Category: Socrates

The following is the hypothetical conversation on the subject of ones moral obligation to a civil law, which could have had taken place between Socrates and Protagoras (sophist philosopher).

During the course of this conversation, Socrates was able to prove to Protagoras that the notion of ones moral obligation to a civil law is indeed fully objective. The conversation was concerned with the discussion of contemporary socio-political issues.

Protagoras: Dear Socrates, I am not entirely convinced that people should consider themselves being morally compelled to seek into attuning their act with the conventions of a civil law.

The reason for this is simple  as you, I am sure, is being well aware of; morality itself never ceases to remain the subject of a constant transformation. As human societies advance, in social, scientific and cultural senses of this word, the morality of these societies members never ceases to attain qualitatively new characteristics (Foucault 101).

Therefore, it would only be logical to assume that there are no good reasons to believe that, as time goes on, the concept of ones moral obligation to a civil law will continue to be perceived as being thoroughly objective.

Socrates: I do not deny the fact that, as time goes one, peoples code of behavioral ethics undergoes a qualitative transformation. Nevertheless, you should agree that the earlier mentioned transformation results in people growing ever more open-minded and tolerant.

For example; whereas, as recent as hundred years ago, the majority of citizens in Western countries thought of the concept of civil marriage as such that implied sinfulness, it is no longer the case nowadays. After all, it now became a commonplace practice among Western men and women to enter into relationships, without having to get married (Cherlin 848). Do not you agree?

Protagoras: Yes, I agree. This, however, only proves the validity of what I was saying earlier  as time goes on; the conventions of traditional morality become increasingly outdated.

In its turn, this should lead us to a conclusion that the notion of ones moral obligation to a civil law can no longer be thought of as representing an undeniable truth-value.

After all, it may very well be the case that tomorrow, peoples newly adopted moral predispositions will prompt them to consider ones willingness to adhere to the conventions of a civil law as being essentially immoral  certainly, not an improbable scenario.

Socrates: Your argument, in this respect, cannot be considered fully legitimate. The reason for this is simple  while stating that peoples morality undergoes a continuous transformation, you failed at pointing out to what represents such transformations qualitative effects.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an undeniable tendency for Western societies to grow ever more tolerant. Given the fact that you admitted that my line of argumentation, in this respect, is being fully legitimate, you will have to agree that the subtleties of moralitys transformation are being dialectically predetermined. To put it plainly  it is quite possible to predict the spatial essence of moralitys continuous alteration.

Protagoras: I guess I will have to agree. Still, I do not quite understand how what you have just said relates to what it being discussed.

Socrates: What I have said points out to the fact that Western societies become increasingly secular (civil). Therefore, it would only be natural to think that the essence of earlier mentioned moralitys transformation is being fully consistent with the process of societies secularization (Dobbelaere 167).

In fact, this secularization appears to be driven by peoples realization of the fact that there is nothing wrong with the disposal of clearly outdated moral dogmas.

Protagoras: Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say.

Socrates: Then, you would have to also agree that, even though the process of moralitys transformation does affect a variety of legal conventions, it nevertheless does not undermine Western law from within, as a whole.

Otherwise, the process of people becoming ever more open-minded and less concerned with professing the traditional values should have resulted in Western societies being plunged into the state of anarchy. Yet, this is not being the case, is it?

Protagoras: I will have to agree with you on that. Even though that, as time goes on, more and more people tend to reconsider the validity of clearly outdated moral conventions, such their tendency does not seem to affect the qualitative aspects of Western societies functioning.

Socrates: This is because, contrary to what you were implying, the continuous transformation of a number of ethics-related traditional conventions does not result in undermining moralitys validity, as thing in itself.

It is important to understand that; whereas, in the past, the notion of morality used to be perceived as something closely associated with the notion of religion, it nowadays is being increasingly looked upon as something that originates out of an impersonal civil law.

Protagoras: It is actually beginning to dawn upon me what you are trying to say. Evidently enough, you are implying that the notion of morality is being essentially synonymous to the notion of a civil/secular law, as the solemn authority that regulates socio-political dynamics within a particular society.

Socrates: Yes, you are right. Just consider the case of Muslim countries in the Third World. The majority of these countries citizens never cease taking pride in their strong adherence to the dogmas of Islamic morality.

Moreover, even upon having immigrated to Western countries, these people continue to profess the ideals of traditional living, while bashing native-born Westerners on the account of their materialism, consumerism and non-spirituality.

This, however, does not prevent Muslim immigrants from acting as primeval barbarians, upon being exposed to the ideas that do not quite match their own (Banu 2408). I am sure, you must have heard of incidents of street-violence, instigated by the publishing of caricatures on Islamic prophet Mohamed in Western newspapers?

Protagoras: Yes, I have heard of it. The representatives of Muslim communities in Western countries used to hold mass-rallies, while protesting these caricatures publishing, as utterly inappropriate. As far as I remember, these protests were quite violent.

Many innocent bystanders sustained physical injuries, simply because they were unfortunate enough to find themselves in close proximity to the raging crowds of Muslim immigrants.

Socrates: That is correct. As the context of your latest remark implies, you do consider Muslims behavior, in this respect, highly inappropriate?

Protagoras: Yes, of course. After all, they were not forced to immigrate to Western countries. If they do not like the ideals of Western secular living, they should simply pack up and leave to where they came from, so that nothing would prevent them from being able to celebrate their religion, in time free from indulging in tribal wars and making babies on an industrial scale.

Socrates: Did it occur to you that what you have just said points out to the fact that you think of Muslims socially inappropriate behavior as being essentially immoral?

Protagoras: I think so. Apparently, these people are being utterly intolerant to other peoples opinions.

Socrates: What do you think makes them being intolerant to the extent that many of them are willing to go as far as killing their opponents?

Protagoras: I think, they are being little too devoted to their religion.

Socrates: Exactly! These people are simply being intellectually primitive, which in turn prompts them to act in a manner if they were absolutely unaffected by the provisions of Western secular law.

