Category: Socrates

Introduction

The Socratic maxims are both conscientious and conceptual in nature. These dicta were initially analyzed and critically assessed by Aristotle. Presently, these axioms have become an area of interest in the philosophy of education and general philosophy. Indeed, the intellectual and cultural development of the world has been shaped by Socrates philosophical ideas. His Socratic Method of questions and answers places Socrates at the plinth of analytical and inventive reasoning. He surmised the conjecture that unstudied life was not worth living. In his philosophical works and the conversations he had with different people, there exist virtues or maxims that Socrates conceived. It is critical to assess Socrates philosophical maxims because they were predominantly focused on creating a virtuous society that is guided by wisdom, knowledge, and moral authority.

Discussion of Socratic Maxims

One of the maxims that was conceived by Socrates is the virtue of unity. He asserted that virtues such as bravery, sagacity, holiness, and justice among other virtues are one (Woodruff). More explicatively, some arguments were offered by Socrates to support this case. Going by Socrates arguments, an individual cannot think of being sagacious if there is an absence of sobriety. Socrates disproves the likelihood of interaction between wisdom and temperance on the grounds that sobriety and acuity are averse to one another (Ryan). Critically, an individual cannot have wisdom if there is any temperance and one cannot have temperance if there is a lack of real sense because temperance and wisdom are inimical. An additional supposition by Socrates was that things such as beauty, health, and strength are inclined to benefit individuals but can end up hurting them if they do not portray wisdom or knowledge. For any virtue to be advantageous to a person, they must exhibit cognizance because characteristics of the soul are not advantageous or egregious to the spirit. Accordingly, virtues are only important to humans if they are related to percipience and are detrimental if they show idiocy.

Furthermore, Socrates postulated that no individual will ever err knowingly. As theorized by him, no one can make mistakes deliberately (Woodruff). Through this maxim, the concept of intellectualism by the philosopher can easily be deduced. When an individual makes a mistake, this is regarded as an intellectual error. According to Socrates, a person will not do something that is wrong if only the individual knows that it is incorrect to act in that manner (Woodruff). By implication, it is then impossible for someone to commit right and wrong simultaneously. Insistently, Socrates asserts that a person will only make a mistake if that person does not have the knowledge of what is not right. An interesting matter that the philosopher repudiates in his argument in this particular maxim is the frailty of the will. This, nevertheless, seems as if Socrates is rather prevaricating between willingly and knowingly.

As one of his maxims, Socrates also theorized that human beings desires and expectations are always conditioned towards obtaining good outcomes. The ultimate expectation of any doer of an action is the derivation of good results from the act itself (Woodruff). Every single one of the bad things tends to be done for the purpose of something else that will be good. For example, a dictator who hangs his or her opponents does so with the intent of achieving good results, even if it means acquiring only peace of mind. The tyrants act will, consequently, be focused on getting good results since this is what truly is wanted. An implication that can be obtained from this maxim is that those who desire bad results have no knowledge that they are bad. Otherwise, if those people knew that the actions they were taking would yield negative results, they would not pursue them.

The other truism of Socrates is his belief in suffering injustice rather than committing a felony. Socrates enraged Polus, who is also another Greek philosopher, with this argument. Polus on his part believed that while it was not wrong to commit an injustice, it was shameful. Polus contention with Socrates is injustice, which the former regards as the most brutal thing to suffer. Socrates, instead, posits that if an act is disgraceful, it will transcend both affliction and evilness. Socrates argues that one should choose to suffer rather than commit an injustice (Woodruff). Understanding this point requires an understanding of Socrates care of the soul. With Socrates argument, committing crimes is an evil somebody can do to oneself since such acts corrupt the soul of man (Woodruff). He, therefore, asserts that it is proper to pursue retribution rather than eschewing it. Indeed, this argument depends on the hypothesis that corruption is purged out of the soul by the purification act of punishment.

Another dictum by Socrates is that ruling is or requires expertise. Since ruling requires extensive knowledge, is therefore an art or craft (Ryan). The duty of a leader is not to govern for personal interests but for the purpose of the entire society. Ideally, a ruler should not be led by his intrinsic needs (Ambery). Leadership should be for the benefit of citizens and justice (Ambery). Connected to leadership actions is the virtue of Socrates on eudemonism. The concept points to the feeling of a certain way instead of being in a certain way (Woodruff). It is crucial that an individual creates his happiness and that every human being should pursue happiness as a consideration for his actions. The philosopher contended that a righteous individual who is operating in accordance with wisdom will attain happiness. Clearly, Socrates descriptions of the happiest persons are the ones who have no badness in their souls.

Critique

Most of the maxims by Socrates were focused majorly on the responsibility and objective of an individual. From his works, Socrates was concerned with creating a virtuous society. In as much as some of these maxims are agreeable, several of them need critical evaluation. For example, his argument that all virtues are one is reasonable to a great extent. This concept is valid on the grounds that wisdom is the bedrock for everything advantageous (Ryan). For a man to gain benefits, knowledge of positive virtues is important since the qualities of the soul are neither detrimental nor beneficial. This particular dictum by Socrates tries to instill responsibility and foresight.

The maxim about ruling being expertise is agreeable based on the proposition that leaders should endeavor to benefit their subjects rather than pursue personal goals. This precept cultivates desirable qualities of real leadership in all spheres of human life. To a large extent, the notion that human beings seek good always is also agreeable. Human beings seek to obtain good results even if the actions to receive good results are bad. As such, human beings are described as always striving to get good results. In addition, Socrates maintained that it was better to undergo inequities than to commit one. Inarguably, this adage has informed the moral requirement of practicing justice.

