4. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates argues that human beings do not desire things that they believe to be bad. Socrates presents a valid argument—that is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, his argument is unsound—that is, the argument is valid but holds a false premise. I will argue against the soundness of Socrates’ argument. In the first premise, Socrates asserts the common intuition that bad things are harmful. By harmful, he means a state conducive to unhappiness. He does not mean harmful in the sense of pain. On the face of it, for example, children do not perceive lying as a bad thing nor as harmful. However, once the proper education is presented to them, they realize that lying is a bad thing which is conducive to unhappiness. So, it is a common intuition that everybody knows that bad things are conducive to …show more content…
Premise (2) asserts that wanting something bad involves wanting to be harmed. Premise (3) asserts that human beings do not want to be harmed. Socrates concludes—from premises (1-3)—that nobody wants bad things because they want to be happy. Humans never intentionally choose to be harmed and unhappy. The connection between Premise (2), Premise (3) and the conclusion show a valid argument form, modus tollens (denying the consequent). However, the connection between premise (1) and premise (2) show a problem in Socrates’ argument. Objection (1): Lying is a bad thing, but it is not always conducive to unhappiness. For example, lying to protect or save another humans’ life. In this scenario, lying is not conducive to unhappiness. Lying is actually conducive to happiness, since the lie is saving a person’s life. So, by definition, a bad thing is not always harmful. Since Socrates’ premise (2) is a universal premise—that is, a statement that claims to be true by necessity—all it needs is one objection to prove the statement false. Objections (1) makes premise (2)
As an aside, I would like to note that, though I believe that a further objection could be made to Socrates conclusions in “The Philosopher's Defense”, due to space considerations, I didn't write the fourth section “Failure of the Philosopher's Defense”.
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
This is an argument made by Socrates to Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias 495d – 497d. This argument makes many claims in order to determine if good and pleasure are the same or different and if bad and painful are the same or different. The following will analyzes the argument that Socrates makes and determines if the argument is valid or strong and whether the argument is sound or cogent. Furthermore the errors in the argument are dissected and enlighten to how the argument could have been better constructed.
In response to the second objection, Socrates does make a large leap from saying that he believes in the spirits to saying that he believes in the gods, however, this does not necessarily mean that his statements are false. In the objection we say that these supernatural spirits could include ghosts or other dead souls, but at the same time the spirits can include other divinities and gods. We are not trying to prove that Socrates believes in a certain god, but that he is not an atheist, or one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god. Furthermore, Socrates is already charged of teaching the youth to believe in divinities and unlike supernatural powers, divinities are deities or gods and goddesses. The fact that Socrates believes in divinities refutes any objection that Socrates may be an atheist.
(36) My argument is that Socrates is of great service to the citizens of Athens, as he understands he knows nothing, he understands where he belongs, and through this
The paradox arises due to a number of assumptions concerning knowledge, inquiry and definition made by both Socrates and Meno. The assumptions of Socrates are:
Judgment is very hard to use as valid reasoning. Everyone has their own judgments about everything. How does one know if what Socrates was doing was corrupting or improving the youth?... ... middle of paper ... ...
I am going to attempt to show that although the argument that Socrates makes in The Republic by Plato is valid, it is not sound. I am going to explain his argument and challenge a premise that he has made to support his argument.
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
Contrary to this widely accepted myth, I will try to demonstrate that Socrates' argument was erroneous, which made his decision less rational. In fact, had he decided to escape, his behavior would not have represented an unjust act. Although his argumentation and dialogue with Crito seem more like a moral sermon, his ...
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
In order for this argument to be sound, however, the premises need to be true. The first premise immediately comes in to question because it appears to be a false dilemma. Socrates is asserting in his argument that there are only two avenues death might take, when in fact there could be other possibilities. For instance, couldn't death be an eternity of sta...
In other words, Socrates was using this as analogy between what is holy and what is approved of by the gods as holy, he is saying that it is approved because it got approved by yourself and not that it is approved because it has already been approved by the gods. He used this analogy because it was a perfect argument to defend his claim, he is simply stating that you approve of what is holy and not believe something is holy because it has already been approved. What you approve of as holy is what should be holy and not what someone else approves of holy should define what you consider holy. Everyone has their own opinion and has the right to believe what they think is best for them. If they don’t agree with what you believe, then why should they believe in what you approve
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
Socrates' argument backing up his claim, the statement makes a lot of sense. In order for Philosophers to