They think this law has nothing to do with them, as it is only their holy book Quran, which they consider to contain the only valid instructions as to how they ought to address lifes challenges (Baig 61). Do you agree now that ones failure to observe the provisions of a civil law is being essentially immoral, as it leads to violence and chaos?

Protagoras: I think you have made a good point there. Still, I am not entirely sure that the notion of ones moral obligation to civil law is being fully tangible, simply because there can be no instrument for defining and measuring such obligations objective emanations.

I guess you are being aware of the fact that the concept of a civil law is based upon the premise that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. This creates a certain paradox  after all, one might very well go about proving its adherence to the provisions of a civil law by indulging in morally repugnant behavior, since such type of behavior is not being strictly forbidden.

Socrates: Actually, the point you have just made is being explored throughout the movie Larry Flynt vs. People. Movies main character  the publisher of Hustler Magazine Larry Flynt, simply strived to run his business, concerned with selling pornography.

This, however, did cost him dearly, as during the course of seventies; Americas Bible-thumpers were still utterly influential. This was exactly the reason why Larry Flynt never ceased being sued on the account of his businesss moral inappropriateness.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Courts final ruling, in regards to the case of Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell (Christian preacher), left no doubt as to the fact that by promoting pornography, Flynt has in fact been promoting democratic/civil values (Butterbaugh 15).

This shows that, regardless of how strongly immoral ones behavior may appear, for as long as such a behavior contributes to the strengthening of a civil law, as the only legitimate societal authority, this individual should be considered an outstanding citizen.

Protagoras: In other words, there is a possibility for seemingly immoral individuals to be considered as such that experience an innate obligation to promote the provisions of a civil law?

Socrates: Yes, there is. It is important to understand that, unlike what it happened to be the case with peoples most commonly irrational morality-related convictions, the morality advanced by a civil law is fully rational, which in turn means that it is being fully objective.

The reason for this is apparent  it is namely the countries where civil law enjoys the status of an undisputed authority, which feature worlds highest standards of living. Why is it?

This is because it is only in intellectually liberated secular societies, where an impersonal civil law is being equally applied to societies members, regardless of what happened to be the particulars of their racial, cultural of religious uniqueness, where the continuation of a scientific, cultural and social progress is possible, in the first place.

In its turn, this progress creates objective preconditions for the people to be able to enjoy a nice living. After all, as I mentioned earlier, it is specifically godless, immoral and consumerist Western societies that serve as a magnet for the hordes of highly spiritual and culturally rich but intellectually backward immigrants from the Third World, and not the vice versa.

Therefore, ones willingness to observe the provisions of a civil law should indeed be considered the foremost indication of him of her being a moral individual.

Protagoras: I guess, I have no option but to agree with you. It just dawned upon that, even though the conventional morality does in fact undergo the process of a continuous transformation, the very purpose of this process is make peoples moral judgments to be fully correlative with the provisions of a civil/secular law.

Therefore, if there were an instrument for measuring the extent of peoples endowment with socially beneficial morals, it would be the observation of how comfortable they are with the implications of a civil law.

Socrates: That is correct. Allow me to conclude this conversation by reinstating once again that there is not only a moral obligation for the people to act in accordance with the provisions of a civil law, but there is also an obligation for them to actively strive to resist just about anything that might undermine such laws implicational integrity.

Protagoras: Thank you for your time. I did find this conversation truly enlightening.

Bibliography:

Baig B. G. Islamic Fundamentalism. Social Scientist 9.1 (1980): 58-65. Print.

Banu, Zainab. Immigrant Groups as a Factor in Communal Riots. Economic and Political Weekly 29.37 (1994): 2408-2411. Print.

Butterbaugh, Laura. Is This Freedom? Off Our Backs 27.4 (1997): 15-18. Print.

Cherlin, Andrew. The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66.4 (2004): 848-861. Print.

Dobbelaere, Karel. Secularization: An Analysis at Three Levels. Berlin: Peter Lang, 2004. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Print.

Socrates

According to Socrates, it is the man who does not know himself who cannot accurately judge his own capabilities and his own unique path to the greatest good based on accurate use of his strengths and knowledge of his weaknesses. Socrates takes this another step by suggesting that knowledge of oneself will instruct from within regarding those things which are good (moral and ethical) and those things which are not. He suggests this by claiming that things that are good will make us feel happy inside while things that are bad will be immediately recognizable to the man who knows himself because these actions will cause internal degradation and spiritual deterioration that will be immediately apparent. Socrates offers his own history as an example of coming to know oneself and of finding true wisdom and knowledge. As he recaps within his defense speech in Platos Apology, after being told by the oracle that he was the wisest man alive, Socrates insists he did not allow this distinction to go to his head. Instead, he went to the streets and began questioning those individuals he had always considered wiser than himself (Xenophon, 1990).

In each case, he found that even among those who possessed a little wisdom tended to take that knowledge to the outer extremes and assume they knew everything there was worth knowing, without any further examination. At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom (Apology: 947). From his account, it becomes possible to deduce that Socrates definition of wisdom entails not only knowledge, but also the knowledge of what one does not know. I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing (Apology: 947).

Descartes

Descartes, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher, presented his ideas regarding how to combine mathematical concepts to the human thought process in his book, Discourse on Method. His goal in doing this was to find a means of attaining perfect certainty of philosophical concepts. To begin with, he bases knowledge not on what is thought to be known, but instead insists that one must call into question everything one thinks one knows that have been learned through the senses of the body. As it is presented, Descartes gives four main rules of logic that must be addressed. The first of these is that one can only accept as true those things that are clearly and distinctly known to be true. Things can be clearly and distinctly known to be true by breaking down the problem under investigation into as many parts as are considered necessary to fully solve the issue.