As a matter of fact, some of the Socratic maxims are not agreeable. A good example of Socrates weak postulations is that human beings make mistakes without knowledge. He argued that the absence of experience makes people make mistakes (Woodruff). In reality, this is not the case as some people deliberately make mistakes with the aim of accruing some benefits in the end. Furthermore, the aphorism of eudemonism can be discredited on the ground that one can be virtuous yet not happy as Socrates suggests or one can be happy without being virtuous. Indeed, happiness cannot be guaranteed by being virtuous despite it being one way to happiness.

Conclusion

In summary, the maxims that are derived from Socratic philosophy are focused on promoting the virtues of wisdom, knowledge, and moral authority. As evidenced in his postulations, Socrates believed in wisdom and knowledge as the cornerstone to acting well. In fact, he attached happiness to virtues such as wisdom and knowledge. His works are therefore important in the discussion of ethics in contemporary society in relationship with a good life. However, these maxims have their weaknesses and the Socratic philosophy cannot be treated as some form of moral authority. Socratic maxims need further interrogation and critical assessment within the purview of other philosophers works. Analysis of Socratic theories requires a clear approach that is devoid of bias towards virtues. Indeed happiness can be attributed to virtues but there are some other factors that need not be interlinked with virtuous living.

Works Cited

Ambery, James. Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by James Fieser, and Bradley Dowden (2022 Edition). Web.

Ryan, Sharon. Wisdom, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Web.

Woodruff, Paul. Platos Shorter Ethical Works, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Web.

Socrates statement reflects his belief that individuals should prioritize seeking knowledge and wisdom over acquiring wealth and fame. This attitude is consistent with Socrates philosophical beliefs, as he is known for valuing knowledge and virtue above all else; thus, I agree with him. As one of the founders of Western philosophy, Socrates believed that the ultimate goal of human existence is to achieve a state of eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness or flourishing. He believed that this state of well-being could only be achieved through virtue, wisdom, and self-knowledge rather than material possessions and external validation. This perspective can be seen as commendable as it encourages individuals to focus on self-improvement and personal growth rather than solely on material gain. It advocates cultivating a fulfilling life rather than just accumulating riches and power. Socrates believed that true happiness and fulfillment could only be found within oneself through the pursuit of wisdom and self-improvement (Matthews, 2021). He also thought that pursuing knowledge and understanding is an end rather than a means to an end.

However, it can also be argued that pursuing wealth and fame can motivate individuals to work hard and achieve their goals, leading to personal growth and self-improvement. It can also be seen as a way to provide for oneself, and ones loved ones and contribute to societys betterment (Smith, 2021). Additionally, the pursuit of wealth and fame can also be a means to an end, as these things can be used to acquire resources and opportunities to seek knowledge and wisdom. For example, having wealth can provide one with the financial resources to travel, study and learn from different cultures and perspectives. Furthermore, fame can also deliver a platform to share knowledge and wisdom with a broader audience, which can positively impact society.

References

Matthews, G. B. (2021). Socrates children. In Gareth B. Matthews, The Childs Philosopher (pp. 143-150). Routledge.

Smith, N. D. (2021). Socrates on Self-Improvement: Knowledge, Virtue, and Happiness. Cambridge University Press.

Discussion

Socrates was imprisoned for corrupting the youths minds in Athens as well as defying the gods that the state recognized. Although Socrates contemporaries agreed that he had an opportunity to escape, he refused all of them. Socrates followers did not want to see their inspiring figure being executed by drinking poison, so they agreed to bribe the guards to let them get to Socrates. However, Socrates did not change his mind.

Firstly, by escaping, Socrates would be assumed to have a fear of death. Socrates, however, believed that no philosopher must fear it. This point was made primarily because he regarded death as a continuation rather than an end. Socrates believed that everything must go according to the laws of nature, and death (his or anyone elses) is something that must happen. Additionally, it may be stated that Socrates desired to achieve awareness of other plains of existence. This means that, as a philosopher, Socrates always tried to deepen his knowledge and understanding of the world he lived in or, simply put, discover new things. Death is then assumed to be a form of ascension  an entirely new experience (Rawson 87). Therefore, each philosopher that truly craves knowledge must be willing to accept death.

Another reason is much simpler. Socrates knew that he was sentenced to death primarily because he questioned everything that other citizens of Athens took for granted. This was not because their opinions and views were wrong but, rather, a result of Socrates perspective. It was natural for him to doubt things. Socrates regarded every part of his surroundings as something that must be questioned. Therefore, he would approach other cultures and beliefs in the same fashion becoming an unwanted person in foreign regions as well. Thus, there was no place for him to go after his potential escape.

Socrates, as a citizen of Athens, consciously agreed to live under this states laws and regulations. Therefore, he could also be judged by these statutes and sentenced to any punishment government would find fitting. If Socrates violated this agreement, he would harm the state in which he lived. Such an act, according to his political and social beliefs, was unacceptable and even more so for a philosopher like Socrates himself. As a citizen living by the principles he had, Socrates could not allow such a violation of the law to happen (Rawson 83). He could not escape imprisonment, therefore, avoiding punishment.

Finally, Socrates understood that, by helping him to escape, his followers would also become liable before the law. While Socrates may have believed that his punishment had the wrong basis, he still recognized that his imprisonment and sentence were both acceptable and respected them in the framework of the law. Therefore, he believed that he must not be helped to violate the judgment he respected (Regan 17), especially with someone else paying that kind of price for his escape.

Although these reasons may be the most possible, there also could have been others that only Socrates knew or understood. However, his reputation and descriptions of his lifestyle and actions provided by his contemporaries suggested that these reasons were the most probable. Therefore, Socrates decision to stay in prison and accept his punishment was justified by his principles and beliefs that indicated that he was a stoic and respectable person that lived by the set of rules he created for himself.

Works Cited

Rawson, Glenn. Critical Thinking in Higher Education, and Following the Arguments with Platos Socrates. AAPT Studies in Pedagogy, vol. 2, 2016, pp. 73-93.

