A hero is a person of extraordinary character. Such a person is able to influence other people by either sheer brilliance or exemplary qualities. A hero is a person who has an inner desire to excel and possess the mental capacity to face challenges and other predicaments head-on. In often cases, for one to become a hero, one has to do something courageous or informed by bravery. Secondly, heroes are characterized by selflessness, i.e., putting societal interest before individual safety or interest.
Going by the foregoing criteria, Socrates was a great hero. First, he exemplifies selflessness when he risks his life to save Alcibiades during the Potidea, Delium, and Amphipolis war (Seeskin, 1987). Secondly, Socrates heroism his promotion of principles aimed at ensuring a better society; even when by doing so, he risks the wrath of other jealousy and ignorant people.
A hero is an individual of noble character, i.e., an individual whose morals are way above an ordinary person’s morals. A hero is one who is just and thus derives motivation from injustices in the community to champions for the rights of the helpless or the so-called voiceless. Speaking and standing with the vulnerable, as witnessed in many cases, translates into one becoming vulnerable in himself or herself. By promoting the welfare of the weak, the hero places himself on the wrong side of the law, and more often than not, he will be in conflict with the government or powers that be. A hero is one who chooses to go against the status quo even when, by doing so, he risks the wrath of the authorities or the powerful.
Socrates meets the qualities mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. He spent his entire life seeking to understand societal beliefs. Anchored on the belief that life only makes sense when examined, he was always questioning (Gill & Pellegrin, 2009). I am convinced his interrogative nature though annoying, helped intellectuals and political leaders to achieve self-knowledge. His strong character, which enabled him to probe for truth irrespective of who is in question, motivates me to diligently seek to understand the rationale behind every action.
Socrates was never contented by the common beliefs; he sought to understand the rationale on which they were pegged. He challenged the status quo; thus, many contemporaries accused him of blasphemy against the gods (Gill & Pellegrin, 2009). He stands for the proper education of the youths in opposition to populist sophist methods. This made him very unpopular in his society.
Heroes are often very humble people who do not even realize how great they are. Socrates displays such a trait in the sense that though a renowned philosopher, he didn’t deem himself any wiser or any better than others. For instance, he referred to himself as the best of the worthless (Seeskin, 1987). He was a unique Wiseman because he assumes equal status with other people. He believed that all people had knowledge. He even uses slaves to illustrate his method of recollection, which is knowing through remembering (Gill & Pellegrin, 2009). Such an attitude is very unlike that of modern heroes, pop stars, politicians, and sportsmen, who are very boastful and brag about everything.
A hero is not necessarily a perfect human being; since humans are prone to error, so do the heroes. Although heroes seem to have a superior thinking capacity and abilities, they remain human prone to weaknesses and mistakes. Socrates’ decision to take poison when maliciously sentenced, although serving a higher good, i.e., need to stand by own principles, depicts a weakness on the part of Socrates. One would argue that his relative naivety results from the high standards that he sets that are not realistic.
Despite the act of taking poison being looked at in terms of weakness from one standpoint, it is also a heroic act. A hero is an individual who is able to stand for what is right regardless of pressure. Heroes always uphold high levels of integrity and impeccable character. Willingness to face challenges without fear elevates one to a higher stature, although one may not be able to fulfill the given goal or objectives. This attribute is evident in Socrates, who refuses to run away but rather accepts to face the death penalty as a lesson to others.
Although I have indicated that a hero goes against the status quo, heroism is not necessarily about defying or going against the rule of law. Actually, as Socrates demonstrates, a true hero is one who lives by the rule of law. Socrates’ acceptance of the death sentence, though naïve one might argue, demonstrated his respect and compliance with state expectations and laws. Although Socrates was controversial, it has to be acknowledged that his decision to calm after being charged for corrupting the youths of Athens shows his great respect for the rule of law. Therefore, heroes do not necessarily have to be delinquent but only differ with the law to the extent it is misguided or unjust.
In conclusion, I am convinced that the life and the determination of Socrates will remain to be remembered by many generations to come. Personally, Socrates’ example has motivated me to always stand for what is right no matter the situation. Furthermore, I am challenged and encouraged by his courage to face even the most enlightened people, the political leaders, and even religious leaders and engage them in an inquiry. This encourages me towards not taking everything, especially the word of those in authority for gospel truth.
Socrates had a passion for truth. Even when facing death, he chooses truth over expediency aimed at saving his life. In our world of today, people are inclined towards pragmatic choices rather than considering what is right in itself. Without any inkling of becoming an absolutist, I believe standing by the truth and seeking what is right in itself is the true heroism in our days.
Reference List
Gill, M. L. & Pellegrin, P. (2009). A companion to Ancient Philosophy. New York: Wiley- Blackwell Publisher.
Seeskin, K. (1987). Dialogue and Discovery: A Study in Socratic Method. New York: Sunny Press.
In most modern societies, wisdom is viewed as a combination of an intrinsic insight and years of experience and is generally lauded as the desired state of mind. Wise people are seen as authorities, and their opinions are treasured and followed as the principles that one should consider essential for a happy and fulfilling life. However, the concept of wisdom is not a social constant and, thus may vary depending on one’s values and philosophy. Keeping Socrates’ ideas in mind, I believe that my friend’s grandfather is the wisest person in my community since even in the times of social conflicts he promotes the ideas of compromise and cooperation, thus encouraging a peaceful resolution of any issue.
When applying the allegory of the cave as told by Socrates to the interviewee, I must admit that my friend’s grandfather neither would turn away from the truth nor would be shocked by it. Instead, he would observe it calmly and accept it as an integral and inevitable part of life. From the standpoint of proactiveness and the willingness to change the world for the better, the specified approach toward managing complex issues might be seen as the sign of weakness.