The third rule is that the logical process must proceed step by step from the simplest and easiest portion of the problem to clearly and distinctly know and progress in order of difficulty to the more complex. Finally, in order to be sure nothing has been omitted, Descartes instructs that one should always take an open view to the problem so other possibilities or seemingly unrelated issues might be considered. Reading through these steps, the linkage of thought to mathematical methods of analysis can be clearly traced. Although his most famous statement, I think therefore I am, rests to a large degree upon the sense that he is still thinking, the very fact that this sense still exists is proof for Descartes that there must be something in existence to realize the sense and therefore he, as a thinking entity, must exist. This simple-sounding statement is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions hes come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. I had long before remarked that & it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain (Descartes, 2001). Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge and established what is today known as the Cartesian method.

Summaries

In these summaries, it can be seen that these two philosophers, although usually placed on opposite extremes from each other by todays standards, actually shared many common beliefs. Both Socrates and Descartes felt that the only way to find true knowledge was not by a search through the external physical forces of nature, but was instead through a systematic, clearly defined internal search through ones own inner being. They accomplished this internal search, and suggested others do so as well, through a process of questioning that served to call doubt onto all things.

This was done not with the intention of confusing things, but instead to be sure one was starting on their path to knowledge standing on a clear and distinct platform that took into consideration all the available possibilities. Each philosopher placed importance on exploring the possibilities, or variables, and keeping an open mind rather than relying on assumed knowledge that hadnt been fully investigated. For each, this insistence caused problems. The Socratic method of endless questioning for clear definitions and taking in increasingly complex scenarios and possibilities had a tendency to render all conversation essentially meaningless. The Cartesian method of doubt, despite disavowing any information brought to the mind by the senses only, nevertheless had to fall back on information brought by the senses to reach any form of meaningful conclusion.

Although there are several similarities between Socrates and Descartes approaches, these two methods are more often contrasted than they are compared. This is perhaps because Descartes himself rejected the methods of the old school, which had been founded upon the methods of Socrates. This was because, even though Socrates belief was that one needed to look within oneself to find true knowledge, the method by which one found out what was inside was reached by examining what was outside. He relied upon the senses and external examples as a means of exploring the inner being. Further, the senses were given the final say in determining what was right and true, not the mind.

This is starkly contrasted against Descartes assertion that the only way of knowing whether something is true and right is through the logical processes of mindful thinking and intelligent doubt. In addition, the way in which each man approached his questioning seems to move in opposite directions. Socrates, in attempting to question all that was assumed knowledge, tended to expand his sphere of inquiry to very complex degrees, eventually ending a conversation quite far away from where he started while not truly coming to any conclusions regarding the original question. Thus, he worked from the inside out along what he demonstrated was one of many spokes. Descartes took his original question and attempted to work his way in, breaking the question into smaller, reasonable sections that could then be followed to their basic truth. While Descartes attempted to base all his knowledge on logic, he was obliged to acknowledge the senses. While Socrates attempted to base all his knowledge on the senses, he relied upon logic to lead the way to true and right feeling.

Works Cited

Descartes, R. Discourse on Method. Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 190914; Bartleby.com, 2001. Web.

Introduction

Impiety and corrupting the youth

These are the two vices that lead to Socrates current predicament. This may be viewed to be ironic as a large part of the play deals with Socrates giving his views about this and emerging to the readers judgment as innocent. After the final monologue in which Socrates tells Crito that the voices in his conscience have been urging him against going against the state and the laid down laws, it becomes rather clear that he is indeed not to blame and that it is Crito who is in the wrong for urging him on.

This paper will regard the three premises discussed in the play and we will seek to evaluate whether the premises laid down by Socrates do indeed concur with the conclusions he makes and if these conclusions can in any way contrast with Critos viewpoint.

Premises

Socrates believes he owes the government his obedience. He is of the view that retaliating a wrong with another wrong, which would escape, will not correct the wrong already done by the law which is being falsely accused consequences of his escape would be worse than staying in jail. We will first look into the explanation of each of these premises with regards to his reasoning. His current predicament does not worry him much; and now that this fortune has come upon me, It is also made clear in his unperturbed slumber when Crito comes to his cell. The fact that he owes his government obedience is made clear in his monologue in which he observes that it is the government that gave him life educating him and enabling his progenitors to marry. He also observes that he took a contract that was implied by choosing to remain in his country thereby proof that he will abide by the laws laid out by the state. As to why he believes in this premise is the repercussions he highlights in his monologue. He is of the view that he will be giving the government arsenal against him should he choose to escape as he would be in no position to answer the questions posed to him were he to be caught escaping and he would be running from a government that has brought him thus far. He considers that once you wrong the government it is threefold.

From the onset, it is clear that Socrates makes use of reason as opposed to making decisions offhandedly. This brings us to our second premise. He queries Crito on whether it is right to make amends of one who has wronged you by adding further wrong. To this, Crito answers in the negative. He gives the analogy of a trainee and a trainer in gymnastics implying that one should only hold regard to one authority when making decisions. Not the voices of the multitude that he claims view revenge as morality. Repercussions of his escape are the third premise and this he delineates in the monologue. He weighs the pros and cons of escaping and the scale is tipped to the latter. Due to his selfless nature, he is of the view that he would even harm his friends by his escape causing them to go through forced exile and lose property they have worked for all their life. Friends like Simmias of Theban and Crito. He would also forever live with the notion that he is a traitor of his country.

Whether he owes his government allegiance is made crystal during his monologue that is written in the form of a trial. He is of the view that by agreeing to stay in the country he bound himself to an implied contract. To break the laws that bind the contract would be to err threefold. It would be disobedience against the parents, the authors of his education, and the laws that bind the contract and that were agreed to if not implied by citizenship. It is therefore a true premise as there is no escape from the law that binds you to your country. And in so doing we see the logic between the premise and the conclusion.

In justification of the second premise, two wrongs do not make a right according to Socrates. Crito tries to show Socrates the value of his life but Socrates counters this by asking him if the body that is destroyed by evil and disease is more valuable than the soul. He retaliates when Crito asks him to listen to the multitude that is planning his escape. He asks Crito if it is in listening to the multitude that the trainer gets to learn or by giving a keen ear to those other than the trainer. It is in line with this that asks whether revenging for being falsely accused by the government through escape that he regains his conscience that he is indeed lacking in fault. This premise we may evaluate as true considering he is not above the law and consequences of retaliation would be but an effort to grasp the wind. There is a logical conclusion to the argument as he is able to agree with Crito that evil cannot be fought with evil.