Regan, J. Ward. Great Books Written in Prison. Mcfarland, 2015.

Introduction

In this paper, I will defend Socrates claim that the same traits of character can be beneficial if the person is wise and could lead to misery if the person is not, against the objection that an ignorant action might lead to happiness, and a wise action might end in misery.

The Statement

In Meno 88-c Socrates claims all that the soul undertakes and endures, if directed by wisdom, ends in happiness, but if directed by ignorance, it ends in the opposite. Before he comes to this conclusion he gives an example: Courage, for example, when it is not wisdom but like a kind of recklessness: when a man is reckless without understanding, he is harmed; when with understanding, he is benefited (Meno 88-b). Through this example the meaning of the statement is clarified: all of the human qualities are tied to wisdom and benefit or hinder the person depending on the understanding they possess. Socrates shows that what results the persons actions will have depends on wisdom, and as he explains later:since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but accompanied by wisdom or folly they become harmful or beneficial (Meno 88-c). The point that Socrates makes is definitely viable and can be proved by many examples we can encounter in our everyday lives. For example, a man who hangs from the top of a skyscraper for no reason, but the thrill of it, can hardly be considered wise. His actions gain him nothing in the long term and at the same time are likely to harm him, if he falls. On the other hand, a firefighter entering a burning building well prepared and with a goal of saving somebody, can certainly only be viewed as wise as his actions will benefit both him and anybody he rescues. Both actions are similarly risky, yet only the one we can deem as wise lead to the actual beneficial results. On an ancient battlefield, the difference might have been even starker. The effect of wisdom is pretty evident when comparing a flamboyant leader rushing headlong into an obvious trap and a wise general, who risks a daring attack to secure the victory. And Socrates, who was a soldier at one point, might have seen that example personally.

The Objection

One of the most logical objections to the Socrates claim is that even ignorant actions sometimes claim beneficial results. For example, acting recklessly and without a plan in battle may bring you victory if your opponent does not foresee your actions. Being too moderate and only allowing yourself whatever food and water you need to survive might also benefit you as you would have a larger hoard of money when things become hard. Such examples show that even when acting without wisdom, people can attain beneficial results by luck and chance. On the other hand well thought-out and planned actions, which Socrates would have undoubtedly deemed wise, sometimes misfire resulting in a disaster. Such examples show that wisdom is not a sure way to achieve beneficial results. On the personal level, similar examples can be found. Sometimes a person is ill-prepared when talking in public and fails to convey his points convincingly and clearly. That can only be deemed as that persons lack of wisdom. But by stuttering and embarrassing himself that person might attain the sympathy of the public and with that reach his original goal of convincing them. On the other hand, a well planned trip might end in a disaster because a hotel you booked closes unexpectedly. You have been wise to plan the trip in advance, yet you achieved undesirable results. Poorly made plans succeeding and well thought-out campaigns failing are not a rare thing which seems to put a sizable dent into the Socrates claim.

The Defense

In Meno 88-e Socrates states Just as for the rest of the soul the direction of wisdom makes things beneficial, but harmful if directed by folly, so in these cases, if the soul uses and directs them right it makes them beneficial, but bad use makes them harmful?(Plato and Grube 81). This statement gives an idea of how the philosopher might have rebuked the aforementioned objection. It seems similar to the claim mentioned in the first paragraph, but the key difference is in the the direction of wisdom makes things beneficial quote. This implies that any beneficial result is necessarily attained by the path of wisdom. So to the objection, that folly might accidentally lead you to your goal, Socrates might answer: But was not the path you took wise in that case? It led you to your goal, so your soul has followed wisdom. The same argument applies to the opposite situation. If you have failed, you have been directed by folly, even if it seemed to be wisdom at first. Such defense offers solid protection to the original claim, and it is quite possible it might have been used by Socrates if he had ever been faced with such argument.

Work Cited

Plato., and G. M. A Grube. Five Dialogues. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1981. Print.

In the Meno and the Phaedo, the character of Socrates argues for the recall possibility of encyclopaedism . In this paper I will first briefly explain what the remembrance theory of encyclopaedism is. Thenwill consider how Socrates argues for the reminiscence theory in the Phaedo. Next, I will consider why Socrates thinks that the recollection theory of eruditeness supports the claim that the somebody of a soul is immortal. I conclude by lifting a remonstration to Socrates’ use of the recollection theory to support the immortality of the soul.

The recollection theory of learning suggests that all learning is purely recollection. At birthing , we forget what we knew before, but we can recollect the information by simply being questioned. According to Socrates , the fact that people are Max Born with noesis from birth is that the soul must have existed before they were born. In the Meno, Socrates demonstrates the recollection theory of learning by questioning a slave son about geometry. The boy has never been formally educated about geometry, but through Socrates questioning, the boy is able to figure out a problem about the lengths of the slope of a squareSocrates explains that this must mean that the boy had cognition of geometry in him already that he was recalling to solution Socrates inquiries and figure out the correct answer. In the Phaedo , Socrates argues for the recollection theory of learning by presenting the eccentricity of seeing an object that belongs to a loved one. When one sees the object , they automatically are reminded of the possessor. Although the object and the loved one are two distinct objectives, a person gains the noesis of one and recalls the knowledge of the second. This shows that we can be reminded of some things if we are made aware of others.

Socrates also wrench in the possibility of physique into his account of the reminiscence theory. He says that to be reminded of an affair, we must first have obtained the noesis to some degree. We know that there is such a thing as the shape because we have seen particular things that are different from the continuous tense tense contour. An example of this would be seeing a roofie and being reminded that there is such a thing as a perfect circle. We must have become consciously aware of this noesis of forms through recollection, meaning that we had previous noesis of the forms. If we did not have the knowledge of the pure forms, then we would not be able to be reminded of them the first time through perception. That means that we must have had this knowledge before we could perceive anything, which could only be before birthing. This proves that we must have had the knowledge of forms before we were born; to Socrates, this indicates that the mortal existed before we were born and carried the knowledge with it.