However, it seems that the ability to recognize the point at which one cannot influence the current state of affairs and, instead, focus on what can be changed is the sign of true wisdom. Rather than taking immediate actions, the interviewee would observe and make conclusions to finally arrive at the decision that seems most sensible. Therefore, I believe that this person is wise since he can align his priorities and refuses to focus on the negative issues that he cannot change. His proverbial peacefulness and willingness to compromise add to the overall impression of him being extraordinarily wise.
In addition, approaching the philosophical stance of the interviewee from the perspective of Socrates’ “Apology,” one will also have to admit that the interviewed man is very wise. Specifically, my friend’s grandfather showed no inclination to believe that his own opinion or life position could be defined as wise. Instead, he pointed to several issues that he deemed as philosophical and ethical flaws, thus being entirely certain that his philosophy required further improvements.
The identified phenomenon could be attributed to the interviewee’s humbleness; however, after a series of questions, it became clear that he was quite objective about his beliefs and philosophy. Therefore, the respondent’s recognition of the flaws in his arguments and the willingness to address them can be regarded as another sign of wisdom.
Finally, referring to Socrates’ opinion on Plato’s “Symposium,” one will have to agree that the interviewee’s wisdom is largely defined by his ability to experience, express, and share love. The respondent’s very personality was based on the idea of love, which stretched from having warm feelings to others to being protective and supportive toward family members. Thus, the interviewee proved to be a very wise person.
Following the traditional expectations of wisdom, the interviewee was very peaceful and focused on the idea of a compromise as the means of resolving both external and internal conflicts. His ability to embrace the principles of love and understanding, as well as the skills of resolving complex dilemmas by searching for the objective truth, are worth appreciation and have to be recognized as the manifestation of wisdom. Embodying the ideas of nonconfrontation and compromise, his philosophy is worth being considered exemplary.
In the book I of the republic, why does Socrates think that it is never just for one person to injure another, whether a friend or an enemy?
In their dialogue, Socrates and Polemarchus discuss what may be considered the philosophical implications of the notion of justice. According to Polemarchus, this notion can be defined in terms of one’s ability to treat good people well and to strive to harm those, who due to being wicked, deserve to be treated wickedly. Socrates challenges this point of view by suggesting that it is in one’s very nature to make wrong judgments, as to what can be deemed his friends and enemies. In other words, there can be no 100% guarantee that, while referring to a particular person as an enemy, one will be acting in a thoroughly appropriate manner. The same applies to a person’s commitment to treat its friends in the best way possible – the individuals in question may not be just as friendly, as it appears to be the case.
What it means is that, while living up to Polemarchus’s view on justice, people will inevitably contribute to increasing the amount of injustice in the world. This, of course, implies that the mentioned definition of justice cannot be thought of as such that represents an undisputed truth-value.
While continuing to argue that it is never justified for one person to be trying to injure another, Socrates points out the fact that the very assumption that wicked people deserve to be punished, does not hold much water. In this respect, he comes up with the example of a would-be-punished horse, which in the punishment’s aftermath will not cease being what it is. The same can be said about people – being subjected to punishment, will not result in the qualitative transformation of their existential essence. What it means is that injuring others for the sake of reestablishing justice, cannot be considered a right thing to do, by definition.
According to Socrates, the earlier mentioned considerations mean only one thing – a truly virtuous individual will be trying to do his best while treating others – regardless of whether the would-be-affected individuals happened to be his friends or enemies. This, of course, establishes certain discursive parallels between the philosophy of Socrates, in respect of how it tackles the notion of justice, and that of Jesus.
In the book I of the republic, what is Socrates’ reply to Thrasymachus’s idea that unjust people are stronger and more powerful than just people?
While trying to convince Thrasymachos that there can be very little rationale in believing that unjust individuals are being more powerful, as opposed to what happened to be the case with their fair counterparts, Socrates mentions the following:
a) One’s tendency to treat others unjustly is nothing but an indication of the concerned individual’s perceptual arrogance. Consequently, those who happened to be arrogant cannot possibly expect that, while confronting wise people, they will be able to gain an upper hand. The reason for this is apparent – perceptually arrogant people will be less likely to adopt a circumstantially appropriate stance while facing a particular challenge, as compared to their not-so-arrogant counterparts.
b) Individuals, known for their unjust ways, will inevitably end up having a particularly hard time while trying to cooperate. The reason for this is that, while treating others unfairly, people automatically expose themselves as such that can be hardly trusted. Enough, this will not result in anything else but in undermining these people’s ability to form alliances with each other, which in turn will hurt the measure of their existential competitiveness.
c) Just as it happened to be the case with different parts of one’s body, there is a clearly defined purpose to the existence of a person, as a whole. However, since an individual’s life is being commonly discussed in the evaluative terms (‘good’/’bad’), this presupposes that there must be an intrinsic quality to just about anyone’s soul. Consequently, this can be seen as the proof that, even though many unjust people do prove themselves rather effective, when it comes to claiming their place under the Sun, their success, in this respect, is being of a rather tactical than strategic nature. This, of course, implies that only evenhanded people can be considered truly powerful.
As the final proof to the validity of the idea that it is much better to be a just individual, as opposed to being an unjust one, Socrates mentions the fact that one’s strong commitment to the virtue of justice qualifies the concerned individual to be able to experience happiness – something that is being commonly perceived as the actual purpose of just about anyone’s life.
In Phaedo, Socrates maintains that to engage in philosophy is to practice dying. Explain what he means and why he says this
In the Phaedo, Socrates proclaims that to be considered a true philosopher, one must be attracted to the idea of dying. The line of Socrates’s reasoning, in this respect, can be outlined as follows:
All of the people, suggests Socrates, are endowed with some kind of intrinsic knowledge, which they seem to possess since the time of their birth, and which can be ‘recalled’, during the process of them interacting with the physical emanations of the surrounding reality. Socrates compares it to how people instantly recall their loved ones, after having caught sight of some physical item that used to belong to them. Therefore, our whole lives are nothing but the process of recollecting our long-lost essence, as individuals. In its turn, this implies that we have existed before ending up incarnated in our present physical bodies. This brings Socrates to conclude that one’s soul is nothing but a ‘thing-in-itself’, much like the ideas of beauty, ugliness, tallness, hungriness, perfection, etc. To substantiate this idea, Plato refers to fire as an example. Fire relates to the notion of heat, but never to the notion of coldness. The same can be said about the soul – since the notion of the soul is synonymous with the notion of life, the former cannot possess the subtleties of death, by definition. In its turn, this implies that one’s soul exists forever – quite unlike what happened to be the case with his or her body.