His selflessness is portrayed in the final premise when in his monologue he views that the law must come first before family and children. He acting as both the prosecutor and the plaintiff tries to make sense of the repercussions of his actions. His family may suffer if he escapes and his friends may suffer too. Throughout the play, Socrates arguments do seem to have a premise and indeed a logical conclusion and this is made clear in the fact that though Crito sticks to his argument for escape, Socrates is, in fact, able to logically conclude all arguments for the purpose of their being true to purpose. Though the irony of impiety and corruption the two offenses Socrates is sentenced for persisting through to the end, there is a logical sequence of arguments that enlightens the reader to the truth.

The story, Equal opportunity provides the reader with an opportunity to understand the difficulties faced by the poor in their day-to-day life. Through the main character, Socrates the author elaborates the life of a poor man who finds it difficult to reintegrate back into normal social life after a lengthy period in Indiana prison. Socrates presents a number of character traits that reflect the life of many people in modern day society. This paper however focuses on three major character traits, namely, determination, remorsefulness and courageousness.

Socrates reflects the day-to-day life of a poor man who is determined to live on. Despite the insults, abuses, and neglect, the poor man lives on. Socrates is determined and despite constantly being denied a job at Santa Monica supermarket, he does not give up and keeps going to the same place hoping that the supervisor will finally give up and give him the job (Smolensky 1). He represents a group of people in society who are ready and willing to struggle hard in order to get what they believe they deserve. He tells the supervisor that he needs the job in order to pay for the phone. This is despite being informed that he needs the phone as a pre-qualification for the job. This is an indescribable level of determination. Most people would have given up easily and sought other possible places. Generally, he believes that his status is not incapacitated. This is perhaps the kind of determination that keeps many poor people within the society, moving. His determination lands him a job at the supermarket as the security men put it, the manager wants to give guys a chance (Mosley 86). The job is directly a product of his determination.

Socrates also stands out as a representation of bravery amongst the poor people. He applies for a job as a packer and delivery man at a Santa Monica supermarket but he is rejected based on his appearance (poverty). However, he does not simply accept it as cowardly. He stands up against the supervisor, even when he has been threatened with a possible arrest. He expresses his opinion as he deems it appropriate. He knows that his rejection is not about qualification and neither is it a result of the alleged phone he doesnt have but has more to do with his social status. His voice, reflects the voice of many poor men within the society who are crying for equal access to opportunities as their wealthy and well known counterparts. It is not just about the strength to do a job but rather the qualification. He stands out for the many people who have good qualifications but are unable to get jobs, just because of their status within society. He expresses bravery by standing against the status quo until he gets the job that would enable him live righteously. His belief in bravery is well summarized when says to Darryl, You stood up for yourself&. Thats all a black man could do (Mosley 81).

Remorse is a character greatly expressed by Socrates. He is deeply affected by the life he has lived from childhood. He believes that if many children got the right guidance, perhaps they wouldnt just end up like he has done. He is affected by the fact they lost their house many years ago and the many times they had to go hungry. He regrets the fact that upon reaching his teen, rather than salvage the two women who loved her most form such misery; he took to drinking and aimless wondering which caused them a lot of pain. Ending up in prison denied him the opportunity to apologize to his mother for the wrongs he had done (Smolensky 1). He is remorseful and feels that he owes his deceased mother, a righteous life. It is the remorse in him that makes him embark on a job search that would allow him to lead a righteous life. However, reintegration back into society is difficult as the society is not willing to fully accept him back into their midst. His remorse helps him advise Darryl who incidentally has killed another boy and does not know what to do. He tells him, As long as you live you could do something (82).He wants to save other children who are affected by drugs just like he was years back.

In general, Socrates character is a direct mirror of typical poor men who are victimized by appearance. Most employers for instance, want job seekers to be neat and presentable not realizing that to be neat, one has to have a job and hence cash that can sustain the same. He stands out as the voice of the oppressed in a bid to salvage the little that is left of their lives. More importantly, he reflects the will and hence determination that drives poor men through with life even when things are so tough. Despite the oppression, there reaches a time when a poor man is so pressed and demands what his rightful his. Socrates is therefore a mirror reflection of modern day society. His character mirrors the forgotten classes who have to work hard and toil for everything they earn. For this class, living a righteous life calls for determination, commitment and bravery.

References

Mosley, Walter. Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned: Equal Opportunities. Washington DC: Washington Square Press.

Smolensky, Ira. Equal Opportunity. Magills Survey of American Literature, Revised Edition. Salem Press, 2007. Web.

Introduction

During his trial at Athens, Socrates said, Unexamined life is not worthy living (Baggini). Socrates was tried in court for having encouraged his students to challenge the accepted beliefs or traditions in society (Stern 16). The court gave Socrates several options to choose from, to go in exile, remain silent, or face execution (Stern 18). Socrates chooses to be hanged instead of running away or being silent. He argues that there is no point in living without awareness of what is around you by questioning (Stern 30). Socrates made a decision to be hanged since he believed that living a life where one could not evaluate the world and look for ways of making it better was not worth living. Because of his decision, Socrates was sentenced to death (Stern 30).

Main Body

By saying that unexamined life is not worthy living, Socrates was referring to freedom, a state of making choices about your surrounding, a state of choosing your destination, having the freedom to criticize issues, setting your goals in life, and deciding whether what you are doing is right or wrong (Baggini). In general, Socrates was referring to individuals having the opportunity to understand or know themselves. An examined life is taking control of your life.

To Socrates, life imprisonment would make his life not worth living. This would take his freedom away; he would not have an opportunity to decide what was right or wrong for him (Stern 15). He would no longer examine his environment, nobody would assess his ideas, and neither would he determine his destination. Examining once life is an opportunity to acquire freedom. Having a chance to examine your own life presents you with opportunities to control your life and choose your destiny.