One of the flaws of Socrates opinion of the reminiscence theory of learning is that he says the soul has knowledge of absolute var. that can be recollected if asked the right questions , does not always seem to be the showcausa with such precis , nonmaterial signifier such as beauty or judge . It is easy for the psyche to think of definitional strain and imagine them . For example, if there were two separate cakes side by side, one a three layer wedding cake and the other a ace slice of yellow cake -it would be very easy to imagine the two to be match. The mind could easily picture two patties instead that were exact replicas of one another. These definitional forms are the ones that are easy for the mind to conjure up; the problem arises when a more precise form is thought of. If a nicely designed building and a sunset were compared in terms of beauty, it would be impossible for the mind to think of a pillowcase in which both were perfect tense tense forms of beauty. Most of it would depend on the person’s background signal. An architect would most likely say that the building was a better example of beauty, while a parkland Texas Ranger may think that the sunset is obviously the one that is closer to the pure variety of beautyFor variety such as beauty, judge, dearest and other more abstract price, the great unwashed do not seem to be recollecting the idea of class s but instead are applying their own experience and devising a individual al definition for the absolute physical bodies. This is problematic with Socrates’s idea that someone is all knowing of the grade because every person would have a different definition for each form , meaning that they were not true definitions because there cannot be more than one absolute form. This would suggest that the mortal does not actually know the absolute forms for the nous to recollect , or that people were remembering incorrectly the forms that their soul knew. The briny point being that it is not necessarily the soul that allows people to recollect the idea of forms but just their personal definitions created by their imaging, leaving forms up to personal popular opinion instead of truly being absolute.

Socrates also never explains why the individual would forget everything and shuffle the mind recollect matter instead of retaining the knowledge through lives. There seems to be no reasoning behind why Socrates thinks that this is the cause Socrates says that the soul has all this forgotten knowledge to be recollected by the mind , but it can only be done through the correct questioning. This was demonstrated when he questioned the uneducated striver son in the Meno. I’m not sure it was entirely a phone demonstration because the way that Socrates asked the query made it very obvious what solution he was looking for, or all he needed was for the boy to agree with him to prove his peak. It did not seem as though the boy was recalling the information, but it seemed as though Socrates was pointing him towards the answers and then acting as though the boy had done it all by himself .

I am very skeptical about the recollection hypothesis in full general because Socrates examples most of the time had loopholes or instances in which the recollection theory could not real number ly be applied. He never came up with any real proof and his substantiation was rigged to brand it as though he was correct. The recollection theory of encyclopaedism does say that the data can be coaxed out of someone through the right interrogative sentence, and I guess if the head are almost directly pointing to the response , then yes, the recollection theory of eruditeness does seem validBut to me it does not seem as though anyone is recalling info that was never taught to them; instead they seem to be drawing off of yesteryear experience to come to new finale.

Socrates is one of the few individuals whom one could say has shaped the cultural and intellectual development of the world; without him, history would be profoundly different. He is best known for his association with the Socratic method of question and answer, his claim that he was ignorant (or aware of his own absence of knowledge), and his claim that the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings. Socrates tends to bring inner discord, guilt, stress, anxiety, and other characteristics of an unhealthy mind.

First, Socrates’ analogizes himself as being a gadfly in his desire to impact Athens, he states, “… you will not easily find another who, if I may use a ludicrous comparison, clings to the state as a sort of gadfly to a horse that is large and well-bred but rather sluggish from its size, and needing to be aroused,” (Mulvaney 24). Socrates was the gadfly, and his actions permeated throughout the big city, Athens, the horse. Socrates wanted people to be their true selves and improve their personalities. He talked to people in person or small groups; and in doing so, created the gadfly ripple. (A gadfly is small compared to a large bulky horse; but when the fly stings the horse, one part will twitch, in turn, causing another part to twitch.)

Socrates would examine people in terms of how wise they were, or how close to the truth they acted. He would do this mostly in a person-to-person exchange. He wanted to push the citizens of Athens to internalize what they did know and did not know about themselves, truth, or virtue. Socrates deprived himself of his own interests in order to take interests in the lives of others; “an unexamined life is not worth living,” (Apology, 38b) seems historically accurate, in that he inspired his followers to think for themselves instead of following the dictates of society, the accepted superstitions concerning the gods, and how one should behave. I think Socrates provided a challenge to Athenians to be wise and ask questions. From his service, he found that most Athenians assumed they knew nothing. Socrates found ignorance in Athens and worked to eliminate it. I think that is why he said that he also approaches people like a father or brother when talking about virtue.

This claim that he approached others like an accredited family member supported his analogy of being a gadfly. It’s my opinion that Socrates’ gadfly comparison demonstrates a deeply connected conversation. His intentions were not to make the other person appear ignorant about virtue, but to make him question his conceptions about virtue. Socrates found that many Athenians were unknowledgeable. Socrates was interested in trying to enlighten people’s minds, and this was why he dedicated himself so vigorously. He loved Athens for its sagaciousness, sturdiness, and savviness. Socrates challenged citizens to live and to examine the life that was worth living; he encouraged citizens to strengthen their souls. In order to make the largest impact, Socrates worked as a social gadfly rather than a political one. The way that he conducted his “good,” however, harmed Athenian democracy.

In addition, Socrates claimed to have a premonition to avoid politics. Apparently, no just man could be involved in politics and still be just. Regardless of what he thought of politicians, he did like the democratic government of Athens. His actions, on the other hand, were not beneficial for democracy at the time. Instead of speaking his mind with an audience, Socrates stirred the pot—he went person-to-person in semi-private/private settings to discuss matters. From there, these citizens spread the word to others and so on. I suspect his actions were seen as suspicious acts by the political leaders.

To conclude, Socrates was a discrete philosopher who molded the intellectual development of the world and shaped history. He encouraged all to seek out knowledge, discuss beliefs, and to question the known and unknown. Socrates brought a type of conflict (questions of the known and unknown) to the human mind. His small bites of communication impacted Athens greatly; he impacted both Athens and the world.

The iconic philosophical works of Zen Master Dogen by Yuho Yokoi and The Apology of Socrates by Plato are known for focusing on how to create and follow the path towards gaining true self-knowledge. Each of these philosophers is widely known for emphasizing the significance of true self-knowledge through similarities like self-realization and how to devote attention to each of the philosophical practices. On the other hand, there are key differences between these two beliefs like, for example, where self-knowledge comes from along with how the usage of distinction affects their specific beliefs. However, in the end, both philosophies main focus is to help people grow their inner selves through either the practice of Zen Buddhism or Socrates’s philosophy.

Self-Knowledge, in relation to Zen Master Dogen , is based on the notion that self-knowledge can only come from the person’s inner self. Hence, why what Zen Buddhists find most essential is for humans to “set everything aside, think of neither good nor evil, right or wrong (Yokoi 46).” When you compare this to Socrates’s philosophy of self-knowledge it is evident that there is a huge difference between the two prevalent practices. After reading The Last Days of Socrates by Plato, there is a scene where Socrates is talking to Crito about good and evil. During this conversation, he states an ideology about how “we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought to not do wrong…(Plato 44).”

This dialogue is a great representation of Socrates’s philosophical ideas involving self-knowledge. Socrates is known for basing his ideologies on categorization which allows him to understand things like good and bad within our human nature. By analyzing texts like this it allows the reader to understand why Socrates likes to see things separately while Zen Buddhists see everything as one instead. With that being said, Socrates believed that the moment humans understood good and bad they would then be able to figure out how to get rid of the evil within themselves and prosper only in righteousness only. Overall, the importance behind this point is that Socrates wants the focus to be on categories like good and bad while Zen Buddhism does not like to differentiate the two.

However, the similarity between these two philosophical practices is how they focus their attention on self-realization. In Zen Buddhism, they practice how to “stop pursuing words and letters and learn to withdraw and reflect on yourself (Yokoi 46)” instead. This can be related to Socrates’s belief that our “true self” is our actual soul. In The Apology of Socrates, Socrates focuses on how a person must not base their self-realization around materialistic or status based ideas. This becomes evident due to the apology stage of Plato’s play where Socrates discusses how “young men of the richer classes (Plato 26)” are known for thinking “that they know something, but know little or nothing (Plato 26).” This statement can be interpreted as to how Socrates believes that for a human soul to truly grow they must instead focus on aspects like wisdom, thoughts and most importantly asking questions.

The reader knows that questioning certain aspects like morals is important due to the apology chapter of Plato’s novel. During this section of the plot, Socrates is repeatedly pondering multiple ideas and beliefs through the usage of questions like “Does one man do them harm and all the world good? (Plato 27).” It is questions like these that show Socrates needs to ponder certain aspects that have influenced his flourishment of self-knowledge over the years. With that being said, he believed that the moment a person released their focuses from these ideas and focus upon their true self they will soon find self-knowledge. All in all, each practice accentuates the significance of looking inside oneself to broaden their self-knowledge as they take the path towards enlightenment.

Another similarity that can be drawn between these two practices is the value of devoting one’s attention and focus toward self-knowledge. For Zen Buddhists, this involves Zazen which is a more “easy and pleasant practice (Yokoi 46)” of meditating that they practice multiple times throughout the day. During Zazen’s practice, they focus on “non-thinking (Yokoi 46)” and this is done “by thinking beyond thinking and non-thinking (Yokoi 46)” which is known as the basis of Zazen. For Zen Buddhists, they believe that when they do this “the supreme law will then appear of itself, and you will be free of weariness and confusion (Yokoi 46).” This, of course, will allow them to reach true wisdom and knowledge when practiced continuously. The similarities between the previous readings and Socrates’s practice is that they both emphasize the importance of focusing on oneself. For example, during Zazen, when a person is meditating they are focusing on themselves by controlling their thoughts in hopes of growing as a person internally.

On the other hand, Socrates emphasizes the importance of paying attention by turning the focus on one’s soul. By doing this the person is growing their chances of making their soul “ beautiful” or flourishing in pure goodness instead. After dissecting these two philosophies it can also be noticed that they do not require outside “tools” like social or economic status to influence how much knowledge someone has. This is noteworthy because people tend to associate knowledge with aspects like social hierarchy or economic group. For example, some people believe that your economic status will determine the level of intelligence you have. Hence, why these two beliefs are interesting because they do not focus on outside influences. Instead, they base their practices solely on the person’s thoughts and ideas.

The last difference between these two philosophical practices involves how the creators feel towards the usage of distinction. In Zen Buddhism, it is believed that distinction is not important for self-growth and is instead looked down upon when used during practices. It is stated in Zen Master Dogen “Zazen is a practice beyond the subjective and objective worlds, beyond discriminating thinking (Yokoi 46).” With that being said they believe that everything is one instead of being separated thus why the moment a person categorizes or differentiates anything they are no longer practicing true Zazen.

On the other hand, Socrates based his beliefs on the differentiation between numerous beliefs and aspects. A prime example of this is how he ponders the two main morals known as good and bad. Unlike Zazen, Socrates creates two distinct categories and ponders what influential values go under each one. The reason behind this is that he believes that by questioning these two morals we are helping our human nature in hopes of figuring out why things are different and how to deal with them.

