Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy in athens essay
Democracy in athens essay
The role of ethics in corporate governance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Gorgias
In Gorgias we have a conversation between Socrates, Gorgias, and Polus, Gorgias' young assistant. They speak on the matters of rhetoric, knowledge, and whether injustice and suffering is better to do or have done onto you. While conventional wisdom tells us that it is better to inflict suffering than to receive it, Socrates argues that it is completely the opposite. Part of Socrates view is that moral goodness is connected with knowledge, and that morally it is better to receive suffering than inflict it.
The argument begins with Polus telling Socrates that rhetoric and oratory can give you great power and high regard. He likens their position to tyrants who do what they see fit. To this Socrates says, " I say, Polus, that both orators and tyrants have the least power in their cities…" Though this may seem absurd there are points to this argument that fall into place.
Socrates position on oratory is that it is not a craft but a knack or a part of flattery, and that it can be used for both good and evil persuasion. You can persuade others to se your point of view, but without intelligence it can be unjust. He believes that, "…doing what one sees fit without intelligence is bad." Socrates argument is that moral virtue is s form of intelligence, and convinces Polus that in order to have great power, you must use it for what you believe to be the better. Polus believes that those who have the power do what they see fit, and at the same time are doing what it is they want to do. Socrates refutes this and says that though the tyrant may do what he sees fit, it is not really what he wants to do.
His argument to support this is found in moral intelligence and the want to do the best...
... middle of paper ...
... doing what we want when the outcome is wicked. Moral goodness is a form of knowledge to him, and that knowledge is necessary in order to do well. It is the good that we strive to achieve by doing what we see fit, but if we do what we see fit and actually create a wicked outcome we are not truly doing what we want. In order to do what we want we must have the knowledge of moral goodness to do what is right, and not to inflict suffering on someone else. In order to be morally sound it is better to receive the suffering at the hands of another than inflict injustice on us and become miserable. Though Polus does not want to accept this Socrates, in the end, brings him to his side.
So though there are many questions that are left hanging in the balance from this argument, Socrates point is clear that it is better morally to receive injustice than to inflict it.
ABSTRACT: I analyse the dramatic setting of the Gorgias by contrasting it with that of the Protagoras. The two dialogues are closely related. In the Gorgias Socrates states that the rhetorician and the sophist are basically indistinguishable in everyday life. In both the Protagoras and the Gorgias, his confrontation with his interlocutors is metaphorically related to a descent to Hades. However, while the events in the Protagoras are narrated by Socrates himself, the Gorgias has readers face the unfolding events without mediation. The temporal and spatial framing of the Gorgias is indeterminate, while both aspects are described in detail in the Protagoras. I maintain that the magical passage from an indeterminate "outside" to an indeterminate "inside" in the Gorgias is significantly related to the characters' attitude towards the boundaries of each other's souls, which are constantly ignored or attacked. As a matter of fact, the dialogue presents a very impressive amount of anger and exchange of abuse, which never ceases until the end. I suggest that the temporal framing demonstrates that the beginning and the end of the dialogue are closely connected. Socrates unexpectedly arrives and refutes Gorgias by asking him unexpected questions. The last myth of judgment indicates that Gorgias' attitude is comparable to that of the mortals who lived during Kronos' age, while Socrates brings about a liberation from appearance which is analogous to the innovations brought about by Zeus.
The first thing one must consider is whether there is any merit in writing or rhetoric. According to Socrates, speech writing is not bad. The only way it can ever be bad is if it is not done well. Therefore, one must consider what is necessary for writing well. Socrates proposes that in order to write well, one must know what is true about his subject. However, Phaedrus points out that perhaps all that is necessary to be seen as a good writer is to know what the people believe to be right about that subject and then write about it as they view it. However, Socrates shows that this is erroneous because then one can persuade others that wrong is right, and as a result rhetoric would have poor results. Instead, Socrates proposes that correct rhetoric is a tool through which knowledge is used to expertly persuade others. However, rhetoric can also be seen as, not a form of art, rather a talent. If it is thus seen, then in order to become an expert in it one must be born with the talent. Even if rhetoric were only a talent, there are steps to improve and build on it. For example, one may have talent, but without an acquaintance with the truth of the subject, one cannot give a professional speech. Once one is acquainted with his subject, th...