This, of course, implies both: that the soul is immortal and that philosophically-minded individuals should not be afraid of the thought of dying. After all, in light of the above stated, the concerned process can be well-referred to as being ‘enlightening’, in the sense of allowing a philosopher to come closer to understanding how the universe operates. According to Socrates, it is specifically an individual’s commitment to trying to grow ever wiser about the ways of the world, which stands out as the clearest indication that he is indeed a highly virtuous person. Because, as it was pointed out earlier, whatever is being commonly referred to as the ‘soul’ Socrates proclaims to be the source of all knowledge, this naturally brought him to conclude that, while living their lives, the wisdom-seeking philosophers should try to remain as much ‘detached’ from their bodies, as possible. Hence, the beneficence of dying – it is something that brings this detachment to a completely new level.
Explain Socrates’ three objections to the “harmony” theory of the soul that simmers puts forward in Phaedo?
According to Simmias, one’s soul can be compared to the harmony of sounds, created by a playing harp. This, however, means that the soul is mortal – just as there can be no music without a harp, there can be no soul without a body. While challenging this idea, Socrates came up with the following objections:
a) In this world, there is a dialectical relationship between what appear to be two mutually opposite notions. For example, whatever is currently being deemed ‘big’, must have been ‘small’ at some point in its existence. This presupposes that these types of notions organically derive out of each other, which in turn supports the idea of the soul’s immortality – one’s birth can be discussed as such that came about because the concerned individual died in another body back in the past.
b) There are many notions, the discursive significance of which we recognize instantaneously, despite have not been provided with the chance to attain any experiential knowledge, in this respect. This, of course, presupposes both: the existence of non-material ideas as ‘things-in-themselves’ and the possibility for one’s soul to be immortal. After all, the most logical explanation to the mentioned phenomena is that, as they live their lives, people simply ‘recall things’ – something that could not possibly be the case, had the soul been solely the attribute of a person’s physical body.
c) Had the conceptualization of the soul as ‘harmony’ (which implies its mortality) been legitimate, the physical state of one’s body would have a direct effect on the aspirations of his or her soul, just as the physical state of a harp affects the quality of music it plays. This, however, is far from being the case. After all, there are many people that despite being through their advanced years, nevertheless appear to be ‘young at heart’. What is more, in many cases people appear to be fully capable of acting in a manner that can hardly be considered beneficial to their physical bodies – something that comes as a result of the concerned individuals’ ability to exercise control over their animalistic urges. This again suggests that the soul is not solely the property of the affiliated body – it is something that makes this body to act in one way or another, which in turn presupposes the ‘superiority’ of spirit over the flesh.
In book VII of the republic, what is Socrates’ explanation of the meaning of the parable of this cave?
In Book VII of the Republic, Socrates engages in dialogue with Plato’s brother Glaucon, while trying to enlighten the latter onto the true essence of ontological knowledge, as an objective category. He presents Glaucon with the vision of the cave, which contains prisoners chained to the walls. These prisoners had spent their whole lives inside of this cave ever since the time they were born, with only the link that was connecting them to the outside have been the shadows of people moving in front of the cave’s entrance, projected onto the wall in front of prisoners’ eyes. Given the fact that the prisoners had never been outside of this cave, the shadows of moving objects they are being exposed to and also the sounds, associated with these objects, are only the mean for them to make judgments about the realities of the outside world. It is needless to say, of course, that the prisoners’ idea as to what this world might be all about, would have very little to do with the actual state of affairs, in this respect. Thus, Socrates implies that our sensory perception of the surrounding environment may not necessarily be thoroughly adequate, because it can be well assumed that what we see with our eyes is being only partially reflective of the perceived objects’ true essence, as abstract ideas.
After having established the conceptual premise of his argument, Socrates moves on to describe what will happen if a few prisoners end up being allowed to venture outside of the cave. According to the philosopher, as a consequence of this, these prisoners will end up regarding their former worldviews thoroughly fallacious, because they would realize that the world outside of the cave is so much more than they used to think of it. As a result, the concerned individuals will experience the sensation of awe/happiness, which in turn will prompt them to try to educate the rest of the prisoners in the cave that the world is not what they believed it was. The enlightened prisoners, however, would not be able to succeed in it – the rest of the imprisoned individuals will simply end up calling them liars.
Hence, the discursive significance of the ‘allegory of the cave’ – we are being surrounded by the invisible (metaphysical) reality, the existence of which one may construe from several what can be considered this existence’s implicit ‘signs’. The fact that this reality cannot be perceived directly does not make it less real. It is understood, of course, that this justifies the quasi-religious outlook on what may account for one’s life.
Describe Socrates’ method of Elenchus. How does he use it to search for truth?
Socrates favorite method of eliciting responses from those he talked to is known as Socratic Method or elenchus. Socrates did not lay claim to knowledge, instead he went around the city of Athens, meeting and questioning people about religious and moral issues. It was intended to convince Athenians that they were ignorant of things that they thought that they knew.
Socrates would curiously pose questions to his interlocutors in a kind of cross-examination, which could strengthen his position on mostly epistemological and moral matters. In elenchus, a response to a question elicits subsequent questions. Inconsistencies in responses lead to a determination of truth of earlier statements; in short a question is broken down to a series of smaller questions in order to ultimately arrive at a more refined for answer for Socrates
Seeking a definition of piety, Socrates stumbles upon what has come to be known as the problem of divine command. “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” According to this reasoning, why is the relationship between “the divine” and “the good” so Problematic?