In conclusion, Zen Master Dogen by Yuho Yokoi and The Apology of Socrates by Plato both emphasize the significance of focus when taking the road to self-knowledge for humans. Each of these practices has its special way of reaching self-knowledge but in the end, they are both built based on the importance of focusing on the inner self. Through the usage of different methods and ideologies, they are able to teach the importance of pushing our inner boundaries in hopes of mentally growing as a person.

Works Cited

1. Plato, and Hugh Tredennick. Last Days of Socrates . Penguin Books Ltd, 2003.
2. Yokoi, Yuho. Zen Master Dōgen: an Introduction with Selected Writings . Weatherhill, 1984.

In this essay, I aim to explain Socrates’ argument concerning virtue as knowledge while offering a rebuttal and finally taking a stance. Socrates’ argument concerning virtue as wisdom can be reconstructed and understood easier. After reconstruction, it becomes apparent that there may be an error in the argument concerning knowledge. The counterargument would force Socrates to rethink his argument, and he would adjust his argument. Finally, it is clear to see that Socrates’ hypothesis is the correct hypothesis.

Socrates hypothesizes about virtue through a Socratic dialogue with Meno. Socrates’ premises are: virtue is good (87d), all goodwill be beneficial (87e), virtue will be beneficial (implicit), courage, strength, and wealth are good (88b), but these things can lead to harm as well (88c), knowledge makes beneficial things good (implicit), therefore virtue is knowledge. The conclusion is that virtue is knowledge. Knowledge makes good things beneficial instead of harmful. Virtue being knowledge raises a glaring counterargument.

If virtue is knowledge, then virtue is teachable because knowledge is teachable. The main objection to virtue being knowledge is that you don’t find virtue being taught (96d). One cannot find a single teacher of virtue nor a class on it. You can find classes on exercise which leads to strength and nutrition which leads to health but not a virtue. That must mean that knowledge is not virtue since you cannot find anyone teaching it. How does someone become virtuous without being taught this knowledge? This counterargument forces Socrates to strengthen his argument and craft a rebuttal.

Socrates’ rebuttal to this counterargument leads to new thinking of wisdom. Socrates could state that virtue cannot be taught. One cannot attain virtue through outside teaching alone. Socrates concludes that maybe this knowledge is closer to wisdom. He could conclude that wisdom is something that one is not taught. People acquire wisdom but no one is taught wisdom. This makes the unsound premises including knowledge more sound by replacing them with wisdom. But this raises the question of how someone acquires wisdom. Socrates might answer two ways. One, he could answer that wisdom is developed over time through experiences. This would keep intact that it cannot be taught by a teacher and instead is developed from within through life experience. Two, wisdom is something innately known that we must discover again through life or with help from a teacher. The teacher wouldn’t necessarily teach it to you, but help you realize your own self-knowledge or wisdom. This seems accurate in that wisdom is acquired not from a teacher in life. It is a process of self-actualization. But as the reading progresses Socrates is unable to help Meno find that inner wisdom, for he leaves the dialogue at the end without realizing this inner wisdom. Socrates’ answer to this counterargument shows that he still has some work to do in regard to his theory that virtue is wisdom.

Ultimately, Socrates responds well to the counterargument, but I think that he still needs to improve his argument. By arguing that wisdom is something innate, then he would need to explain how wisdom develops within the person. He would also need to explain what someone really possesses when they possess wisdom. I suspect there are varying degrees of wisdom, and he would need to address someone has attained wisdom in its fullest degree. Also, if a teacher is unable to help someone realize this innate wisdom, then how does someone do it? Perhaps life draws it out of them, but surely there are examples of two people leading the same life with differences in wisdom. His idea that wisdom guides certain good things to being beneficial is correct and sound. The question remains how someone develops or realizes this wisdom.

Socrates’ hypothesis on virtue as wisdom is sound, but it raises future dilemmas about wisdom. His argument is valid and sound, and he makes good sense of the interaction of wisdom and things such as wealth, strength, and courage. He also accurately says that wisdom is something within, but he fails to answer some of the questions that arise with that claim.

Ever since Socrates made it his life mission to spread wisdom, much to Athens’ dismay, man has been perplexed with countless philosophical questions. Questions that, by nature, seem to have no distinct nor satisfying answers and as such impart feelings of discomfort and hopelessness to those who take the time to entertain them. One such question is the one that asks, “What is knowledge?”. At first glance, this seemingly innocent question might offer a false sense of confidence in one’s ability to answer it. It is only when diving deep in the attempt to answer it concisely that one is faced with the realization of how big of an undertaking it really is and how foolishly arrogant one was to believe it to be trouble-free.

Nonetheless, unperturbed by the grandiosity of the task, many philosophers have moved forward in the attempt to give a unifying answer to the question of knowledge, beginning with no other than Socrates himself. In Plato’s account, Theaetetus, we find Socrates in full conversation with Theaetetus, a young Athenian boy, regarding the nature of knowledge. Along the course of the conversation, Socrates and Theaetetus, give three potential definitions of knowledge. These are: knowledge is nothing but perception, knowledge is true judgment, and knowledge is a true judgment with an account. They are quick to dismiss the first two definitions but entertain the third one, focusing on what it means to have an account. Socrates, once again, presents three distinct definitions: “making one’s thought apparent vocally by means of words and verbal expressions”, enumerating all of a thing’s elements, and “being able to tell some mark by which the object you are asked about differs from all other things”.

After a lengthy discussion in which Socrates and Theaetetus find weaknesses in all three definitions, a consensus is finally reached. That is, none of the previously discussed definitions suffice the question of what knowledge is and to top it all, no real realizable answer seems to exist. It is no wonder Athens resolved to give Socrates the death penalty, among other reasons. As fruitless as this discussion appears to be, many good things came out of it. For one, Socrates leaves Theaetetus with the realization that he doesn’t really know anything definite, hence the wisdom Socrates is tasked with spreading. But more importantly, it is through this discussion that the Justified True Belief theory of knowledge is born.

