Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Platos symposium analysis
Essay of plato symposium
Platos symposium analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Platos symposium analysis
A) Plato’s Symposium is a story about a party in which the guests were so sick from continuous parties that instead of drinking at this one party they decide to give stories about love. With the permission of Phaedrus, Socrates has an interesting discussion Agathon instead of a monologue-styled story. Socrates actually starts by giving Agathon a series of questions about love. Socrates goes on to ask Agathon if a father must be father to something in order to be called a father. Then Socrates asks Agathon whether the same principle applies to mothers and brothers; one must be a brother or mother to someone or something else. Agathon agrees with all of these examples, but then Socrates asks “Does Love love nothing or something?”, and Agathon replies “He loves something, of course.” With love established to love something or someone, Socrates then asks Agathon that “when you love something, do you desire it?” Agathon answers yes. Once again Socrates asks another question concerning that if you desire and love something then it is something you don’t necessarily have. Agathon answers back that it is highly probable. Socrates says “Never mind probability,”and believes that it would be a surprising for a person not lacking a quality, to desire that quality. From there both Agathon and Socrates agree that if someone was tall then that person would not desire to be tall. Then Socrates continues to state that people who are healthy still desire to be healthy in the future, and in c...
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
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-...
Plato’s character in “The Ring of Gyges” is trying to convey certain points about human nature and wisdom. In Glaucon’s fictional story, Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a mysterious ring which allows him the power to become invisible. Gyges eventually gives up his lowly life as a shepherd and becomes an authoritative and crooked dictator due to the power of the ring. Glaucon’s main point in this story is that people are inherently immoral and will look out for themselves over the good of others. Due to his assumption about the nature of the human race Glaucon proclaims that in order to keep human’s from causing damage to others our social order should emphasize a government that will contain their constituents. Glaucon’s proposed social order became the building blocks of the social contract theory of government; “People in a society mutually agreeing not to harm one another and setting up sanctions when they do,” (Caste, 2014).
It is well known that Plato, a devoted student of Socrates, chronicled many of Socrates' speeches and conversations. Every so often one can find instances where Socrates and other players in these conversations seem to contradict themselves, or at least muddle their arguments. One such occurrence of this is in Plato's Symposium and Plato's Phaedrus. Both texts speak of love in its physical sense, both texts describe love and its effects, and both discuss how it is best realized, yet they do this in very different fashions, and for different reasons.
Socrates tells Agathon that Diotima, a woman who advised him on the matters of love, had asked him the same series of questions before. This leads Socrates to ask Diotima, `if Love is neither beautiful nor good, is it ugly and bad?' Diotima says no, because the nature of love is in between the opposites of ugly and beautiful, good and bad.
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.
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Thrasymuchus was very hostile against Socrates in Book I. Every attempt that was made to prove Thrasymuchus wrong was badgered by bad comments of Socrates trying to manipulate him and the others. