I was given the task to make a decision concerning the confession of Alexandros of Nicomedia regarding his Monophysite beliefs. After carefully studying Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and closely analyzing his arguments, I was able to come to a conclusion. Boethius would argue that the correct thing to do is punish Alexandros to push him to reform himself rather than just senseless torture, given that wicked men technically do not exist, wicked men are already punishing themselves and wicked man can reform themselves by suing the right punishment. Firstly, according to Boethius, no evil will go unpunished as well as no virtue will be forgotten. “It is clear that good deeds never lack reward, or crimes their appropriate punishment.” (Boethius 93). The way I interpret this argument, is that if Alexandros is truly a wicked man, he will be punished by fortune or some other force greater than humans. Therefore, our intervention would not be needed given that he will eventually be punished if he deserves it. Even if it is for his own good, Boethius argues that wicked men do not exist—or even better, they …show more content…
Even though Boethius believes that wickedness itself it’s a punishment, he also argues that punishment is necessary for a cure. “’And so sovereign Providence has often produce a remarkable effect—evil man making other evil man good. For some, when they think they suffer injustice at the hands of the worst of men, burn with hatred for evil men, and being eager to be different from those they hate, have reformed and become virtuous.” (Boethius 109). Consequently, rather than torturing a potential wicked man, the honorable thing to do would be help this man to reform himself if he needs it. Rather than using force for torture, an alternative punishment should be considered for a positive
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Socrates begins to argue with Meletus about his previous statement and, what seems to become, more and more agitated with the fact that Meletus goes back and forth with his argument for the simple fact that he wants Socrates to face the death penalty, which is evident on several occasions throughout Plato’s apology. Also, throughout Plato’s version of The Apology, he also makes sure that it is known that his first charges arose from general prejudices that surrounded him over the years.
This paper will offer a commentary on Herodotus’ Histories 2.129-135. Book Two of Histories concerns itself with Egypt; specifically chapters 99-182 detail rulers of Egypt both legendary and actual. Book Two is distinct from the other books in Histories as it is in this book that we predominantly experience Herodotus as an investigator. More precisely it is in Book Two that Herodotus treats first person experience not as direct evidence but as a method of assessing the accounts of others. Chapters 129-135 provide us with the tale of King Mycerinus as recounted by whom Herodotus refers to in 2.127 as simply ‘ÆGYPTIOI’. These Egyptians are referred to at various points in Book Two and at times appear to refer to what might be termed ‘Egyptians in general’ . However, we can make a reasonable assumption in this instance, given what has been stated before at 2.99 and what is stated later at 2.142, that the Egyptians that provide Herodotus with the tale of King Mycerinus are probably priests. It should not be assumed that priests are any more reliable than the lay Egyptian in Histories however; the Egyptian priesthood did not necessarily concern itself with historical accuracy. Indeed the inclusion of priests may simply be a Herodotean literary device designed to reinforce his reader’s credulity.
Most of the time, we assume that two different authors have a similar idea of the same thing, but sometimes, the two interpretations can widely vary. The philosopher, as described in both Aristophanes’ Clouds and Plato’s Apology, has certain traits that both authors agree with: they consider philosophers to be thoughtful and curious but not well liked among the people. However, they disagree as to the effect the philosopher has on society. Aristophanes believes that the philosopher is creating unrest in a society that was in good shape beforehand, while Socrates, being a philosopher, sees himself as a key component in the development of Athens. Aristophanes and Socrates have a similar understanding of what a philosopher is, but they disagree
In “Apology”, Plato insists about Socrates’ life and his qualities. Socrates appeared as talented as a simple man, friendly in communicate, quick-witted and sharp in repartee, love people Athens, and especially respect truthfulness and honestly. As Plato’s essay said, Socrates believed that the care of human soul is the biggest concern of the people, so he spent a lot of time to consider his personal life and the lives of people of Athens.
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.
Legitimation refers to people’s beliefs about political authority and the ability to defend these beliefs with justification. The three main sources of legitimacy are typically understood as acceptance of authority and the need to obey its commands. People have faith in political or social order because it has been there for a long time (tradition), have faith in the rulers (charisma), or trust its legality, specifically the rationality of the rule of law (rational) (Weber 1990 [1918]; 1964). Whilst legitimacy is constantly evolving due to current perceptions of society; texts such as ‘Oedipus the King’ (Sophocles) and ‘The Apology’ (Plato) that date back to fifth century BCE explore the notion of traditional, charismatic, and rational legitimation in a comparative way.