In his pursuit of truth, Socrates stumbles upon a problem of divine command: whether morally acts are determined by God because they are morally good or they are morally good simply because they are determined by God. The big question here is Gods role in what is considered morally good. The relationship between the good and divine is investigated; whether morally good acts are desired by God because they are good morally. If that is the case, then such acts are morally good irrespective of God’s will which downplays the need to worship God because his ability to determine what is good or not is diminished in that instance. On the other hand, if acts are morally good because of God’s will, then such acts are dependent on him. In this case, God’s moral good is not as important as what he holds to be good which might diminish importance of worshipping him because all that counts is what he hold to be morally good. People will stop at determining what is morally good on the basis of the fact that God in himself determines what is morally good or not due to his divine nature. Both arguments therefore lead to consequences that present contradictory nature of good and divine. This reasoning presents the problematic nature of this argument since it has two alternatives which refute the very reasoning behind the original statement. How define what is moral without reference to God?
At the end of the eythyphro, as in many other Socratic dialogues, nothing is really resolved. What value do such exchanges have when in the end, inevitably, it is clear that nobody understands anything? What is the message that Plato is trying to send here?
The dilemma is however important as it sparks an inquiry about piety. It lays the basis for development and explanation of theories on divinity. By presenting this dialogue, Plato is trying to lead us in to an understanding of elenchus. Plato is showing that Socrates’ elenchus did not always lead to solutions; sometimes it led to more controversy or a chance to examine an issue more closely as seen in this case.
Why did Socrates’ use of elenchus lead to his arrest? In what way does this reveal, according to Plato, what most people really care about? Would you agree that “the unexamined life is not worth living”? Thinking critically, in your opinion, what is the measure of a life well lived?
Continued use of elenchus by Socrates leads to his arrest and trial in Athens. He is accused of misleading the youth. For his accusers, his methods of inquiry are annoying since he challenges what they hold as truths. During his trial, he confirms the widely held opinion of an irritant when he informs the jury that he has been searching for a wise man and there is no wiser man than he is. He details how he has traversed Athens in search of a wiser man but has not come across any. He has been meeting people who are extremely proud of themselves yet they do not know much about themselves, he has surely confirmed that he is the wisest since he knows that he knows very little. It is possible that such people would have wanted to get rid of a perennial nuisance who, in their eyes, pretended to know everything. According to Plato, this revealed that most people cared about are material things and do not spare a thought about the well being of their souls; a view he shares with Socrates. He alleges that people are more concerned with wealth and earthly happiness but have no consideration for eternal happiness which is more important.
In as much as I would have disagreed with some aspects of Socrates’ life, I share his attitude towards life. He believed in self enrichment through pursuit of knowledge and the truth and shunned preoccupation with material things. To him, true happiness would be achieved if one possessed virtue. It is for this reason that he dedicated his life to what he considered to be true good. Socrates believed that people should be loyal to the state, which I concur with. It is important to give selfless service to ones nation to which one owes allegiance. Worldly matters should take a back seat to the integrity of one’s character
During the trial, Socrates turns down a plan for his escape even as it becomes clear that what lies ahead is nothing short of a death sentence. He in turn urges his colleagues to move on in their pursuit of what he calls self knowledge. He will not be forced in to silence and neither will he give up on his quest. He states that unexamined life is not worth living; implying that he would rather die than stop his philosophical inquiry. I agree with him entirely. For one to have a fruitful life on earth, it is important to question the order, status quo, trends, traditions, personal beliefs and all other aspects of life. The strong statement about human life is revolutionary. Socrates states that life is based on spiritual growth, which entails an examination or reflection of life itself. It calls for dialoguing with a view to revealing undesirable spots.
A life well lived is one, short or long, which is full of happiness that emanates from self discovery. Human beings are endowed with immense intellectual powers. Of what use is an inquiry about matter and what surrounds us if we do not inquire about ourselves. An understanding of self is the beginning of knowledge: a characteristic of good life. Material possessions, education and money may facilitate life but they do not by themselves, enrich it. Compassion towards others, spirituality, health and a god relationship with state are important for achieving genuine happiness. When one lives such a life, it is not difficult to face death, as was the case with Socrates, who felt that he had fulfilled what he needed to.
Although the utility of so extensive a doubt is not readily apparent, nevertheless its greatest utility lies in freeing us of all prejudices….
Descartes’ first mediation helps us free our minds from prejudices by encouraging us to doubt everything. According to Descartes, we should doubt everything including what we have learned, and what we have always believed to be true. For example, most of us believed that God exists, but Descartes argues that we should doubt such assumptions, and start to seek knowledge afresh. Another reason Descartes encourages us to doubt everything is that we acquire most of our knowledge through senses, which are imperfect and deceitful. An example that may prove this fact is dreams.
When we are dreaming, we can never tell whether the events we are experiencing are real. Therefore, dreams are a result of our senses deceiving us, and also this may happen when we are awake. Doubting everything, according to Descartes, helps us get rid of prejudices, and enables us to start acquiring real knowledge. However, Descartes also cautions that we should not doubt basic components that make material things such as size, shape, amount, and time. In Apology, we learn that Socrates also advises us not to accept knowledge without doubting. For example, he admits that the youth of Athens should not believe in gods that the majority in the city are worshiping.
Like Descartes, Socrates also believed that we should free our minds from prejudices. He stated that for us to acquire knowledge and wisdom, we should start by admitting that we know nothing. Doubting is useful because with its help we can separate facts from false information and hearsay. However, doubting everything as proposed by Descartes is wrong because it may make us discard almost all of our knowledge.
