Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on platos republic
Essay on platos republic
Essays on plato's "republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this paper I will give an in depth analysis of Socrates argument in Plato’s Republic and in Plato’s Phaedo. First I will begin with the analysis of the Republic, a discussion between Socrates and Glaucon on morality of the human being. The argument first defines morality within a good community and proceeds with the application of this definition in the human person. Then I shall analysis Phaedo, Socrates argument of immortality of the soul. Using his argument of death, reincarnation, change and invisibility, I shall explain Socrates rejoice of death. In conclusion, I will compare Socrates notion of immortality, apply it to his definition of morality and prove a contradiction between the two.
In chapter six of Plato’s Republic, Socrates
…show more content…
They began their argument by defining a good community. From there, they applied those definitions to the individual, to prove a good person. In Plato’s Phaedo, friends go to visit Socrates, who is awaiting death in prison. While there, Socrates tells them he is not fearful of his current future because he believes in a future after death. He believes the soul is immortal. He uses Death as the separation of the body and soul to prove this argument. He also uses reincarnation and change as other arguments.
The argument of Death begins when Socrates tells Celeb to tell Evenus to follow him. Celeb asks Socrates his implication of this. Socrates is not telling Evenus to commit suicide because that would be wrong. But instead, Socrates is urging Evenus to follow him in the rejoicing of death if he ever plans to obtain the Truth. Socrates begins his explanation of the argument with the belief that there are gods and as humans we are their possessions. If the gods wanted us to die they would give man a clear understanding of their want. Since the gods do wish to lose their possession, when one dies he is bound to meet his masters (the gods). By this belief, Socrates believes that when he dies he will meet his masters and have a greater future amongst them. Therefore, if one is a true philosopher, he will believe in the notion of a future after death. But what is
…show more content…
Socrates, Celebs and Simmas, agree that the opposite of life is death and vise versa. By this notion of opposite they agree that when man is born, he comes from death. And when man dies he changes from life to death. By this conclusion it is the soul that comes into life from death. And if the soul comes into life from death it must go to death from life. And if it goes to death from life and life from death it must exist after death in order to be reborn. Therefore, the philosopher should not fear death, with the idea he shall be born again because the soul is immortal, only changing between life and
In the book “Phaedo,” Plato discusses the theory of forms with ideas that concern the morality of the form. There are four philosophers that are expressed which are Phaedo, Cebes, and Simmias regarding the execution of Socrates. Socrates is presented in “Phaedo” on the morning of his execution where he is being killed. He tells his disciples Simmias and Cebes that he is not afraid of dying because a true philosopher should welcome and look forward to death but not suicide. A man should never commit suicide. He says that we are possessions of the Gods and should not harm themselves. He provides the four arguments for his claim that the soul is immortal and that a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
During this essay, the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical. In Plato’s Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
In Plato’s Republic , Socrates states how a democracy could deteriorate and fall into lower regime. There are many characteristics when it comes to the kind of people that occupy a democratic regime. Although there are many downfalls, there are certain ways that a democracy and other regimes could be saved.
One of the most famous doctrines associated with Socrates is the virtue is knowledge. It comes up time and time again in Plato’s books The Apology and The Republic as an aspiration to help lead the most just life. In the case of the ring of Gyges internal harmony has to be achieved so that the just person would not even want to touch the ring because putting on the ring means that the appetite part of the soul is overpowering the knowledge and spirit in the internal soul. The kind of intellectuality that the Sophists were applying to the practical affairs of life Socrates thought should be applied to the moral life. One could not be virtuous without first knowing what virtue is. Once one has attained the knowledge of virtue, then, according to Socrates, one cannot help but be virtuous since no one does wrong voluntarily.
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
First and foremost, Socrates believed that when a person dies the body is what seems to die while the soul continues to live and exist. Although many suggested that when the body dies the soul dies with it, Socrates provides numerous arguments to prove his point otherwise. The arguments that were presented consisted of The argument of Reincarnation, The argument of Opposites, The argument of Recollection, and The argument of Forms. The argument that was most convincing for me was that of the Argument of Forms because Socrates makes his most compelling arguments here and it’s the most effective. On the other hand, the argument that I saw to be the least convincing was that of the Argument of Recollection and Reincarnation because both arguments fail to fully support the idea of the soul being immortal.
Socrates discusses that people should not fear death because we do not know the qualities of death. Even though we do not know what death is, he makes some suggestions for the possibilities after death. He suggests that maybe death is just an endless sleep without dreaming, it is where we can finally come to peace with ourselves. He also suggest that maybe in the afterlife he will be able to meet heroic people in the past, where he can share his experience and question people to see whether they are wise. Even in death Socrates is still going to practice philosophy even if the place is bad. Even if he did not live a just life that he thought he did, he can examine what he did wrong and fix the problems in the after life. I agree with Socrates
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
Socrates was an insightful philosopher who had an opinion on all the basic fundamental questions. He had very strong beliefs that he willed others into believing through questioning and proving ignorance in others beliefs. He has particular views on every fundamental question and particular views on how people should live their lives. He says God has spoken to him about philosophy and says that it is his destiny and it is his calling in life. Through philosophy he searches for answers to the fundamental questions and gains wisdom and knowledge. The fundamental question of condition is the question of what, if anything, has gone wrong with the world? The question of solution is what can fix the problem? Then there is Death which asks what happens
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...
At first, the connection between philosophy and death is not clear. However, as we unravel