In very simple terms, the unexamined life is a situation in which an individual is not open to question what is around them and what they do (Stern 13). Living unexamined life is living a life, which is not unique, a life that does not reveal new perspectives or ideas; it is a life that has not been appreciated by others in any way (Baggini).

ConclusionIn addition, it is important for individuals to know what is right and wrong in their life. For instance, individuals need to identify their success and failures as well as the reason for the kind of life that they live (Baggini). Socrates chooses death over a confined life because he believed in self-evaluation and knowledge. His choice of death rather than running away or silence is a message that we should appreciate what we believe in rather than living the way other people do or want us to live (Stern 20).

Works Cited

Stern, Paul. Socratic rationalism and political philosophy: An interpretation of Platos. New York: Sunny Press, 1993. Print.

Baggini, Julian. The unexamined life is not worth living. 2005. Web.

When people speak about the sense of life many of them agree that the life is meaningful only when it is based on the principles of love. Thus, love is often considered as the leading aspect of the peoples life and as its ruling force. Many philosophers spent a lot of time discussing the phenomenon of love in order to understand the peculiarities of this feeling and to examine its mysterious nature.

From this point, Platos Symposium can be considered as the most interesting representation of the ancient philosophers thought and their visions of love. Why do people usually have an irresistible desire to seek for love? What feelings and emotions lead them in their searches? In his speech, Aristophanes tried to answer these controversial questions with presenting a myth about the peoples nature which could explain that human desire.

According to this myth, people who earlier were complete and had two faces and limbs were divided into two halves by the gods. That is why, to feel completeness in the life, people need to find their halves.

The discussion of the myth presented in Aristophanes speech is compatible with Socrates visions of the issue of love because both philosophers consider love as a desire of something or a lack of an important part for people to be complete, love is also the search of the best part or the goodness, and the philosophers agree that love is intentional in its nature.

The nature of love is one of the most provocative questions in philosophy which can have a lot of answers according to the positions which are close to this or that philosopher. Nevertheless, there is one point considered as exceptionally significant for the discussion by almost all the thinkers.

The speeches of Aristophanes and Socrates focus on the fact that love is the realization of the definite intention. Thus, love is intentional in its character. According to Aristophanes, the ruling force of the peoples life is the search for something or the search for love which can be explained as the natural intention of a human to find his half in order to feel himself as a whole.

Moreover, this necessity depends on the peoples instincts which are typical for the human nature and affected by their origin. That is why it is almost impossible to resist to the desire or intention to feel the wholeness with another human. In his speech, Aristophanes states that Love does the best that can be done for the time being: he draws us towards what belongs to us (Plato 36.193d). When people know that they are incomplete they suffer from this knowledge and do not feel satisfaction.

They have the overwhelming desire to go forth and seek for their half. In this situation, love becomes the real life intention for the people. Socrates also discusses love as an intention because this feeling has the object toward which it is directed (Plato 42.200e). People are searching not for the abstract thing, but for the real object of their feeling because this object should complete their nature. That is why people suffer when the object of their love does not belong to them.

The notion of love as the intention is similar in the philosophers discussion to the vision of love as a need or as a desire. Following Aristophanes considerations, it is important to note that people try to find the object of love or their half because this desire is explained by the peculiarities of the humans origin.

Therefore, the feeling of love is the representation of the lack of the necessary part of a human, and it is the peoples intense want to acquire their wholeness. According to Aristophanes, Love is the name for our pursuit of wholeness, for our desire to be complete (Plato 29.192e).

People cannot be happy when they are incomplete. If Aristophanes explanation of the peoples lack of the other person as a half is based on the myth about males, females, and androgynies, Socrates idea about love as a longing depends on the opinion that love is always the desire of something.

During his conversation with Agathon, Socrates draws his opponents attention to this fact asking him a series of questions starting with Is Love the love of nothing or of something? (Plato 41.199e). Agathon says that love can always be considered as the love of something.

In spite of the fact this understanding of love is more general in comparison with Aristophanes ideas of love, Socrates vision is compatible to Aristophanes discussion of love because love of something as the desire of something depends on the fact that person wants something when these objects do not belong to him or her. That is why love of something is the lack of something. This lack makes people consider themselves as incomplete persons.

However, is any half which was acquired during the persons search can be discussed as appropriate to form the whole? Aristophanes pays attention to the fact that people can be satisfied only when they find their necessary halves which are ideal for them.

He states that when a man or a woman meets his half something wonderful happens: the two are stuck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they dont want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment (Plato 28.192c).

That is why it is possible to say that people love those objects and those people who are perfect particularly for them. In dialogues with Socrates, Diotima expands this idea presented by Aristophanes and makes it be more general.

Diotima states that people are inclined to seek not only for their best halves but also for any perfectness and goodness (Plato 44.201a). The good people or things make people happy. Nevertheless, what are the similarities of Aristophanes and Socrates visions of the issue? To answer the question, it is important to concentrate on the details of the discussions.

What are the main reasons for people to love something or someone? Thus, those people separated from one another by the will of the gods who are presented in the myth by Aristophanes are seeking for their halves not according to their appearances, but according to the similarities of their souls. Moreover, people love each other not because of some qualities, but because of the feeling of closeness with this or that person.

This idea is accentuated in Socrates dialogues where it is stated that the beauty of peoples souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies (Plato 58.209e). Thus, people love each other because they understand the value of the persons soul which is similar to their ones. That is why people are inclined to love the best souls and the best things, but they are the best for these persons particularly and cannot fit the other persons souls.

Furthermore, Aristophanes focuses on the fact that when people find their halves they are so happy and they feel that they cannot be apart with their lovers anymore. This viewpoint is similar to Socrates one. Love is wanting to possess the good forever (Plato 52.206d). To complete their nature, people should not only find their halves or the best objects of their love, but also possess them during all their life to preserve the wholeness and happiness.