….in preparing the easiest way for us to withdraw the mind from the senses
Descartes questions and doubts the things we have always accepted as facts, and the issues we perceive through our senses. Ignoring things we perceive through our senses prevents our minds from being influenced by sensory experiences. Moreover, Descartes argues that we should discard our initial knowledge that is mainly acquired through senses, and start acquiring real knowledge through introspection. The concept of introspection is based on the belief that knowledge is innate to humans, and if we think hard we may find answers to everything. Empiricists like Plato and Descartes advocate for the withdrawal of the mind from senses because they believe that human beings are born with some concepts, for example, the knowledge that God exists.
In Phaedo, Socrates stipulates that everything we see in the world is a reflection of the perfect form that exists in our minds. This means that Socrates encourages people not to pay attention to what they perceive through their senses because they are inferior forms. Just like Descartes, Socrates also advocates for the withdrawal of the mind from senses because perfect knowledge exists in the mind. Socrates considers that the soul is immaterial, and belongs to the world of forms.
According to Socrates, knowledge emanates from the soul because the soul is capable of perceiving the universal truths. Descartes helps us understand Socrates’ arguments by stating that humans possess an immaterial mind that performs the same function as the soul, i.e. thinking. According to these two scholars, knowledge emanates from the mind/soul and anything perceived through senses is deceitful and should be doubted.
….and finally, in making it impossible for us to doubt any further those things we later discover to be true.
In mediation II to VI, Descartes tries to find out the truth through several doubts. He outlines that what he sees and perceives does not exist, and he even goes ahead to conclude that the physical world including his own body does not exist. In his quest for the truth, Descartes acknowledges that there is only one thing that exists, the mind. According to Descartes, the mind thinks, and this is what confirms his existence. This is captured in his famous statement “I think, therefore I am”. In Phaedo, Socrates also disputes the existence of the physical world and argues that everything exists in our minds. Therefore, the truth cannot be perceived through senses, but through introspection.
The new quest for the truth by Descartes and Socrates is not that successful because these two scholars undermine the role physical experience plays in gaining knowledge or knowing the truth. Descartes doubts the existence of the physical world, but human beings learn what they know from the world. We acquire all our knowledge through experience that comes from the physical world. According to philosophers like Kant, knowledge is not innate to humans. Moreover, it is the experience that comes from the physical world and enables us to acquire knowledge and know the truth.
Kant and other relativists state that at birth the human brain is like a blank slate, and it does not have any preconceived concepts apart from certain instincts. It is the experience from the physical world that ‘writes’ on the human brain and gives humans knowledge. Relativists dispute the idea that we should doubt everything and disregard information that we receive through our senses. Therefore, we may never know the truth by doubting everything or completely undermining the role of our senses and the physical world.
“If you follow Socrates advice you will have an unsatisfactory life. He does not arrive at any particular conclusion. You must accept that you are ignorant and can never know. One constantly strives for truth but never finds it. This makes for a frustrating, unsatisfactory life. You would have a more satisfactory life by simply accepting the beliefs and values of the society that you grow up in.”
As long as philosophy exists different thinkers try to define the boundaries of human knowledge. Socrates’ strivings to understand the limits of wisdom present especial interest for the learner. Someone might consider Socrates’ position as far as the problem of human knowledge is concerned a rather controversial one, some believe that it lacks human sense; others suppose that it leads to an unsatisfactory life.
As for me, I am inclined to think that Socrates’ views on human knowledge and truth are logic and reasonable. The Greek philosopher thought that people always strive for truth but never find it. This happens because of their ignorance. According to Socrates, people should accept that they are ignorant and never know. The only thing where they can be considered wise is their awareness of their own ignorance. The latter serves as a driving force for human wrongdoings. If a person did wrong it means, going by Socrates, that he or she knew no better.
As for the philosopher’s own knowledge, he never called himself a wise person, as he understood that there are countless steps that a lover of wisdom (that is, philosopher) should take in pursuing wisdom.
Socrates’ theory appeals to me very much. For several times in the course of life I became convinced in the fact that the more a person knows the more he or she needs to know. Once a person acquires some new knowledge numerous opportunities are offered to him/her to apply it. But as the scope of knowledge broadens, this person realizes more and more aspects of it that she or he is not aware of. Therefore, there exists a constant challenge for the learner who, if ambitious enough, strives to face it with flying colors. If this does not happen a person should not give up and should keep on trying to fill in the gaps in one’s knowledge. I do realize that one cannot know everything in the world but there are no limits to human striving for perfection.
I do not agree with those who say that understanding of human inability to cover all fields of human knowledge makes people unhappy and turns their lives into frustrating and unsatisfactory. Personally I when face some difficulty in this or that field, try to do my best to acquire the necessary knowledge. Thus, my life becomes full of imaginary steps to go up. The more valuable information I get, “swallow” and “digest”, the higher I ascend the staircase of my personal development. And realization that I will never achieve perfection does not poison my life, but, on the contrary, fills it with a sense to keep on living.
Nearly the same goes with the problem of truth. None can answer the question of what truth is and where it can be found. Socrates always stressed that humanity constantly strives for truth but never finds it. Truth in this sense is close to the knowledge I have talked above. But the difference is that the dimensions of knowledge are more definite than the dimensions of truth. The latter is a more subjective concept than the concept of knowledge. And, as a result, to achieve perfection in it is much more difficult.
Different people have different views on truth: what is true for ones, will be considered as absolutely unacceptable for others. Actually, in this contradiction the main problems of humanity are rooted. If we imagine that all people have the same notion of truth humanity will forget about misunderstandings that cause numerous conflicts. But this sounds too idealistic and will never be applicable to our life.
When Socrates spoke of impossibility to grasp the truth he did not imply that humanity should accept the situation. In Phaedrus Socrates reveals his views on truth: he states that first and foremost a man should know the truth about any subject he deals with, as he has to be able to define it at least generally. Then, after defining it, the man will be able to define it into the smallest pieces until he reaches the limit of divisibility. Therefore, according to Socrates, people should start with acquiring the general idea of the thing and then specify it to get to the point.
