Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophical thoughts of socrates
Introduction of a socrates essay
Socrates analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Philosophical thoughts of socrates
Good and evil are the most basic concept of value. The essential difference between humans and other animals is that people are rational, have value consciousness, and can distinguish between good and evil. This difference affects people's attitude towards things and influences people's behavior. Aristotle, a great ancient Greek philosopher, has a unique and comprehensive view of good.
Before Aristotle, many philosophers in ancient Greece had their thinking about good. Socrates believed every virtue has a form. They are eternal. Humans use knowledge to understand them. The universal form of these forms is the form of good, which ultimately determines the various types of virtue, and the good as the highest Form is consistent with truth and beauty. For Socrates, good has both the meaning of ethics and ontology. He believes in God, so in his opinion, God is acting according to reason and arranges all things for good. Good is the prime
…show more content…
In The Republic, he likened the good to the sun. Things get their true presence and knowability through it. The form of good as the highest Form is the cause of all forms. It runs through all forms and becomes the ultimate goal of all forms. Because the form is the cause of the phenomenon, the form of good is, therefore, the fundamental cause of the sensible world. Because the form is the cause of the phenomenon, the form of good is, therefore, the primary cause of the sensible world. The individual good of the sensible world is only good because it imitates the form of good. The form of good makes the intelligible world and the sensible world become a hierarchical order system and enables people to know them. The philosopher's task is to understand the form of good, and then to have a coherent and complete understanding of all forms. The form of good plays a role of God. It is both the highest concept of ontology and epistemology and the highest concept of
In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, the basic idea of virtue ethics is established. The most important points are that every action and decision that humans make is aimed at achieving the good or as Aristotle 's writes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at the good... (Aristotle 1094a). Aristotle further explains that this good aimed for is happiness.
"The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces"~Philip Zimbardo. It is hard to not cross the line between good and evil because if someone is getting you mad, you might want to harm them in some way. But you have keep your cool and let it go. Being good or evil is your own choice. Even if you are good, you always have an evil side. This quote fits perfectly because it talks about how evil is really only in people under certain situations. People are essentially good, but under certain circumstances, turn evil.
In the book one of Republic Socrates was concerned about what is justice. He forms a complex analysis of justice by discussing it with Polemarchus, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus. He refutes each proposition said by them, presenting implicit contradictions coming out of these man's arguments. All of this is to reach to, the Sophist, Thrasymachus. According to what's discussed in book one; Socrates sees that the Cephalus's and Polemarchus's common thinking for justice is insufficient. By entering into the dialogue in an aggressive way, Thrasymachus says that he can better explain the issue of justice. The right thing to do here is disregard justice. He blames Socrates for saying nonsense and for just questioning individuals' answers. Thrasymachus
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
Aristotle develops his virtue ethics by first considering ends and goods. He claims that “every action and decision, seems to seek some good” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615). Aristotle states that we pursue certain things because of the benefits it brings itself and other consequences it may bring. Aristotle suggests that this is the same for goodness. We must pursue what is good for good itself and for any other benefits it may bring. Furthermore, Aristotle suggests that through pursuing the good, we are able to determine the best way of life (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615).
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
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.
Socrates states to the jurors in his trail, “No evil can happen to a good man” (48). Socrates is examining the moral center of the man. Evil can occur to an individual from the outside. Socrates a good, even innocent, man was sentenced to death. Other characters in history and even today are identified as good, but they still have evil occur to them. Socrates is not talking about an outside evil or harm occurring to a good person. He is examining the soul and what is morally evil and morally good.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
“The Good Life” in Socrates mind isn 't’ just simply defined in this primary source, however, it is implied. It is clear Socrates believes that “The Good Life” isn’t about where one ended up, or how much material gain they inhabited through the course of their lives, it is about if they clung on to mortality and lived their lives doing what they believed was good. Socrates says, “A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part
Appropriate application of this information leads human beings to treat others as they would like themselves to be treated (Nivison and David 41). Confucius said a human being takes as much trouble to find out what is correct as a lesser human being takes to find out what will pay. A man pursues knowledge as an end and a means, while the common person sees knowledge simply as a means towards security and wealth (Nivison and David 77). The above illustration would be meaningless and pointless if human nature was not correct and if these illustrations were not leaning toward goodness. For Confucius, the uppermost political supreme was the customary theocracy which requisite that the most righteous be the leader because good features were understood to be similar to human nature.
Before describing the close relationship between the good and virtue, we have to define these terms. Virtue has a broader sense than the contemporary understanding we have of it, in the Nicomachean Ethics virtue simply means excellence. Aristotle defines a good by noticing that every action seeks some good. In the Nicomechean Ethics good and end are interchangeable and both mean goal. Having described a good, Aristotle makes a distinction between goods in order to define the latter. So there are two types of goods (1094a10-1094a16), some have an instrumental value, they refer to goods which we seek in order to obtain other goods. For example money is a good however we do not value it for itself but rather in order to obtain something else such as a material product. Other goods are intrinsic, we value them for themselves. For example health would be considered as an intrinsic good since we seek good health for itself. The distinction between instrumental and intrinsic goods enables us to establish a hierarchy of goods and to suppose the existence of a good which would be the highest one. Knowing that there is...
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.