Callicles comes with a hedonistic belief that pleasure is to be associated with “good” and that pain is to be associated with “bad”, which means a good life is the one full of many pleasures. To refute Callicles belief, Socrates first uses the example of health and disease to explain to Callicles that good and bad cannot happen with a person at the same time, yet pain and pleasure can happen simultaneously. To further enforce his point, Socrates uses the concept of a coward and the brave to provide another argument that pain and pleasure cannot be the deciding factors for what is a good life. In both of his arguments, I believe Socrates is successful based on my personal belief that if someone or something is result in pain, it doesn’t mean that it is bad, and that everyone, good or bad, is capable of feeling both pain an pleasure.
Argument #1 and Response
The first argument that Socrates makes against Callicles view of the “good life” is that pleasure and pain cannot be connected with being the same as good and bad. The way he goes about in presenting his argument is with two steps: 1) first showing that good and bad are opposites and 2) that pain and pleasure can exist together. He first makes the point that good and bad are opposites by having disease represent “bad” and health represents “good”. He states, “What if he gets rid of his eye disease? Does he also get rid of his eyes health and so in the end he’s rid of both at the same time,” meaning that if something good is present in a human, then the opposite of that, the bad, must be gone. If a person is in good health, or if a person is strong, then they must be disease free and must not be weak. After this has been established, Socrates goes on to clarify that unlike...
... middle of paper ...
...who feel pleasure and enjoyment. Following the thoughts and beliefs of Callicles, then if the brave feels sorrow upon loses, then that means that they are experiencing pain, which leads to the conclusion that they are bad. This thought concept is not valid, because I believe that everyone has the capacity of feeling sorrow and enjoyment, and it can’t be used to confirm if someone has a good life or a bad life. Bravery comes in the absence of one being a coward, just like good comes in the absence of bad, however someone who is brave can experience both pain and pleasure. Someone who is brave or intelligent might be seen as superior in society, but that is because they have more respect and have proved their worth. It doesn’t mean that they have more pleasures in their life.
Works Cited
Plato, and Donald J. Zeyl. Gorgias. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. Print.
Second he states that a person that acts so unjustly will be poor, and friendless. If he is poor he cannot satisfy his appetite, and the reason he is poor because he has such a large apatite that cannot be sated. He will be friendless, so there will be no one he can take advantage of, and he will be bound to satisfy his desires, which leaves him without any freedom or will of his own. With this argument in mind Socrates is stating that this unjustly person is not strong because he left miserable. Socrates argument is clever, and completely breaks down Thrasymachus’
...y saying that, “isn’t to produce justice to establish the parts of the soul in a relation of mastering, and being mastered by, one another that is according to nature, while to produce injustice is to establish a relation of ruling, and being ruled by, one another that is contrary to nature?” (444d). Isn’t it better to lead a just life if doing so prevents internal chaos and maintains order in the soul? It seems that answer is yes, but the question rests on a fallacy. The connection between injustice in a city as chaos among the classes, and injustice in a man as chaos in the soul has never been sufficiently shown. Socrates has failed his demonstration.
Callicles seems to be manipulating parts of Socrates’s rebuttal of whether or not rhetoric is necessary and just, more so than philosophy. While offering what seem to be kind words towards Socrates, Callicles comes off as slightly insulting when regarding Socrates’s rebuttal throughout the entire discussion. When Callicles suggests that Socrates pursuit for defending philosophy is childlike, it almost seems as though he is saying that Socrates has not real grounds for his arguments regarding rhetoric. Callicles believes that rhetoric is entirely necessary more so than philosophy, and by pressing as deeply as Socrates has about philosophy, he is simply wasting his own time. It seems as though Callicles is trying to end the discussion by simply degrading the nature of Socrates’s entire argument and life’s dedication to
Socrates’ philosophical beliefs and life isn’t accurately represented in the modern world. Since there aren’t any writings from Socrates himself, his life, beliefs, and philosophy has to be depicted through the writings of Plato, Aristophanes, Aristotle and Xenophon, with Plato being the most informational and dependable source. These writers that do mention Socrates in their writings aren’t always accurate and are sometimes very contradicting and inconsistent. In Plato’s writing, it is difficult to distinguish the ideas and beliefs of Socrates from Plato’s. Some historians believe that the beliefs of Plato were based upon Socrates. Some believe that the beliefs of Socrates were interpreted by Plato in his writings. Others believe Socrates didn’t have any ideas of his own. This unclear representation of Socrates is known as the Socratic Problem. Due to the S...