Socrates’ position that the only absolute truth is that there is no truth might find a lot of exemplifications in modern life. Especially it concerns issues that always remain controversial. For example, if we consider the problem of abortion, we will see that there is no absolute truth here. Supporters of anti-abortion views claim that potential mothers should give birth no matter what their physical, social and economic conditions are. They are convinced that delivery is not a problem of personal concern, a potential mother is not empowered to choose whether to have a baby or to kill it, rather, this is the problem of the whole society where the mother lives in.
Opponents of this position view the problem in a more comprehensive way. They take into account the conditions that the first group disregards. So, where is the absolute truth in this case? I am inclined to believe that the answer is nowhere. The absolute truth does not exist. And if it really existed we all would live in a sort of idealistic society. This would be a society where all members are blind and deaf, as they do not need any organs of perception because everything is clearly determined, taken for granted and does not require an investigation.
Socrates’ opponents claim that for a person it would be better to simply accept the beliefs and values of the society that he or she grows up in, without checking them and seeking for alternate truth. Being a person who always seeks for truth though realizes that there is no absolute type of it, I cannot agree with this position. I cannot imagine myself blindly following the rules of the society without checking them for validity. I suppose that in my strivings to understand this world better my personal search for truth consists in. Step by step, it goes along with my becoming wiser.
I am thankful to Socrates who raised up the burning issues of knowledge and truth in his philosophical doctrine. He is known as a man who asked a lot of questions and I believe that they were destined to lead others to truth. My personal strivings for knowledge and truth encouraged by Socrates’ theory make my life full of various questions to answer, and, in the long run, make it painted with bright colors. And this is really essential, isn’t it?
In the dialogue between Socrates and Meno, the two men start their discussion with the definition of virtue (Plato 1). It occurred, however, that virtue is complicated to define in its global sense. Accordingly, the philosophers came up with an idea that in order to understand what is virtue, they should understand if the virtue can be taught or is it a natural gift. The discussion showed that the history had no examples of teachers, who would be able to explain the virtue to their students (Plato 28). Consequently, if there were no teachers, who could teach people how to be courageous, wise or tolerant, and the virtue itself would not be studied.
Socrates put forward the idea that it is not necessary to study a subject in order to know it. To prove his theory, he talked to a slave boy about the geometry and, by the set of leading questions, he pursued the boy to give logically-granted, right answers about the subject, which he had never studied (Plato 18). Socrates called this phenomenon a recollection. He explained it by the statement that our soul is immortal and, whereas our body dies, the soul continues to live and collect the information about the surrounding world. Accordingly, it is possible that the soul, which lives in our body, had numerous previous lives, during which it was able to obtain the knowledge of geometry. Thus, the slave boy was able to answer the questions intuitively, without actually studying the subject.
The same explanation is right in regards to true belief or true opinion. A person may have a true opinion, which is not grounded upon any knowledge or experience. The true opinion is just an inner voice, which is telling the right answer or the right way in the majority of cases. The true opinion, however, may be false. It happens, when our surroundings or circumstances change and make our true opinion change as well. Accordingly, under such conditions, our previous true opinion happens to be false.
Knowledge, on the other hand, is a constant virtue. We acquire knowledge through learning and it does not change with the flow of time. Socrates explained the difference between true opinion and knowledge by saying that true opinion is something that we had tethered to us by force. While it stays tethered, it can be helpful; however, once the chains are removed, the true opinion is not able to assist us in making the rightful decision. The knowledge is tethered to us voluntarily; accordingly, it cannot leave us and will always help us to act rightfully. This is what makes knowledge be a virtue.
Judging from the above, can we claim that knowledge is more significant and precious than true opinion? Definitely, knowledge is the grounded experience, which has proved its importance throughout the centuries.
However, as we remember, Socrates considered knowledge to be a virtue and he had proved that virtues cannot be taught (Plato 33). This leads the discussion to the conclusion that most politicians or men, who have the authority to administer the lives of others, are guided by true belief, rather than knowledge. This allows us to draw a parallel between true opinion and divination, because prophets usually say or do the right things, without having any explainable basis under them.
To sum it up, the discussion between Socrates and Meno ended by claiming that the majority of the important deeds were produced under the true opinion, rather than knowledge. However, knowledge is much more precious, than true opinion, because only the knowledge is able to stay true under changing circumstances and the flow of time.
Works Cited
Plato, Meno, South Australia: The University of Adelaide Library, 2010. Ebooks.
The video of interest is that by Demizmue, who gives a history of sophistry. The video shows that Socrates is not a sophist. Therefore, he is a role model for successively arguing that truth is not relative. Socrates stands out from the rest of the philosophers of his time. The case is so because of his unique way of thinking about reality, human nature, and existence.
Socrates was murdered for having a different perspective on life and society from the general public. He questioned the status quo by differing from the sophistry. Notably, sophistry refers to the art of developing persuasive but eventually misleading and fallacious arguments (Demizmue, 2020). Sophistry resulted from the widespread notion of the time that truth was relative. As a result, the philosophers believed in the independence of their opinions and the right for others not to infringe, mock, or question their worldviews. For instance, Protagoras convinced people that truth depends on the ability of an individual to convince others about a given concept regardless of the logic (or lack thereof) embedded in the reasoning (Demizmue, 2020).
However, as Demizmue (2020) informs, sophistry brought about a conundrum about “the relationship between law and nature, the social and natural world, nomos and physics.” The puzzle made people have opposing and irreconcilable claims about different things in areas of religion, politics, and art.
However, Socrates believes that truth is not relative, and through continuous investigation, one may become exposed to the truth about a given subject. Socrates’ idea of non-relative truth made him conflict with many people from different fields and backgrounds because he believed that only God was all-knowing, and people needed to accept that man is not a measure of all things. Socrates believes that nature had more answers in pursuing truth than man. In this context, a man refers to either an individual or a group of people with commonality, such as working in the same profession. Socrates found out that people know most things about a given subject. Therefore, they remain clueless about numerous things.
