Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Eassay about greek art
Greek contributions to art
Greek contributions to art
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Eassay about greek art
Rhetoric, or oratory, is a knack and not an art. The statement is made by Socrates and is the main argument in Platos Gorgias. Although oratory is the point of the discourse between Socrates and Gorgias and Polus, Socrates is careful to align oratory with other activities that knacks such as cooking, beauty-culture (i.e., cosmetics), and sophistry (i.e., popular lecturing) sophistry together to expound the importance of intention when defining art. Arts are activities that are learned through study for the benefit of people’s body and soul. A knack, according to Socrates, is a natural aptitude that is perfected though routine to catch “fools with the bait of ephemeral pleasure” (30). Therefore, knacks are dishonorable and bad, because …show more content…
Polus claims that oratory is good for the practitioner because orators are powerful people who can do like tyrants do, to which Socrates replies, saying that orators like tyrants “are the least powerful persons in the city.” (36) Firstly, Socrates points out that when someone acts “he wants not his act, but the object of his act,” (37) or, in other words, what is considered good or bad is not the action taken, but its intention, and because a tyrant mostly acts on the basis of what he considers beneficial to the state, he is not doing what he wants then, but doing what the state wants in order to remain in power. At this point, Socrates was speaking only about power, because, as he stated, Polus’ claim required two answers. Once establishing that freedom to act as intended is true power, Socrates then asks Polus if a person with power would intend to do what is good or evil. Polus admits that a person would intend to do what is seemingly good. (38) As such, if the orator says what the audiences want to hear in order to remain popular with them, the orator is a slave to the whims of the public, and if what the orator says …show more content…
According to Callicles, morality, which contains the concept of honor and justice within it, is a product of the many who are weak, and used to set limits on the few who are strong by nature. (67) Of course, Socrates points out that weak and strong can be defined in many ways, making Callicles statement invalid. Abandoning his original claim, Callicles then admits that what he meant is that the stronger are those who can do as they please, moderation belonging to the “half-witted.” Once again, and therefore happier. Socrates restates his thought on free will, this time, as it applies to acts done in the pursuit of pleasure. He had already shown in his earlier discourse with Polus that there is a difference between what is pleasing and what is good; a person sees a practitioner of medicine even if doing so offers no pleasure because the outcome is good. Considering that a person can seek pleasure whose outcome could be bad, it makes sense that acting for the sake of pleasure itself is fool hearted, and fools who seek to experience pleasure regardless of outcome, as Socrates explains, are like a sieve because they lack the
Throughout all the years, he never could find anyone as wise as himself, and all he did was make enemies searching. These enemies are now his accusers, and they accuse him of spreading evil doctrines, corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Throughout the speech, Socrates continues to shoot down every accuser and it is evident that he has done no wrong. Eventually, one of his accusers states that he must be doing something strange and that he wouldnt be that famous if he were like other men. Socrates did not live a very public life unlike most people at that time. His thoughts of being virteous had more to do with examining yourself and becoming a better person and in that way, you benifit society. He did not believe Athens to be virtuos at all, and that they relied on materail things and reputation rather than finding happiness by searching for it deep within
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own but rather aimed at bringing out the worst in his interlocutors.
The first argument that Socrates makes against Callicles view of the “good life” is that pleasure and pain cannot be connected with being the same as good and bad. The way he goes about in presenting his argument is with two steps: 1) first showing that good and bad are opposites and 2) that pain and pleasure can exist together. He first makes the point that good and bad are opposites by having disease represent “bad” and health represents “good”. He states, “What if he gets rid of his eye disease? Does he also get rid of his eyes health and so in the end he’s rid of both at the same time,” meaning that if something good is present in a human, then the opposite of that, the bad, must be gone. If a person is in good health, or if a person is strong, then they must be disease free and must not be weak. After this has been established, Socrates goes on to clarify that unlike...
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...
Based on this, it can be said that what is good for the stronger is too good for the weaker. Then Thrasymachus quickly responds because Socrates asks him if he is sure in what he is saying. To prove his stand he talks about ‘ruling a city' where the one in power will put rules to his/her own benefit. In turn, those who obey the rules will be acting for the sake of
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
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. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
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.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates discusses the nature and uses of rhetoric with Gorgias, while raising moral and philosophical perspective of rhetoric. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a kind of false knowledge whose purpose is to produce conviction, and not to educate people about the true extent of knowledge (Plato 15). On the other hand, Gorgias argues that the study of rhetoric is essential in any other professional fields, in order to provide an effective communication (Plato 19). After their discussion of rhetoric, Socrates seems to understand the true extent of rhetoric better as compared to Gorgias, as he is able to use rhetoric appeals as a device to dominate the conversation. During their discussion, Socrates seems to have use rhetorical appeals, such as ethos appeal and pathos appeal to connect and convince the crowd of audiences, and logos appeal to support his claims. His speeches seems to have shown sarcastic aspects and constantly asking questions in order to keep Gorgias busy, at the same time preparing an ambush. Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication through the form of speaking and writing, with the appropriate knowledge and virtue, it can be used for good purposes. On the other hand, rhetoric also can be used as an act of conviction because rhetorical appeals can be defined as an act of persuasion as well. Learning the true extent of rhetoric can help an individual strengthen their verbal communication skills. Socrates uses rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos appeal to win his argument against Gorgias, as he is able to get the audiences’ attention through rhetoric and cornered Gorgias into revealing the true extent of rhetoric.
For example, whenever he exchanged answers with The Laws it was an “you’re wrong,” where as it when it came to Critos it was an, “I can’t.” Socrates demonstrates that the conversation that each situation differed was that one was with an audience he could trust and one that he could not. Socrates had demonstrated The Laws that were unjust and had to come up with some “smart” way to get him behind bars because he recognized that both sides knew nothing, including him. He explains to them that their wisdom should be classified more as ignorance because all that Socrates has ever tried to do was to help the citizens of Athens. His goal was to influence the community on how one can live a more valuable life by listening to the truth rather than falsely accusations stated by the
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 argues that he could not have intentionally corrupted Athenian youth through two premises: The first being that he would certainly not want to live amongst ...
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.