Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Virtue and their application
Plato's five dialogues
Definition of virtue ethics in ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the Protagoras, both Socrates and Protagoras make an argument as to whether or not virtue can or cannot be taught. The story begins with a young man, who is a friend of Socrates to want to learn from Protagoras who happens to be quite a well-known and knowledgably person. In order to receive this lesson the young man must pay Protagoras in order to learn from him, this causes Socrates to become concerned as he does not like the idea of paying someone to teach them ideas or thoughts. This causes the main argument for the debate between Socrates and Protagoras as Socrates is sceptical on whether or not Protagoras can teach someone to be good or virtuous.
During the beginning of the debate Protagoras states that virtue can be taught, while Socrates made statements as to whether or not Protagoras can actually teach political virtue challenging the idea. This battle raises some questions as what virtue is and how to define it. It also raised the question if people can be taught to be good citizens, which led to the question: What is a good citizen? They both have different views as to what a good citizen is, creating a much more complex problem than what they started with originally.
During the debate, questions arose as to if citizenship is simply obeying the laws that are created within the city or if it is
…show more content…
The story begins with a young man, who is a friend of Socrates to want to learn from Protagoras who happens to be quite a well-known and knowledgably person. In order to receive this lesson the young man must pay Protagoras in order to learn from him, this causes Socrates to become concerned as he does not like the idea of paying someone to teach them ideas or thoughts. This causes the main argument for the debate between Socrates and Protagoras as Socrates is sceptical on whether or not Protagoras can teach someone to be good or
ABSTRACT: I analyse the dramatic setting of the Gorgias by contrasting it with that of the Protagoras. The two dialogues are closely related. In the Gorgias Socrates states that the rhetorician and the sophist are basically indistinguishable in everyday life. In both the Protagoras and the Gorgias, his confrontation with his interlocutors is metaphorically related to a descent to Hades. However, while the events in the Protagoras are narrated by Socrates himself, the Gorgias has readers face the unfolding events without mediation. The temporal and spatial framing of the Gorgias is indeterminate, while both aspects are described in detail in the Protagoras. I maintain that the magical passage from an indeterminate "outside" to an indeterminate "inside" in the Gorgias is significantly related to the characters' attitude towards the boundaries of each other's souls, which are constantly ignored or attacked. As a matter of fact, the dialogue presents a very impressive amount of anger and exchange of abuse, which never ceases until the end. I suggest that the temporal framing demonstrates that the beginning and the end of the dialogue are closely connected. Socrates unexpectedly arrives and refutes Gorgias by asking him unexpected questions. The last myth of judgment indicates that Gorgias' attitude is comparable to that of the mortals who lived during Kronos' age, while Socrates brings about a liberation from appearance which is analogous to the innovations brought about by Zeus.
Socrates was wise men, who question everything, he was found to be the wise man in Athens by the oracle. Although he was consider of being the wises man alive in those days, Socrates never consider himself wise, therefore he question everything in order to learned more. Socrates lived a poor life, he used to go to the markets and preach in Athens he never harm anyone, or disobey any of the laws in Athens, yet he was found guilty of all charges and sentence to die.
(160d) Socrates points out the contradicting beliefs that Protagoras would have had in maintaining relative truths, for to do so would be to remove the ability for one man to know more/better than another (161). It seems strange to say then, again coming from Protagoras, that one is more knowledgeable than another, and is worthy of payment to teach men who are less knowledgeable. In addition to this, as discussed above, Protagoras’ account is based on future possibility and thus has no place in discussing what actually is or in the process of becoming. To claim truth based on a future event (that which has not yet come to pass) fails requirement (1) of any definition of knowledge. Similar issues are faced in theories of knowledge and justification that rely heavily on probability. Mainly that the probability of a claim being true cannot provide actual, instant, justification for a belief (which in turn makes the theory that K=JTB
Socrates lived such a private life that it lead to the most important revelation of his entire life. He would go about his life doing nothing but self-examination. In examining his life so strenuously others would come to him to be taught, or to have their children be taught by Socrates. They would offer him money and he would refuse. They would do whatever they could to learn anything Socrates had to teach. What they did not know is that Socrates was not teaching anyone he was simply going about his usual life and people just happened to learn from it. This was also why Socrates was put on trial. He was brought up on two charges, one of impiety and the other of corrupting the youth. These two charges set the course for the last month of his life.
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
(37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
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.