Therefore, it was improper for people to depend on their relative perception of truth since they do not have the whole perspective. For instance, he asserted that he is better than politicians, artisans, and poets because he has consulted them all and has a wider scope of knowledge than the others. He stated, “although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know” (The Center for Hellenistic Studies, 2020). His idea was that sociological constructions do not represent the truth as much nature does, and it is through the naturally existing curiosity of humankind that truth can become known.
For this reason, he revolutionized the focus of philosophy from looking at the outside world to concentrating on people’s inner selves (History, 2019). As a result, he dismissed the idea that human beings have a weakness of will. Based on self-reflection, he argued that people always have the power to resist what they know is wrong or bad, but they weigh the benefits and costs of their actions to decide what to do (History, 2019).
The idea is correct (truth) because it remains a significant concept in criminology called the rational choice theory. In other words, criminals are not weak in choosing the right thing to do, but they weigh the possibility and repercussions of punishment for committing a crime and evaluate it against the benefits to decide whether to offend others. As such, Socrates brought forth the idea that there is a single truth about each subject, but it takes humility to accept one does not know everything to begin understanding reality objectively. He modeled the philosophy of inner reflection to understand the world.
The portrayal of Socrates in various novels and plays differs according to the epoch and according to the writer who describes him. It is argued, that the three most well-known literary works which portray the image of this philosopher are “The last days of Socrates” “The Apology” and “The Clouds”. All three works show the image of Socrates in different ways, and each emphasizes different details.
Accomplishing the first claim of the assignment, it is necessary to emphasize, that Socrates as a historical person is viewed as the philosopher and sage who always lived in poverty, and Socrates is often regarded as the archetype of the heroic professor. An analysis of the career, character, and teaching methods of Socrates is used to identify essential qualities which define the professoriate. Further, the example of Socrates can inform and inspire our teaching today. It must be said, however, that Socrates was the author of the “Theory of Ideas.” Strictly speaking, of course, Plato was the author of none of his doctrines, which are identical with the wisdom revealed by the ancient Hindu sages. The Platonic shapes or archetypes were symbols of the world as it existed in Universal Mind, as pointed out in The Secret Doctrine I, 200. The devotion to the Platonic account of Socrates makes him presume that the Theory of Forms or Ideas was an innovation of Plato’s teacher, as the doctrine is pronounced by Socrates in the dialogues. It seems probable that this highly metaphysical clarification of the nature of belongings originated with Plato and only was stood for by him as being skilled by Socrates. Aristotle, who had no motive to hide the truth of this theme, says in his Metaphysics that Socrates occupied himself only with issues of ethical philosophy and that Plato commenced both the name and the commencement of the “Ideas.” It is said that Socrates is often pictured, insofar as philosophical teaching is concerned, as Socrates as comes into view in Plato’s writings, and not Socrates the historical character.
Although there is a bit of the real Socrates in the “Clouds” by Aristophanes in the character of the same name in the play, it is clear that Aristophanes’ description of Socrates in the Clouds is in good part a comedian deformation. Socrates was a well-known person in Athens who was commonly distinguished as an intellectual. Aristophanes, taking benefit of this fashionable awareness, randomly places him at the head of the Thinkery, in which topics such as rhetoric and astronomy are taught. As will happen to be evident in the Apology and the Republic, Socrates was not a tutor of rhetoric or any of the other subjects taught in the Thinkery. He was not alarmed with teaching students to attain material achievement through rhetoric; in fact, his main attention was to hearten young men toward religious, not material development. Despite Socrates’ atheism in the Clouds, he was not a scorner at conventional religion, but a dutiful believer in the gods.
Strepsiades
I’ve been ravaged by disease—I’m horse sick. It’s draining me most dreadfully. But please teach me one of your two styles of arguing, the one which never has to discharge any debt. Whatever payment you want me to make, I promise you I’ll pay—by all the gods.
Socrates
What gods do you intend to swear by? To start with, the gods hold no currency with us. (Clouds, p. 22)
Plato in his “Apology” has assumed that either we must appreciate the “influence or obey” doctrine as leaving open the option of justified noncompliance or we should convict Socrates of totalitarianism and self-challenge. It is meant in the following passage “Well, then, I will make my defense, and I will endeavor in the short time which is allowed to do away with this evil opinion of me which you have held for such a long time; and I hope I may succeed, if this be well for you and me, and that my words may find favor with you. But I know that to accomplish this is not easy – I quite see the nature of the task. Let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defense.” (Apology, p.3)
Aristophanes and Plato devote so much attention to Socrates, as they both were not indifferent to this character. Plato was Socrates’ student, and Aristophanes decided that it would be unfair to leave such a well-known personality without attention, and also envy played some role, as Aristophanes probably wanted to surpass Socrates in wisdom and popularity.
The genres of the regarded works are claimed to shape the image of the main characters in different ways. The comedian genre of “The Clouds” shows the comic character of Socrates to deride Socrates’ wish to study and to cover as many spheres as possible in his studies.
The philosophical dialogue/ monologue of “The Apology” shows Plato’s respect for the teacher, and reveals the details of the philosophical thoughts that could be missed in the records of those monologues.
It is necessary to mention that “The Apology” is often regarded as the kind of exaggeration, where Socrates is viewed too perfect and too much respect by Plato is shown. But it is necessary to underline, that this aspect is present in the work, but the main emphasis is not on this. It is claimed to transfer the thoughts of the great sage through the centuries.
