speaking. It is indispensable for the speaker to establish common grounds in the topic of choice, and establish all facts and falsehood with respect to the said concepts. Armed with this knowledge, it is easier for him to sway his audience to mendacity by drawing them through parallels. Setting up similarities is impracticable if the orator lacks this knowledge; hence it ceases being an art.

Persons interested in possessing this knowledge should create a concise distinction between the aspects they have incorporated in their speeches. While some facts make the same impression on listeners, others may evoke varied thoughts on the same group. This marks the main shortfall of the speech by Lysias.

He fails to delineate love clearly as he commences his narration. This makes his entire recitation appear jumbled up and incoherent. This prompts Socrates remark that all speeches should be well thought and constructed, with requisite attention paid to the introduction, body of the text and conclusion in equal measure (Plato, et al. 523).

It should be noted that clear and certain results are not governed by clearly written rules and regulations. They only exist to remind established writers the dynamics of writing. It is noteworthy that writings lack oratory capacities hence convey their message silently. This explains their inability to speak, come to their own defense or answer questions.

It is evident from this oration, that love can be perceived as a form of madness bequeathed to us which bears more potent than harm to those who experience it. This implies that persons should not shy away from love, rather embrace it whole heartedly and revel in every joy that comes with it.

This includes it among the supreme blessings to mankind, since it changes peoples perceptions and possible reactions to several situations that we may come across. To illustrate the place love manifests itself on and the effect it has on human beings, Socrates extends his speech to the soul. This offers a bridge for the switch to his second speech.

By mentioning the soul and its different forms, he refers to the varied factors that influence actions taken by human beings when faced by different situations in life. He offers counsel, by citing that knowledge about the way the soul acts is essential. The immortality of the soul is evidenced by the fact that the soul dictates all undertakings. With reference to this, persons are advised to uphold self control of and the decisions they make when faced with uncertainties.

Works Cited

Plato. Hamilton, Edith. & Cairns, Huntington. The Collected Dialogs of Plato. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1961. Print.

Introduction

Socrates was a philosopher who lived between the years 469 and 399 B.C.E. He is one of the few men who created an image for himself as a man fully committed to the virtue of truth. His critical reasoning and the way he lived his life has a major influence on western philosophy to date. He was a renowned soldier who also served diligently in politics before retiring to work as a stonemason to look after his family.

Main body

Looking at the Greeks understanding of virtue we realize that virtue varies from one individual to another since they describe it as a skill. But for Socrates, virtue ought to be similar for everyone at all times and place for that is what real virtue is all about. Meno believes that virtue is actually the unending urge for good deeds but Socrates seems to differ with this point of argument. He argues that considering different people possess different levels of virtue then it has to vary amongst different people (Jowett 2). He goes ahead to mention that, it is very normal all around the world for anyone to want his or her believes to be regarded as good. This is because no one would want what is regarded as bad whether knowingly or unknowingly. The difference in character as seen in different people is a result of differing knowledge possessed by different people. Socrates believes that when a person acquires knowledge on what is right then the outcome is the desire to act on it (Jowett 13).

Another thinker in the name of Aristotle, later on, came to disapprove this argument by Socrates bringing to our attention the different events where the weakness of will affects our moral judgment. At this point Socrates redirects the dialogue asking the question; how is one supposed to know what virtue is? He raises a dilemma on the dialogue with many questions to ponder on, on the aspect of knowledge. For example, How can an individual learn what he does not know? He goes further ahead to mention that this could be because this individual already has the information concerning what he is looking for and therefore he does not need to look further. Or maybe he is not aware of what he is looking for and therefore may not know even when he finds it. Socrates, therefore, does not respond to Menos question about how virtue is acquired because he tries to make us believe that it is hard for us to learn anything about virtue.

When Socrates was in prison awaiting execution, his friends came up with a plan to help him escape but instead he decided not to follow it up. He was a man ready to face execution rather than abandon his philosophical beliefs (Taylor 124). He looks calm and collected even in the face of his death (Taylor 126). Crito argues that helping Socrates run away from the arms of law would help him achieve his life obligations of ensuring his friends reputations are preserved. Socrates strongly dismisses this argument claiming that what matters is the opinion of that person with the relevant knowledge and not that of the general majority. He says that the truth should be the only factor to consider in any decision-making process and therefore everyone should engage the right moral standards in trying to do this. Socrates argument applies to him alone considering that we are living in a democratic world where the majority seems to carry the day every time. Democracy can either work against you or for you depending on the numbers that oppose or propose to you.

In the apology, Socrates argues that People should never at any time do wrong even if they are wronged by others. He claims that it is never to disobey the state and therefore nobody should ever think about disobeying this institution (Tredennick 33). Acting right at any moment should be guided by the moral standards set within a society. For this reason, I totally disagree with the argument that people should never disobey the state. The argument is applicable only when the moral standards set within a society approve the actions of a state and disapproves of the actions of an individual.

If ordered by the authorities in our country to do something, before obeying it is your responsibility as a citizen to weigh the impacts of this action on the moral standards of our society before we do it. Personally, I feel that moral standards must always be upheld at any time and therefore if the action is immoral you are justified to disobey. In a job contract, it is a responsibility of an individual to act as per the agreements of the contract while on the other hand, nobody signs a contract with a state.

Socrates defense in the apology looks more of a failure than a success considering that Crito is not convinced. The argument that Socrates should not run away from prison but instead face his death to show obedience to the state seems valid to Crito as long as the sentence is totally based on the truth. As long as Socrates friends still believe in his innocence than his argument still remains unconvincing to them and therefore a failure. Crito tries to compare the situation of complete obedience to a state to that of a parent and a child. It is wrong for children to disobey their parents, but when they grow old enough to know what is wrong and right, they have the responsibility to question what is wrong. Likewise, the state can never be right every time and therefore people have to rise up and take action whenever necessary.

According to Plato, knowledge is acquired by looking at past experiences that had a direct or even indirect influence on an individuals life. This argument explains the Socratic dialect concerning knowledge acquisition. He explains that the purpose of learning is not all about offering new information but instead revealing what we already knew from past experiences.

Conclusion

Socrates life offers a lot of teaching that can positively apply in our lives today. He offers us a life teaching in truth and how it should be used in making ethical judgments. His mistakes provide an insight into the impacts of every decision-making process with regard to our lives. It should therefore be everyones desire to make the right decisions every time and be guided by moral values.

Reference list

Taylor, Alfred. Socrates. California: Read Books Publishers, 2007.

Jowett, Benjamin. Meno. Forgotten books, 2008.

Tredennick, Hugh. The last days of Socrates. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.