Plato was born in Athens, Greece around 427 B.C. He was always interested in politics, until he witnessed his mentor and teacher, Socrates, death. After learning of the callousness of politics, Plato changed his mind and eventually opened up The Academy, which is considered if not the first, one of the first Universities. Students at the Academy studied many different fields of science, including biological and astronomical. The students also studied many other fields, such as math. Plato developed many views that were mathematical in nature. He expressed these views through his writings. According to Dr. Calkins of Andrew University, "Timaeus is probably the most renowned of Plato's thirty-five dialogues. [In it] Plato expresses that he believes that the heavenly bodies are arranged in perfect geometric form. He said that because the heavens are perfect, the various heavenly bodies move in exact circles." (Calkins 1). Of course that is a much summarized view of what Plato discusses in Timaeus, but still a solid view on Plato's beliefs about cosmology. Cosmology can be loosely defined as everything being explained and in its place or beautiful. The cosmos is beautiful because everything is perfect. Plato understood that when he defined the most perfect geometric design as the circle. In a circle one line is always equidistance from one point. In Plato's universe there are two realms, eternity and time. The factor that creates "time" out of the chaos of "eternity" is the Demiurge. Plato's Demiurge can be defined as an architect creator theological entity. The importance of the Demiurge in this paper is to compare and contrast him with Boethius's God in The Consolation of Philosophy.
In the Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius confronts his unjust imprisonment with reason to illustrate how virtue always overcomes evil and how God as the supreme good can neither cause nor condone wickedness.
The Apology is an account by Plato of the prosecution of Socrates who was brought to face prosecution for the first time in Athens in front of an open Athenian court comprised of approximately 500 juries (Plato, Tredennick, & Tarrant, 2003, p.33). As Socrates begins his defense, he names his accusers Meletus, Anytus and Lycon who represent the grievances on behalf of various sections of the population. Meletus represents the grievances of the poets, Anytus represents the professional men and politicians, and Lycon represents the grievances of the orators (Plato, Tredennick, & Tarrant, 2003, p.47). Socrates states to the jury that he is not well versed in the language of the court, and asks that they both accommodate his manner of speech, and
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.
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
At the elderly age of seventy, Socrates found himself fighting against an indictment of impiety. He was unsuccessful at trial in the year 399 B.C. The charges were corrupting the youth of Athens, not believing in the traditional gods in whom the city believed, and finally, that he believed in other new divinities. In Plato's Apology, Socrates defends himself against these charges. He claims that the jurors' opinions are biased because they had probably all seen Aristophanes' comedy The Clouds. The Socrates portrayed in Aristophanes' Clouds is an altogether different character than that of the Apology. The two different impressions of Socrates lead to quite opposite opinions with regard to his guilt. In The Clouds, Socrates' actions provide evidence of his guilt on all three charges. However, in the Apology, Socrates is fairly convincing in defending his innocence on the first two charges, but falls short on the third charge. Socrates, in The Clouds, is portrayed as an idiot who thinks he's walking on air and is interested primarily in gnats' rumps. He is delineated as a natural philosopher/sophist. He is hired to teach Pheidippides to make the "worse argument", the argument that is really incorrect and unjust the "better"—to his father's creditors— so that Strepsiades, Pheidippides' father, will not have to pay his debts. While this in itself is corrupt, it was that he changed Pheidippides from the time he entered Socrates' "Thinkery" into a corrupt scoundrel, completely devoid of morality that was even more deplorable. At the beginning, Pheidippides is a respectful son who loves his father, but after "graduating" from the Thinkery he is beating his father with a stick (lines 1321-1333). Socrates ...
The play "Oedipus Rex" is a very full and lively one to say the least. Everything a reader could ask for is included in this play. There is excitement, suspense, happiness, sorrow, and much more. Truth is the main theme of the play. Oedipus cannot accept the truth as it comes to him or even where it comes from. He is blinded in his own life, trying to ignore the truth of his life. Oedipus will find out that truth is rock solid. The story is mainly about a young man named Oedipus who is trying to find out more knowledge than he can handle. The story starts off by telling us that Oedipus has seen his moira, his fate, and finds out that in the future he will end up killing his father and marrying his mother. Thinking that his mother and father were Polybos and Merope, the only parents he knew, he ran away from home and went far away so he could change his fate and not end up harming his family. Oedipus will later find out that he cannot change fate because he has no control over it, only the God's can control what happens. Oedipus is a very healthy person with a strong willed mind who will never give up until he gets what he wants. Unfortunately, in this story these will not be good trait to have.
Oedipus is guilty because, despite knowing the prophecy that he will commit parricide and incest, he yet kills an elderly gentleman and sleeps with an elderly women. The choice was his, and this accounts for his guilt.