...h Protagoras uses to attack Socrates's assertion that civic aptitude is like other skills, and can therefore only be practiced at any level of excellence by a few. Protagoras devotes the second half of his speech to refuting directly the notion that these civic aptitudes cannot be taught; this argument is not framed as a story, but as a systematic analysis of punishment. His long speech (though very different to Socrates's primary method of dialectic argumentation) actually does contain an element of internal dialogue: myth is contrasted to logical reasoning, and the two forms respond and counter each other. While Socrates will attempt to demolish Protagoras's arguments, Protagoras's double-nature suggests, perhaps, that we should not side completely with Socrates. There is merit in what Protagoras says, even if this merit must first be salvaged from his sophistry.
After Socrates had finished arguing with Gorgias in The Gorgias, he moves in to the next in line: Polus. They discuss the concepts of committing injustice over suffering injustice and the importance of punishment of the felons. Socrates say to Polus, “but in my opinion, Polus, the unjust or doer of unjust actions is miserable in any case- more miserable, however, if he is not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men” (Plato 53-54). Here Socrates declares that to do is worse than to suffer evil and if a man has done evil it is in his best interest to be punished than to be left unpunished. This is because according to his viewpoint doing injustice
It is his companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who revitalized Thrasymachus’ claim of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is what the people who are in charge say it is and from that point on it is Socrates’ goal to prove him wrong. Socrates believes that justice is desired for itself and works as a benefit. All four characters would agree that justice has a benefit. To accurately prove his point of justice, Socrates has to reference his own version of nature and nurture. He, Socrates, believes that justice is innately born in everyone. No one person is incapable of being just. Justice is tantamount to a skill or talent. Like any skill or talent, justice must be nurtured so that it is at its peak and mastered form. The city that Socrates has built is perfect in his eyes because every denizen has been gifted with a talent, then properly educated on how best to use their talent, and lastly able to apply their just morals in everyday
There is an ethical theory that we covered this quarter that I strongly agree with which is the theory of justice. There is a specific thinker that surprised me at and made me think about moral issues in a new way. That thinker was Socrates who surprised me and made me think about moral issues in a new way. I feel that socrates is someone who challenged what you thought or believed about ethics before taking this class. Those dialog investigates two vital inquiries. Those 1st inquiry may be “what will be justice?” socrates addresses this address both As far as political groups and As far as those unique man alternately souk. He does this to address those second Furthermore driving inquiry of the dialogue: “is those simply persnickety happier
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
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
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Now that I have reconstructed the argument and distinguished the premises from the conclusions, I will explain the logical structure of the argument. By asserting that that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and that rulers declare what is just and unjust Thrasymachus is using a conjunction as his argument form in which both premises of the argument must be true for the conclusion to be true. According to Thrasymachus both these premises are true therefore the conclusion is also true; later in the discussion Thrasymachus is proved wrong by Socrates.
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.
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.
He begins his argument by means of analogy. Just as a vigorous plant suffers most greatly when it is deprived of necessary nutrients and environment and weather, a vigorous soul, as a philosopher must possess according to Socrates, can become the greatest of the wicked if its upbringing should be bad (491d-492a). What then can corrupt such a vigorous soul? Socrates contends that the upbringing of those with a philosophic soul is corrupted by the unphilosophical majority, saying “They object very loudly and excessively to some of the things that are said or done and approve others in the same way, shouting and clapping, so that the very rocks and surroundings echo the din of their praise or blame and double it” (492b-c). By this, Socrates means that societal beliefs act as a sort of echo chamber whereby the loudest opinions are perpetuated and only come to grow in size to the point where dissenting opinion is incapable of breaking through the cacophony. This mob that forms then compels those who dissent by “disenfranchisement, fines, or death” (492d). In this way, mob society forces dissenters to be