Socrates explains that his goal was not to teach the people of Athens, but to serve them like his mother did. Using his method called “the Socratic method” which is also found in the reading Euthyphro, he defines a good act as something that is good because it has value towards our efforts making us happier and better people rather than the Gods consider it to be a good act. As you can see, the Gods and the higher people from Athens didn’t agree on Socrates views which were the reason for his early death by poison (hemlock) condemned by the upper people of Athens. He stated that happiness was found by putting less attention to the whole body but rather to the soul of one’s body. The goal of his “Socratic method” was to clear the way of knowledge by showing where ignorance was. He was a person open to all knowledge but viewed it in a different way most people would. He admitted to himself being an ignorant person but a person with passion and knowledge to where his views are and where his mindset is. He explained that happiness didn’t involve in someone’s length of life but mostly the quality of someone’s life. For example, Benito Mussolini an Italian politician and creation of fascism, he states “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” I’d have to agree myself that I’d rather live one day as a strong ferocious beast with pride than 100 years being a weak prey not knowing when life can get better. In Socrates views on this he presents an argument as to what happiness is that is as powerful today as when he first discussed it over 2400 years ago. Basically, Socrates is concerned to establish two main points: 1) happiness is what all
To begin with, Socrates is obviously a proud man, and when he declares that he will never give way to anyone for the sake of h...
...nally, the ignorant. Thus, to be courageous is to “possess excellence to its entirety and the happier he is, the more he will be pained at the thought of death” (403). Aristotle then moves to comment on temperance; the mean between the extremes of pleasure. The self-indulgent man would crave for the excess of animal pleasure, extravagance and dissipation. However, those temperate are concerned with pain in a moderate manner.
Socrates focuses his philosophy on life entirely on the discovery of knowledge and wisdom, ethics, and the soul. He was obsessed with seeking of knowledge and wisdom: he believed that they are the key to a good life. He went on to state that, “an unexamined life, is a life not worth living.” According to him, knowledge and wisdom correlate to ethical actions, ultimately resulting in a life of happiness, by
He openly questions the beliefs of men held in high esteem in Athens, and thus has made him a controversial figure. For this very reason, he was indicted. Socrates responds, claiming “You are wrong sir, if you should think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death…”. A good man does not consider his physical well being when taking action, rather he looks “whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man” (28c). Socrates distinctly uses the word “acting” instead of “being”. What he has essentially said is that good men only act like good men. Which is to say, that men only aim to be good. Additionally, a man’s life is not what matters, rather his honor, or the health of his soul is what matters. Actions guided by the idea of a “good man” determine a man’s worth. I find this is beautifully reflected in Aristotle 's divisions of the soul. Just as all “good” men aim to act like good men, Aristotle theorized that all activities of men are aimed at a type of good
Socrates’s apology displays his deep knowledge in philosophy as the Delphic Oracle stated ”there is no person living wiser than Socrates”. The greatest example of Socrates trial and death validates the close relationship between his character and philosophy. He believed that philosophy should triumph in practical results for the greater well being of society. Socrates attempted to establish an ethical system based on human reason rather than theological teaching. He pointed out that human choice was driven by the desire for happiness, and infinite wisdom comes from knowing oneself. The more a person knows something the greater his or her ability to reason and to make choices that will bring true happiness.
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
The second argument that supports Socrates decision to stay in prison is that of the repercussions to the city of Athens. If Socrates escaped, the Athens city together with its fabric, laws, would be annihilated. By the extension, destruction of the Athens’ city equally destroyed the lives of people of Athens. Socrates argues that harming others is similar to harming ones soul because such an act constituted an unjust act. Therefore, it was a wiser decision to meet death rather than escape.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Socrates states to the jurors in his trail, “No evil can happen to a good man” (48). Socrates is examining the moral center of the man. Evil can occur to an individual from the outside. Socrates a good, even innocent, man was sentenced to death. Other characters in history and even today are identified as good, but they still have evil occur to them. Socrates is not talking about an outside evil or harm occurring to a good person. He is examining the soul and what is morally evil and morally good.
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”