Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is plato's idea of happiness
Plato's apology summary essay
Plato's arguments and critique
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is plato's idea of happiness
In the book of Apology by Plato, Plato explains what really makes a person attain happiness. Plato tells us that a person needs to have virtues and a well being of the soul in order to actually have happiness. Plato tell us that without virtue there is no way a person is actually happy. He says humans no matter how famous or poor they are they can attain this happiness that they are seeking through virtues. Plato gives us two categories one is first things and in this section are virtues and well being of the soul. The second category is second things and it includes great health, money, job, sex, honor, being famous etc. Most people in our society believe that having the second things bring true happiness to them but Plato says this is incorrect. …show more content…
As humans we have needs and those needs can only be fulfilled with the first things that Plato tells us. I agree with Plato because I think that a person needs to have first things that are virtues and well being of the soul to say they are truly happy.
If a person is full of regret they can have everything in the world and nothing will change how they feel. A person needs to be tranquil with their life and themselves to be happy. An example that supports this is Robin Williams, he was a man that made so many movies that made so many people laugh and have a great time. He had a great family and many people that admired him and were his number one fans. He had money and lived in a nice, fancy house. No one would have thought that he was unhappy until he killed himself. His soul was uneasy and that lead him to the depression that he entered that was so consuming that it took his life. None of the secondary things mattered but if Robin William would have had first things he would never done anything against his life. I also agree with Plato when he says that the wiser and more understanding of his statement are the poor because they do not have luxuries but they have virtues and well being of the soul and they are happy people. They enjoy life and see it as a gift. They appreciate the little things in life that many do not see of worthy to enjoy and many take for
granted. In my personal life I have feel that having virtue and well being of the soul is key because as a human I need to have this in my life so that my body feels good. I see it as a type of medication to your body because anyone can obtain it but it does not come by itself you have to look for it. An example that I can relate is when I go to confession, especially when I haven't gone for many months I feel that I am carrying so much in me and once I confess and leave it is as if all this weight has been taken away from me and I can breath. I think this is because as humans we make so many mistakes that when we act on virtue or our soul is at peace it's like a vibe that change our body to this great mood. It makes us want to do good things and be better people instead of having greed. It produces us to be happy and it is not something that we can control it just happens. Plato makes a great point because many people try to seek this happiness that everyone claims to be in materialistic things but it is free. Although it is not bad to have second things but a person always needs to have first things because that is what we need. Luxuries are only there to make life easier.
One of the argument found in Plato’s Apology is that during the trial, Socrates had tried to defend himself in front of the judges and spoke, “If I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death, then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise”. This is an example of a Deductive Argument because it has a hypothetical syllogism which consist of having a conditional statement for both its premises in this case. More interestingly in this argument, it consists of pure hypothetical syllogism due to the fact that both statements are conditional. Based on the information given in this form of argument, I believed that this is considered to be an invalid argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow both premises as
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 Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
In this paper I will be discussing the four charges brought against Socrates in Plato’s essay The Apology and why exactly each of these charges is completely fictitious. The four charges brought against Socrates were that he argued the physical over the metaphysical, he argued the weaker claim over the stronger claim, he went against the gods, and he was corrupting the youth. Each of these four charges is false for varying reasons and I will be addressing each explanation on why each charge is a complete sham, after discussing each charge.
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradictions and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. In Socrates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’ decision to stay in Athens and to accept suicide was unethical, because he purposefully antagonized the people who control his fate and this ultimately led to the death penalty.
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.
Plato was the author of the Apology of Socrates, which was one of the four major works of ancient Greek literature. Though the title was the Apology of Socrates, the text referred to the defense speeches of Socrates against the Athenian council. At the end, Socrates was found to be guilty and was sentenced to death. However, the Athenian council was not acting justly because Socrates did nothing wrong as he had successfully developed a reasonable logic against the charges. I will address this notion through the analysis of the arguments and the logic that Socrates used to conduct his defense.
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
This essay will briefly explain my point of view on the texts Sophocles, Antigone translated by Paul Woodruff and Plato, The Apology translated by Benjamin Jowett. Mainly focusing on when Antigone refused to obey the king 's command not to bury her brother with Socrates ' refusal to obey the Athenian court if it commands him not to engage in philosophy. I think that in actual fact Socrates and Antigone were both strong influential individuals of their time, because they had confidence in God which lead them too stand up for what was right and with all their strength never backed down from death.
Aristotle rejects the idea of universal happiness by explaining how Plato does not incorporate the large number of variants. Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal, because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual. One might also argue that other common factors associated with happiness were wealth, pleasure, knowledge, and honor. Aristotle disagrees and found each of these limited to the notion of the good of man. Some benefits that may motivate them to seek better opportunities within their career may be the thought of money bringing happiness and also they will practice living the good life. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
Plato and Aristotle, both have similarities and differences in their ideas of which virtues are important and how they lead to happiness. For Plato, in his book "The Republic", happiness is achieved by adhering to a set of rules put into place by the state for each class. According to Aristotle 's "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle believed that all human activity is done to achieve happiness, which is considered the supreme good. Becoming wealthy, or famous, or seeking physical pleasure is only done to achieve happiness. Aristotle believed that happiness can only truly be achieved after death, because happiness is more of a temporary state, but while alive, virtue can be achieved by finding a mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency.
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...