Platos Symposium includes a lot of exciting ideas on the problem of love presented in the form of the speeches developed by the ancient philosophers and historical personalities. In spite of the fact that the viewpoints performed in Aristophanes speech are often considered as opposite ones to Socrates visions of the phenomenon of love, there are a lot of similarities in the discussions of the question which allow speaking about the definite compatibility of the speeches.

Thus, the philosophers agree in their opinions that love is the intention which is realized in the desire to find the object of love. This irresistible desire is often caused by the persons need or lack. Moreover, it is important for a person to love a man or a woman which is similar to him. That is why people are inclined to seek not for any object of love or any half, but for the best one which will be ideal for them.

Works Cited

Plato. Symposium. USA: Hackett, 1989. Print.

Introduction

The development of philosophical thought becomes possible due to the activity of courageous people that are not afraid of challenging long-term traditions and views of life. Socrates, one of the most famous Greek thinkers, is an example of an individual who revolutionized philosophy and stayed committed to his principles in any circumstances. His key contributions to the field include the Socratic Method that facilitates the critical analysis of hypotheses, ideas about morality and wrongdoing, and the concepts of immortal soul and preexistence.

Socratess Life and Career

Many centuries have passed since the birth of Socrates, but he is still regarded as a source of wisdom and an inspirational figure in the world of philosophy. Socrates was born in Athens circa 469 BC and died in 399 BC at the age of seventy (DAngour 5). Some popular myths state that Socrates came from an economically disadvantaged background and had limited educational opportunities.

However, based on the common themes found in his disciples works, Socrates was a son of relatively well-off parents and grew up being surrounded by the Athenian elite of the time (DAngour 12). As a child, Socrates dreamed about becoming a strong warrior or a successful politician, and years later, he had a chance to demonstrate his talent in military arts (DAngour 12). In addition to that, he had other gifts that contributed to the popularity of his philosophical views.

Being a teenager and then a young man, Socrates always had a thirst for knowledge and worked hard to develop new skills. He learned a lot from the best music teachers and political advisors, including Damon, and practiced the art of singing and playing the lyre (DAngour 13). Additionally, it is presumed that at a young age, Socrates was trained to follow the trade of his father and become a stonemason (DAngour 12).

His earliest participation in armed conflicts was around 447 BC, when one of the most known battles of the Peloponnesian War, the Battle of Coronea, was fought (DAngour 5). During his service, he gained the reputation of a polemist that could not be beaten in an argument and did not care about material possessions. Unlike other philosophers, he did not produce written works to express his principles of life.

Due to his self-righteousness and the ability to find the best words to defeat his opponents verbally, Socrates was a character of some comic plays that aimed to expose his mistakes and exaggerate them. For instance, in 423 BC, Aristophanes caricatured him in the play titled Clouds (Moore 534). In this literary work, the philosopher is portrayed as a person who teaches a young man to distort the truth to reach his own goals. In particular, the student learns how to use the art of rhetoric to tire money-lenders with idle talk and distract them from his debts (Moore 534). Therefore, the critics of Socrates depicted him as a sophist and an unprincipled teacher.

Socratess fidelity to his principles admired many of his peers and cost him a life. His death was related to political reasons since after the Thirty Tyrants came to power, the situation in the state changed drastically (Saxonhouse 17). In 399 BC, after the Tyrants defeat, Socrates was accused of supporting anti-democratic views and corrupting young people in Athens and placed on trial (DAngour 6; Saxonhouse 17). In Platos Apology describing the events, Socrates is presented as a shameless person who gives a speech to prove his wisdom instead of invoking peoples mercy (Saxonhouse 18). As a result, the court found him guilty of blasphemy and erosion of value and traditions, and the philosopher was executed by poison.

Ideas and Contributions to Philosophy

The Socratic Method, Moral Knowledge, and Wrongdoing

Socrates was extremely different from other philosophers of the time since he did not produce writings to immortalize his key ideas. The so-called Socratic Method of inquiry is among the key contributions that he made to the philosophical thought of the next centuries, especially moral philosophy. Socrates was one of the first thinkers focusing on the notions of morality and immorality, and the discussed method outlines the steps to be made when evaluating moral concepts (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Based on Platos works, the dialectic method used by Socrates has five stages, with wonder being the first one (Boghossian and Lindsay 246).

During this stage, a question for discussion is offered, and it usually refers to the definition of some abstract concept or its social importance (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Then, the stage of a hypothesis takes place, and a philosopher provides his first answer to be evaluated and supported later.

The third step needed to implement the Socratic Method into practice can be regarded as the representation of the deep meaning and innovative nature of this approach to arguments. It is called the elenchus or the argument of refutation and involves a series of questions from the facilitator that highlight the answers potential flaws (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Also, these questions are to point at the circumstances in which the hypothesis becomes inconclusive. After surviving the elenctic process, the answer does not necessarily become knowledge, but the elenchus allows checking its quality and defeasibility (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Thus, a hypothesis can be accepted and become a new principle only if it cannot be disproved.

Next, the fourth stage depends on the outcomes of the elenchus. If the hypothesis has been destroyed, the process is to start again with a different answer to the same question. If it has not been undermined, it is necessary to end the conversation or introduce additional elenctic questions to make conclusions on the hypothesis (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Finally, to implement the fifth stage, all participants are to revise their beliefs and apply new moral knowledge to their lives and actions.

The critical approach to evaluating other peoples views made Socrates the key contributor to Western philosophy. During the pre-Socratic period, prominent thinkers focused on retrieving the arche or the source of everything, but they did not have a system helping to assess hypotheses (Georgoulas 143; Kenny 24). The method used by Socrates changed the perception of arguments and laid the foundations for critical thinking in philosophy, thus replacing the previously used ways of confirming beliefs (Kenny 24). Also, the method was applicable to sensitive topics and principles to guide ones life.

Due to that, Socrates contributed to the development of moral philosophy or a set of theories aimed at distinguishing between right and wrong actions (Kenny 25). Therefore, the willingness to take hypotheses critically to check if they present knowledge is among the key principles that made Socrates a great thinker of his time.