The Justified True Belief theory, or JTB, ranks among the most influential theories of knowledge and is often attributed to Plato, Socrates pupil and author of the Theaetetus. The theory goes as follows:

S knows that p if and only if:

1. S believes that p, and
2. p is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that p.

‘S’ here being the Knower, the subject or person who potentially knows something. ‘p’ is what the Knower potentially knows. This can be anything, from beliefs to scientific facts, if the Knower believes it, there’s a justification for the Knower to believe it, and it is in fact true, the Knower’s knowledge is justified. In other words, the Knower has knowledge.

For all intents and purposes, this theory lends itself to be easily accepted and seems to hold water. It neatly ties knowledge and the Knower together, seems logically intact, and it is easy enough to grasp. It ticks off all the boxes of a satisfying answer. In fact, it seems a little too good to be true, and it is. This is just a theory after all and continues to be so to this day. It is safe, then, to assume that this theory has its flaws, although not readily apparent.

Thus, a new contender enters the battle of knowledge, that of Edmund Gettier. Gettier was a professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. But he is better known for his contribution to the question of knowledge, mainly the rebuttal of the JTB theory. It takes a clever man to refute a theory that has survived for so long, Gettier is that man. His counter is just as clever, moreover, it is so simple that one wonders why it wasn’t apparent for so long. Gettier presents cases where all three of the criteria in JTB are achieved but knowledge still seems to be missing. Aptly named, Gettier Cases represent Gettier’s counter and discovery of a major fallacy in JTB.

A typical Gettier Case goes as follows: take a captain of a ship sailing out at sea. This captain believes that he is heading north and is justified by his compass, where the needle is pointing north. Suppose then, that this is the case and in fact he is heading north. The criteria of the JTB theory, then, is satisfied and, therefore, it is concluded that the captain has knowledge that he is sailing north. Now, suppose that his compass is broken, stuck in the north position. The question here is, would any reasonable person attribute this captain as to truly having knowledge? The answer is an obvious no, the captain’s knowledge is that of a coincidence. In fact, the main fallacy of the JTB theory is coincidences, random occurrences in everyday life, for in the case of the captain it was just as likely for him to have been going south as it happened that he was going north.

As damning as Gettier’s counter is to JTB, it would be foolish to completely dismiss it. Perhaps modifying the theory can alleviate its shortcomings. To do so, one needs to pinpoint exactly where the theory fails. Going through the captain example once more, the first premise is satisfied by the captain believing he is headed north. There is no fallacy here since all it takes is for the captain to believe something. The second premise is satisfied when it happens that the captain is indeed going north. No fallacy is found here either, but at last one more premise is left. The third and final premise is satisfied by the compass, it is what gives justification to the captain’s belief. But can a broken compass give any substantial justification to the captain’s belief. It was concluded that this is not the case therefore it is in the third premise of JTB where the fallacy occurs.

What is, then, a modification that can be conducted on this premise that would eliminate Gettier’s problem? The answer lies in the justification itself. As for the captain, the compass is what gave him certainty, but it was a false sense of certainty. Just the same, the justification itself for his belief is a false one, though it seemed otherwise. The only way for the JTB theory to work against Gettier’s counter is for a justification for a belief must be true and that is exactly the modification needed. Following the third premise a fourth one can be appended: S’s justification for believing p is not false.

The modified theory now allows for correctly attributing knowledge. The theory correctly renders the captain as void of knowledge in his belief of traveling north and successfully circumvents Gettier’s counter. Perhaps, philosophy isn’t as painful as previously mentioned and Socrates was just a discourse away from the answer. Except, Socrates was killed prematurely, and the modified theory has yet another flaw, a human one. An interesting situation arises, how is any human to know when a justification is true or false? No one person can know and by extension, the JTB theory once again fails to attribute knowledge. All that is left is the same sense of hopelessness and the same realization that Theaetetus had: Socrates was right, we truly don’t know anything.

Throughout history, great philosophers have explored the idea of happiness, two of these great philosophers are Chuang Tzu and Socrates. It can be argued that there are similarities and differences in their ideas. The following is a discussion on their ideas of happiness and wisdom as well as some commentary of how these ideas have been presented in my life.

Tzu and Socrates teach us to withhold judgment before we come to conclusions based on appearances. Socrates taught how eloquence may appear to be truth and may deceive us into doing wrong. For example, Socrates commented that his accuser’s words had so much power that they even made him forgetful of who he was, even though they held no truth (Plato 841). He repeatedly entreated the men of Athens not to make hasty judgments in favor of his accusers, “…far more dangerous are these, who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better.” (842). The reality, of course, was that his accusers through their eloquence were making the worse appear better. Furthermore, those he showed up to be false, be they politicians, poets, or craftsmen, had the appearance of wisdom but were not because they claimed much more wisdom than they had and in in things that they had no knowledge (843). On the other hand, Tzu teaches us that all things change and are in constant change. To illustrate this point, Tzu uses the metaphor of seeds to show the true nature of things that would be missed by premature judgment. “Craw’s fee turn into maggots and their leaves turn into butterflies. All creatures come out of the mysterious workings and go back into them again.” (Tzu 887). From one of his stories, we learn a man has a tumor sprung on his elbow; his view is that death is part of the “process of change” that a person goes through during their life (886). Tzu also teaches us that death appears to be an evil, but is not by explaining his wife’s death as part of a cycle of change. Tzu says “Not only the time before she had a body, but the time before she had a spirit. In the midst of the jumble of wonder and mystery, a change and she had a body. Another change and she was born. Now there’s been another change and she’s dead. It’s just like the progression of the four seasons, spring, summer, fall, winter.” (Tzu 886). These cycles of change would have gone unperceived by someone who just saw things on a surface level. Through the above, we can see how the teachings of Tzu and Socrates help us see beyond the immediate and prove deeper to the truth underneath.

Tzu and Socrates, though they had different definitions of happiness, both exhorted their followers to follow wisdom and truth before they sought after the world and its riches; this they argued, will give one true happiness. Tzu defined true happiness as keeping alive and as inaction as the best way to gain this happiness (Tzu 911). “Each thing minds its business and all grow up out of inaction. So I say, Heaven and earth do nothing, and there is nothing that is not done.” If there is nothing that is not done, it does not mean not doing anything, but rather, doing out of this state of being, we can take this to be what he means by the happiness of being alive.The inaction Tzu is talking about does not imply not acting at all; as he explains, through the combination of the inaction of heaven and earth, all things arise; through these two “do nothing, yet there is nothing that is not done.” Furthermore, Tzu shows us how we miss the true happiness of being alive by our worldly attachments. We busy ourselves obsessively with trying to acquire worldly things and fool ourselves into believing and thinking the worldly things we pursue are making us happy, while in reality we are in danger of missing out on this deeper sense of happiness that does not come from outer achievement or material possessions (Tzu 885). On the other hand, Socrates’s definition of true happiness was seeking the greatest improvement of the soul; he tried to convince the citizens of Athens that the greatest improvement of the soul, and therefore true happiness, comes from wisdom and truth and chastised them for not giving much value or attention to these truths (Plato 848). One of the notable chastisements he gives out is to Meletus; Socrates proves Meletus’s inability to produce a witness to the accusations he has made against him shows he has spent no time seeking truth or wisdom. He further chastised the Athenians by saying that he believed that if a man says he has virtue and does not, he values the world more than the values virtue (Plato 848). To demonstrate, he shows his accusers and judges to be more concerned with the world than with actually serving justice or with virtue, as they chose to condemn him even after he has unequivocally proven his accusers to be wrong. (Plato 850). The above demonstrates the great value Tzu and Socrates placed on the pursuit of true happiness, which they saw above social position or worldly possessions.

Both Socrates and Tzu have similar ideas about death and advocate a mature response to death and to change. Both Tzu and Socrates question whether death is good or bad and come to the same conclusion about death: death is but a change. Both compare death to dreamless sleep that goes on indefinitely. Firstly, Socrate’s ideas of death are tied to morality; He sees morality as more important than fear of death. For instance, he says one ought to, because of one’s honor, stand at one’s post “in the hour of danger” even when facing death (Plato 847). To further illustrate, he tells the court trying him, of a time he was a Senator and faced death by standing up to injustice. His most certain penalty was imprisonment and death, but he notes “I cared not a straw for death and that my only fear was the fear of doing an unrighteousness or unholy thing.” (Plato 849). When finally the court convicts him to death, Socrates bravely faces death by saying death is nothing to fear, as it is either a dreamless sleep or a movement into a different world. (Plato 853). According to Socrates, If one has been a good person, then there is nothing to fear in death, for God will not neglect such a person (Plato 853). According to Socrates, A life unexamined is a life not worth living is actually worth living (851-852); in other words, it is among the worst things that could happen to a person. For Tzu, having superior knowledge of death makes it something not to fear; it is just another change. For he knows that his wife has always been and always will be. He knows she is at peace and describes her as lying down to sleep in “a vast room.” To weep, he cautions, would signify a lack of faith, a lack of understanding in these cycles. In both cases, knowledge of truth means there is nothing to fear. Death is just another step. Another tale of Tzu’s further illustrates this point; Tzu happens upon a skull that teaches him about death in a dream; Tzu learns that there is no hierarchy in heaven as there is on earth; no one to rule and no one to be ruled (886). When Tzu questions whether or not the skull would wish to return to friends and family, the skull replies he has greater happiness than a King on the throne and would have no reason for taking the problems and cares of a human being. (Tzu 886-887).

In my experience, I have found that both Tzu’s and Socrates’ philosophies are present in my life and applicable in today’s age. Throughout my youth, I have enjoyed reading a variety of writings on religion and philosophy including the Tao Te Ching. I find that I have application and understanding of morality and detachment has deepened and contributed to my overall happiness. I learned that I achieve my goals a lot better if I’m pursuing them for the right reasons and not overly attached to an outcome. For example, I was overly concerned about the outcome, the school became a chore and I was constantly stressed out trying to fit into what others expected of me. I have learned to let go of over-attachment to getting perfect grades; the result was that I could take more chances and be more genuine in the classes I take and in the direction I take my career. The result was that my grades have actually stayed high and I’m enjoying school a lot more. My goals have also matured. For example, I feel like my social responsibility as a human being and citizen take precedence over worldly success, whereas before I to look at careers in terms of the salaries and status they could give me. The result was that I was miserable overall because it wasn’t what I truly wanted. As a result of these readings, I am more conscientious about how I apply these lessons and expect it will help me further improve my satisfaction and happiness in life.

In conclusion, Chuang Tzu and Socrates’s ideas about happiness and wisdom prompt us to look beyond the immediate in our lives to find the truths underneath or we might miss the most important things in life. These great masters teach us to stand for virtue and morality before we pursue the things of the world for the transitory satisfaction they give; they assure us we will find true happiness if we do. Their lessons on death are timeless. Socrates taught that even in the face of danger, we can stand for what is right, while Tzu taught us to see it as part of the changing cycles of life. Through my personal experiences, I found that their teachings are just as relevant as ever. All of the teachings seem to still prove us to question our versions of the truth and challenge us to look within to virtue and wisdom for true lasting happiness.

Works Cited

1. Allen, Paul & Peterson, Claire. It Begins With Our Questions. Hayden-McNeil, LCC. 2015.