References
Plato, Harold Tarrant 1993 “The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro; The Apology” Penguin Classics Aristophanes, William Arrowsmith, Richmond Lattimore, Douglas Parker 1994 “Four Plays by Aristophanes: The Birds; The Clouds; The Frogs; Lysistrata” Plume Taylor, C. C. W. Socrates A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Socrates was a Greek philosopher born in Athens in the year 470BC. The lifestyle of Socrates made him a famous figure in the world of philosophy and influenced western philosophy and the history of the world of philosophy. He was admired by many because of his mastery, insight, and great arguing skills in philosophy. Socrates had a significant influence on ancient philosophy thinkers who preceded him were called pre-Socratics. He is considered the first philosopher who talked about ethics in Greek; hence his work became recognized far and wide as a controversial philosopher.
Socrates did not record any of the dialogues he depicts but were written by his devoted followers who admired him for his bravery, integrity, and insight into philosophy. Among the people who wrote about him are Xenophon and Plato, who portray him as insightful and argumentative. Socrates became more famous for the events that led to his death. During his trial, Socrates explains the meaning of justice by examining the action of the citizens of the republic of Athens, where he gives a response to the challenge of Glaucon and Adaimentus on what justice truly is. Socrates uses the republic to show that it is the same as its citizens on the grounds of justice. In this paper, the three arguments of Socrates recorded in book ix are discussed and analyzed to see whether he answered the questions posed and if they are relevant to the challenge by Glaucon and Adeimantus on justice.
Socrates’ Argument on Ignorance
Plato explains that Socrates disliked the republic because he was considered wiser than any other citizen. Socrates claims that he does not have any knowledge of being wise. Still, since the oracle told his friend Chaerophon, “no one is wiser than Socrates” (Mouracade 48), he decides to find a wise person to show that the oracle is wrong about him being more intelligent. In his quest for a wiser man, Socrates visits politicians, poets, and craftsmen, but all his encounter with these people who seemed wise proves that they are not smart but do what they do due to the knowledge or inspiration they have
Finally, he concluded that he indeed is more intelligent than the republic because he is not ignorant of his lack of wisdom. According to Socrates, being ethical means acknowledging one ignorance of some things. Socrates repeated arguments on ignorance demonstrate his view on justice that as much as he can tell what justice is, there is still more he does not know about it. In his apology, Socrates condemns Athens for being ignorant on matters of justice because the citizens fail to answer his question on who is in charge of helping the youth if he is accused of corrupting them.
As per Socrates, the implication that he corrupts the young generation means the rest of the citizens condemn him to take care of them, which is not the case. He vies himself as the only person concerned with the youth, contrary to the accusation that he is a bad influence. He claims that harming the youth is like breaking himself voluntarily, which is impossible logically. In any case, punishment for one’s wrongdoings does not help in reducing crime. Instead, educating the accused is better so that they can find out where they went wrong.
Socratic ignorance, one of Socrates’ famous arguments, demonstrates the ignorance of the republic, which he compares to a tyrannical ruler. Due to ignorance and pursuit of his desires, the tyrant is unjust in his decisions. He is never happy because his tyrant self controls his action, but the tyrant is adamant about knowledge and justice because of ignorance. To answer the Glaucon challenge, Socrates says that a wise man is happier than the unwise since he leads a controlled and governed life just and free of worry. In contrast, an unjust man lives miserably because the tyrant nature controls his soul hence does unjust deeds that make life full of regrets.
Socrates’ Argument on Caring for the Soul
According to Socrates, the soul should care for more than any material wealth on earth (James 1). He divides the soul into three parts of desire, reason, and spirit form. The desirous man seeks material gain for satisfaction, and the spiritual man aims for success and honor in life while the reasonable man tries to find knowledge. Of these three categories of men, the reasonable man is juster and happier despite the assumption that all three have that they are all happy. He finds out the republicans fall in the category of the desirous man, who cares for material things and their bodies instead of caring for their souls.
Socrates argues that being virtuous can make wealth but be wealthy cannot make human beings righteous or bring more wisdom. He believes that God sent him on earth to demonstrate and preach to people about the importance of caring for the soul than the body, especially the people of Athens, where he is specifically sent to give this message. His argument implies that whatever he did was according to the oracle that sent him; hence it should not be judged as a crime. He compares himself to a horsefly and the city of Athens to a slow horse that needs provoking to stir up (James 5). An analysis of this argument shows
Socrates as the horsefly is considered the philosophical inquiry that provokes the horse, the citizens of Athens, to examine their actions. He considers himself an asset to democracy, contrary to the belief that he is a democratic burden. In conclusion, Socrates defends his argument by saying, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or properties but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul….” (Mouracade 50). Therefore, Socrates concludes his argument that since the reasonable man is just, then he alone is justified to judge himself s a happy man.
The Argument on Examining Life
When Socrates is given the death sentence, the citizens and prosecutors worry that he could talk his way out of the sentence and live as a free man with his arguments. But Socrates declares to the republic that he could not continue being silent on his defense because that would be disobeying his divinity god and not because he could not accept the sentence. He claims that “the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings” (Mouracade 62). This statement demonstrates to the republic that to live a life full of meaning, one must reflect on what they believe in, account for their words and actions, and speak for justice. Human beings are naturally drawn toward wealth and power, which is deemed to increase one’s reputation in society.
Socrates argues that living an examined life is more directed on personal reflection of an individual’s actions, distinguishing what is worthy of doing and what is not. If an activity or word does not add value, it is better to discard and look for things that add real value to our lives. In this argument, Socrates accuses his prosecutors of having no respect for humanity. Giving him a death sentence did not guarantee them a life without reflection on the action. He argues that one cannot escape examining their lives, and in sentencing him, they are not getting rid of a burden but tainting their own lives with sin (Mouracade 71). Following this argument, Socrates responds to the challenge by showing proof using the difference between illusory pleasure and positive pleasure. Unreal pleasure is assuming, while positive pleasure is reflective because it is a pursuit of knowledge. The knowledgable man is just and happier, with a clear conscience than a man without knowledge.
Works Cited
James. “Justice and the Fundamental Question of Plato’s ‘Republic.’” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, vol. 35, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1–17. Jstor, Web.