Protagoras is best known for saying the quote, “ Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.” Protagoras is trying to explain that there is not a settled truth or just one truth, since everything that happens is individually linked to an individual’s experience. Each individual’s opinion, perspective, judgment, and knowledge would be different as what is true for one person may not be true to another. Protagoras believed that although an individual may be correct about something, they could always improve themselves with his teachings. Furthermore, Protagoras believed that without knowledge society would turn into chaos. On the other hand, Socrates believed that Protagoras remained contradicting himself, as he thought that morality was mostly a relationship between an individual and its soul; whereas, Protagoras saw morality as to assist social
However, Meno poses a question which Socrates classifies as the “debater’s argument”. The argument goes like this, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know” (Plato 70)? Meno questions how will they know what they are looking for if they have no previous idea of what it is, and if they find it how will they know that. Because they have no idea of what it is that they are looking for Meno believes that even if they do come across the true meaning of virtue they will have no way of knowing that they have. Socrates counters this argument by inserting his idea of the immortal soul. Socrates states that we all have an immortal soul, which already has all the knowledge that we as man need. However, we as man simply need to discover the knowledge within us. As a result of this concept of the immortal soul, Socrates believes that once they encounter what they are looking for they will know they have found
Citizenship is defined as a being a citizen or a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. Citizen preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people. The concept of which in one of its earliest was given to us by the Romans, who had just began to understand the importance of a populace contributing to the decisions of its own fate. Modern American citizenship as we know it today was defined for us in the constitution of this nation by the founding fathers. Citizenship as they had envisioned it even back then was not free, but came with a price. A citizen was expected to carry out certain civic duties and responsibilities such as the defense of the republic, participating in state and local government, and voting on affairs of the nation as a whole. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Given all the communication technology; receiving and sending information has never been easier, however civic involvement is at one if its lowest points in the past 100 years. Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote of her husband, that Theodore Roosevelt taught by precept and example that men owed something at all times, whether in peace or in war, for the privilege of citizenship and that the burden rest equally on rich and poor.
Protagoras is a sophist, he is a teacher of wisdom knowledge and virtue and persuades his students that what he is saying is believable. While Protagoras and Socrates get into an argument
Throughout the dialogue of “Meno”, Socrates inquires what virtue is and whether virtue is innate, acquired through learning, or received as a gift from the gods (Jowett, 1949). After some discussion with Meno, Socrates first proposes the theory that virtue is innate. Subsequently the knowledge of innate virtue is of a priori knowledge, which is in turn contingent on a priori justification (Russell, 2011).
Aristotle believes the amount of friends should be limited because a real friendship requires time. In battle, Plato agrees that if the enemy is also Greek, then precautions should be taken with regards to land, and killing, however if the enemy is not Greek, then there are no boundaries. Plato believes that knowing what is right will automatically lead to the right thing being done, while Aristotle believes that it isn 't enough to just know what is good, the person still must make the right choice. Plato believes that virtue wasn’t mandatory for a somewhat primitive kind of happiness, however Aristotle believed that virtue was needed. Plato basically believed that all of the virtues boil down to wisdom, and Aristotle believed that virtue must be practiced, and one can still be virtuous and unhappy. Socrates emphasizes that everyone is considered family, and there will be no divided loyalties in the perfect state. Also there would be no private ownership, which is responsible for feuds. Plato 's teacher Socrates believes that a philosopher should become a ruler, or the current ruler should learn philosophy, as philosophers are more aware of how to run the state. However, Aristotle believes that all sophists should stay out of
The concept of written laws and their place in government is one of the key points of discussion in the Platonic dialog the Statesman. In this philosophical work, a dialog on the nature of the statesmanship is discussed in order to determine what it is that defines the true statesman from all of those who may lay claim to this title. This dialog employs different methods of dialectic as Plato begins to depart from the Socratic method of argumentation. In this dialog Socrates is replaced as the leader of the discussion by the stranger who engages the young Socrates in a discussion about the statesman. Among the different argumentative methods that are used by Plato in this dialog division and myth play a central role in the development of the arguments put forth by the stranger as he leads the young Socrates along the dialectic path toward the nature of the statesman. The statesman is compared to a shepherd or caretaker of the human “flock.” The conclusion that comes from division says that the statesman is one who: Issues commands (with a science) of his own intellect over the human race. This is the first conclusion that the dialog arrives at via the method of division. The dialog, however, does not end here as the stranger suggests that their definition is still wanting of clarity because there are still some (physicians, farmers, merchants, etc…) who would lay claim to the title of shepherds of humanity. For this reason a new approach to the argument must be undertaken: “then we must begin by a new starting-point and travel by a different road” (Statesman 268 D.)