More handpicked essays just for you.
Being effective student essay
How to achieve academic success in university Essay
Ancient Greek philosophy and the modern western world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates and Polus converse in a dialectical conversation about whether Orators have great power, and what it means to actually have that power. Dialectic refers to the bringing forth of one’s true beliefs, and is the platform by which Socrates places his ideas. Polus believes that Orators do what they think is most fit to do, and they do what they want to do. Because if this, they must have great power. In response, Socrates agrees with the idea that Orators do what they think is most fit to do, however, his believes that they do not do what they want. This suggests that Orators don’t have great power because great power is good for the one who has it. This argument leads into their next topic of injustice. Socrates says that “you’re not supposed to envy the unenviable or the miserable. You are supposed to pity them” (339). He is referring to people who commit injustice. Of course, …show more content…
Socrates and Polus have definitely tested each other’s beliefs about what it means to have great power, but Polus’ beliefs were not necessarily corrected. We see that Polus contradicts himself many times throughout the dialogue, agreeing with certain things that Socrates says like how Orators don’t have great power because they have to do what they see fit, and not what they want to do. Yet, he still has a hard time saying that his opinions are completely wrong. We are left with the conversation not completely closed, although both say that they should continue on to another topic. If Polus were to take anything away from their conversation, I would hope that he learns to refrain from using any rhetorical tricks that sidetrack from his arguments, because then he will have a better chance at getting his ideas
When speaking to Crito about if we are mutilated by wrong actions and benefited by right ones, Socrates says, “What we ought to consider is not so much what people in general will say about us but how we stand with the expert in right and wrong, the one authority, who represents the actual truth.” (267, 68-71). Socrates believes we shouldn’t care about what people’s opinions are about our beliefs. We should focus on standing up to the authorities if they are going against our morals . I agree with Socrates that a person should stand up for justice because everyone is created with equal rights, and if authority abuses one’s right we should speak up. His statement will have a significant application when an authority imposes an immoral law or rule because in that moment one will have to stand up against the unjust action . Socrates thinks if authority treats an individual or group unequally, it is immoral because he thinks that people aren’t equal, however, he thinks people should be treated equally. In this case standing up to immorality is the right thing to do if the person thinks the higher power is wrong. Similarly, Antigone agrees with Socrates’s claim of people being treated equally because of her experience with one of her brothers, Polyneices, not having a burial while the other brother, Eteocles, did have a
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
Rhetorical Analysis and Persuasion Every day we are victims to persuasion whether anyone can notice it or not. Logos, pathos and ethos are the types of persuasion. Logos persuades by reason, pathos by appealing to emotion and ethos by the credibility of the author. The characters in The Iliad employ the use of these techniques to sway another character into doing or feeling something else.
A wise man from greece named, Thrasymachus’ believed that justice did not benefit anyone in a positive way except for the ruler. He believed that justice was for those who were strong. He also believed that justice was an “instrumental” good for the ruler. He believed that every society had a government. There is always someone who makes the rules and laws no matter where you go. He knew that every society had a government and he also knew that they made laws to benefit their ruling type. For example, a King who is a tyrant wants laws that helps him keep in power, and prevents anyone else from getting enough power to raise a challenge. Living in a city ran by a tyrant is not beneficial to any of the citizens even if they obey all of the laws. If it isn’t beneficial for the citizens to live in that city there can not be social justice. Social justice is to help better someone and make them more just and you can’t really do that if you just have justice to benefit you and not others. As a citizen the laws should benefit everyone not just the ruler. However, Socrates argues that tyrants can make mistakes and that they can be wrong about which laws help keep them in power . Which is understandable because in life everyone does make mistakes even the people with high authority. Socrates does not agree that justice is only good for the ruler. Thrasymachus’ argues that a person knowledgeable in a
Let us firstly analyze and delineate the significant instances in the interchange between the unjust speech and the unjust speech. Both the unjust and just speech begin this interchange with a heavy slandering of one another. Perhaps, one of the most notable moments of this slander is when the just speech, after claiming that it believes in and stands for justice and is hence “speaking the just things”, is asked by the unjust speech that “denies that justice even exists” to “answer the following question, if justice truly exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father?” (p. 152, 901-905). The just speech replies to this question by exclaiming that “...this is the evil that’s spreading around” and that he needs “a basin” if he is to continue hearing it (p. 152, 906-907). Firstly the just speech, as a mouthpiece for the existing Athenian legal-political convention, has claimed that this legal-political convention is where justice in its entirety is to be found. Secondly and simultaneously, however, the just speech finds itself unable to articulate what it means by justice and how the teachings of the Homeric Gods, that have informed the construction of Athenian political convention, are positive and/or negative examples of an
Aristotle on Rhetoric Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher, educator, and scientist. He was able to combine the thoughts of Socrates and Plato to create his own ideas and definition of rhetoric. He wrote influential works such as Rhetoric and Organon, which presented these new ideas and theories on rhetoric. Much of what is Western thought today evolved from Aristotle's theories and experiments on rhetoric. Aristotle's Life Aristotle was born in 384 B.C., in Northern Greece.
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
Socrates have been using rhetorical devices throughout his discussion with Gorgias, and started out by using ethos appeal to draw Gorgias into his questioning, in which Polus gave an indefinite answers to Chaerephon. Ethos appeal can be described as an appeal by character of authority; it is when we tend to believe those who we respect. After Polus failed to answer the question, Socrates responded, “It certainly looks as though Polus is well qualified to speak, Gorgias, but he’s not doing what he promised Chaerephon he’d do.” (Plato 3). Socrates, who was not satisfied with the answer given by Polus, provoked Gorgias into answering for his disciple as Socrates brought Gorgias’ name into the conversation.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
Socrates challenges Protagoras if virtue is really something that can be taught and he continues to argue with Protagoras because he simply wants to understand the truth about virtue. He knows that Protagoras has the reputation as being the best and he wants to know the answer. Socrates wants to know if all parts of virtue are separate and distinct or all one and the same. As the argument progresses Protagoras does not give Socrates clear answers to his questions, and the conversation is not going where Socrates wished it would. Socrates continued to ask Protagoras questions, that was until Protagoras could no longer answer the questions, he gave up and realized that in the argument he turned into the answerer. This is probably due to the fact that Socrates wanted the answers, and who else go to for those answers than
Socrates then goes back to Polus’s original point, the one that started this conversation. In the beginning Polus thought Archelaus a happy man because he had great power. Socrates has proven Polus’s statement to be false by making him contradict ever point he tries to make. By doing so the conclusion to the conversation should have been Polus agreeing with Socrates fully and us as readers feel that this conversation has closure. Polus shows his attitude by saying in the end, “I think these statements are absurd, Socrates, though no doubt you think they agree with those expressed earlier” (357). Polus is now feeling flustered and just wants the conversation to be over because after Socrates makes Polus contradict his claims every time he would drive the point in that he agreed with him in the end. Polus now just does not want to speak on this topic and I feel this is what could have been avoided. Both men acted childishly Polus being argumentative and opinionated while Socrates was being a sore