Socratess important contributions to Western philosophy also include his attempts to connect moral knowledge and wrongdoing. He believed that the willingness to commit harmful actions always stemmed from the absence of knowledge helping to evaluate intentions and their consequences (Kenny 25). According to this principle, all people want to live a happy life. They can do the wrong things only unintentionally, just because they have no idea what is right in some situations (Kenny 25). Consequently, they need instruction instead of punishment in order to understand their mistakes (Kenny 25). This idea contributed to the discussion of human nature and inspired other thinkers to offer their opinions on rationalism in ethics.

Mind, Body, and Preexistence

Apart from the mentioned concepts, Socrates facilitated further evolution of philosophy by offering a new perspective on physical and immaterial things related to human experience. During the pre-Socratic era, the distinction between the physical and non-physical components of living creatures did not receive much attention (Georgoulas 138). The philosopher being discussed was among the first thinkers to regard the soul and the body as two separate entities that are interconnected (Kenny 32). Based on his ideas, unlike the body, the human soul is immaterial and immortal (Kenny 32).

In the philosophers opinion, the soul presents the initial source of life and exists even before a persons birth (Kenny 32). These ideas highlighted the superiority of the soul over the body and provided the basis for further discussions of life, death, and immortality in philosophy.

Conclusion

To sum it up, Socrates was a philosopher that used the approaches to thinking and evaluating arguments that were innovative at the time. Being a master of rhetoric and a talented warrior, he increased the perceived importance of critical thinking by applying the Socratic Method or the elenchus during conversations with his disciples. Together with the method, his ideas concerning morality and wrongdoing as a result of ignorance also changed the philosophy and set the path for its evolution.

Works Cited

Boghossian, Peter, and James Lindsay. The Socratic Method, Defeasibility, and Doxastic Responsibility. Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 50, no. 3, 2018, pp. 244-253.

DAngour, Armand. Socrates in Love: The Making of a Philosopher. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

Georgoulas, Stratos. The Origins of Radical Criminology. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Kenny, Anthony. An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy. 20th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2018.

Moore, Christopher. Socrates and Self-Knowledge in Aristophanes Clouds. The Classical Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 2, 2015, pp. 534-551.

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. A Shameless Socrates on Trial in Democratic Athens. Readings of Platos Apology of Socrates: Defending the Philosophical Life, edited by Vivil Valvik Haraldsen et al., Lexington Books, 2018, pp. 17-36.

The perception of the self, according to Socrates explains the nature of man and the rationale on which man thinks. Socrates believed that, man is a product of his thoughts. Socrates questioned the way we attach importance to what people say without understanding the principle of individual thinking.

The capacity of a man is a product of the self in him; this formed the basis of Socrates argument. He emphasized that; man must believe in his or her principles and should not follow the wagon effect of the society. We find ourselves in situations that will require our careful examination, but we often accept what people say on the issue. Socrates proposed that logical thoughts would be more productive than accepting a patterned way of doing things.

The product of logical thinking is a patterned thought which is not influenced by the majority. To further his arguments, Socrates proposed a method of logical thinking. He believed that this would help each person evaluate his or her actions and thoughts based on the strength of logical thinking (Noe 4).

1. Critically examine peoples comment and assumption: The common belief should be subjected to examination. The belief that it pays to work hard or that marriage makes a man responsible.
2. Put forward a reversal to these statements: It is true that the society follows fashioned assumptions. One should be able to find a reversal to these assumptions. Provide a proof that man can be responsible without being married, and show that hard work do not always pay in the end. These reversals to a patterned way of life will help an individual build his or her confidence.
3. There are no credible statements than yours: When you are able to fine the reversals to the statements, you will conclude that many statements and assumptions are misleading. This will help you build your confidence in logical thinking.
4. Formulate your statements from observations: The examination of logical thinking will provide the basis of new statements. Marriage can make a responsible man live happily and wrong work is different from hard work.
5. Develop yourself: Make it a habit to always examine the statements of people and find the reversal to those statements.

The strength of a man is weighed by his actions and statements; this is the defining principle on which we must stand. Socrates argued that philosophy can be analyzed not only by the elites, but by the common man. The ability to make a statement devoid of what people think or say is a product of self.

Socrates emphasized that the human soul is immortal and is a product of different perceptions. Socrates believed that the human soul exists in two forms; the transformation realm and the constant position. The evil in the human mind is a product of the benefits he or she imagined. An individual will act based on his or her perceived thoughts which is based on what good he or she will derive from the action (Noe 3).

In conclusion, we are what we think of ourselves and we must act accordingly. Socrates provided examples to show that philosophical thinking can be done even by the common man. Logical thinking is the ability to examine each statement independently not minding the opinion of the majority.

Works Cited

Noe, Alva 2009, Direct Perception. Web.

The most significant part of Socratess life was the constant search for the truth. His goal was to ask Athens the right questions in order to make them realize their beliefs and mostly to examine different viewpoints, looking for objective truth. Although it seemed that he did the research in favor of societys benefit, he was brought to trial on two grounds: corrupting the young minds and not worshiping the citys gods (West & Plato, 1979). Looking deeply at Socrates life, the vital quote provoking discussions to the present day is, I know that I know nothing. It is called the Socratic paradox, and there are some bullet points illustrating my complete agreement with his position reflected in Platos Apology.

Socrates does not understand why the Oracle at Delphi claims that he is the wisest man in Greeces metropolis. It indicates that, while finding out others professional knowledge by asking philosophical questions, Socrates tried to define whether the people were wise or whether they considered themselves as ones (West & Plato, 1979). Thus, their distinguishing feature was the firm belief that the Athenians bright minds claimed themselves as indeed wise. However, the human brain is not able to accommodate all the knowledge of the world, and only the person who realizes that is definitely the wisest.

Indeed, this position may seem a bit senseless to ordinary people. However, the more profound investigation of Platos work and the demonstrative examples will shed light on Socratess mindset. First, asking proper questions was not teaching, but recollecting youngsters knowledge because they already had it. In other words, Socrates was carrying out the gods will as he maintained that he is a devotee (as he believed in supernatural beings) because he had neither the intentions nor the knowledge to corrupt the young (West & Plato, 1979). Then, when Socrates life was at stake, he believed that the death penalty must have been the will of the gods and assured the jury that death is a blessing. According to Plato (1979), there is a Constructive Dilemma: if death is like a dreamless sleep or a relocation to another place, then death is a blessing in both cases. Consequently, though Socrates searches for truth led him to his eventual death, it worth living.

The reason why Socrates did not appeal to the Assembly for mercy is that he was sincerely convinced of his life goal to practice philosophy. An individual ought to be acquitted not out of pity in a court of law judges because they judge an innocent man according to the law (West & Plato, 1979). Nevertheless, Socrates distinguished two ways of persuading the juries by a defendant. The first option is to apply emotional or rhetorical tricks such as logos, ethos, and pathos. The second option is to affect them through philosophical dialectic, which he used in the court himself. For instance, he draws the jury to the conclusion that exile is a perfect punishment for him, but various people would have to tolerate his conversation (West & Plato, 1979). Therefore, Socrates said, It would be a fine life at my age to be driven out of one city after another. Finally, Socrates was always able to refute any definition while answering the question because the polemic came to the contradictory outcome.

Moreover, if Socrates had appealed for mercy, it would undermine his commitment to being a critical thinker. He stood up for this believes and provided the argumentative and logically structured defense. Socrates was not afraid of death, because he faced with a choice between death (which might not be evil) or disobeying Gods mission (which is precisely evil). Thus, everything stated above proves that Socrates is not only a great philosopher and critical thinker but also the wisest person of ancient times.

Reference

West T. G., & Plato. (1979). Platos Apology of Socrates: An interpretation, with a new translation. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Socrates is one of the pioneers of philosophy. His point of argument on different life issues has greatly contributed to the development of the modern philosophy. During his days, many people in the authority and places of influence were vexed by his arguments on various philosophical issues of life.

He never believed anything without first questioning its credibility and truth of the subject matter. This is the reason he was accused and put on trial by his enemies. During and after the trial, he engaged in very intensive arguments with the others on matters of life and death. These last moments are recorded by Plato in Phaedo.

Phaedo is the last dialogue that recorded his final arguments before his death. In this dialogue, Socrates is apparently not afraid of death. He has been prosecuted, and a bench of 500 jurymen has already voted for his death penalty for supporting atheism and corrupting minds of the young in society.

He seems to have already accepted his fate by this time. A visit by some of his friends culminates in heated arguments on some philosophical issues. In the first argument, death becomes the pertinent topic of discussion (Guthrie, 1975).

Socrates gives a clear distinction between true and false virtue brought about by death. He argues that true virtue can only be attained after death. This is the purification that comes from the separation of the soul and body. He argues that the body is a great hindrance to the acquiring of the knowledge and truth.

He holds the belief in the afterlife. This seems to be the major motivating factor to face death through poisoning. According to him, the separation of his soul with the body will give him a full answer to all the questions he has ever craved for.

To him, death is a purification from what he calls the infection of the body (Gallop, 1996). He believes that true virtue can only be found in the afterlife where wiser souls and Gods live. He believes that there exists something better after death.

The soul, therefore, is the key to the full attainment of virtue and wisdom (Gallop, 1996). It exists before the body comes into being. It, therefore, might acquire some knowledge before. The hindrance to the realization of the true virtue is corrupted by the body and its elements. This is why, separating the two is the key to the full attainment of the true virtue.

On the other hand, this argument also brings out the false virtue that comes from the corruption of the body. It is a result of the fears of life, which act as the speed governors in the urge to attain the real full virtue. The body has demands that must be fulfilled.

During this process, many important aspects of attaining knowledge may be ignored just to ensure that the bodys demands are fulfilled. The soul, which is still a part of the body, has no free will in exercising true virtue by this time. This explains why Socrates believes that the true virtue can only be attained when the soul and the body are separated (Gallop, 1996).

In the real world we live in, there are needs that must be met. We need shelter, food, and clothing among other things, like comfort. The process of getting these things sometimes makes some people compromise on what should actually be done.

Such compromises are normally big setbacks in ones process of acquiring the true virtue. The conflict between the soul and the body normally ends up into satisfying the demands of the body. So long as the soul is still with the body, the true virtue is far from being attained.

This is depicted in the movie I have watched about a lady named Teresa. This young lady grew up in a poor family to become so ambitious that she vowed never to live a life of poverty again. As much as she thought what to do to achieve her goals, she decided to selfishly use her feminine charm to lure rich men into her trap.

She did this at the expense of family break ups and divorces. As the time passed, she came into her senses and felt guilty of her actions. Her soul convinced her to stop and do the right things, only for her to change and do the same things to maintain her exorbitant lifestyle.

It is, therefore, very evident that the body is a hindrance to the attainment of the true virtue. The very quest for knowledge by human beings is full of challenges. The drive only comes due to the satisfaction of what the body craves for. Therefore, reaching the full attainment of knowledge is far from reality.

This is also evident in the way decisions are made. Someone in political authority may make a wrong decision that is popular to maintain his or her position to make the right one for everyones benefit. Socrates believed that his search for knowledge would be complete after his death. His soul would be free to do what it wills with other Gods and wise souls.

However, it is worth noting that Socrates idea on the true and false virtue is not the answer to the search for knowledge. We all have to acknowledge that life is important, and that we can never avoid the realities of life. The soul can never exist alone in this life without the body.

Therefore, we can never know what this life has in store for us. Attaining virtue is a continuous process that is only shaped by the life experiences. This should not be termed as false virtue. Finally, if the soul did not require the body, then there would be no need of being born. I do not see why one should be born and die for the soul to be free to exercise true virtue.

Works Cited

Gallop, David. Introduction. Phaedo. Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. vii-xiii. Print.

Guthrie, William Keith Chambers. A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1975. Print.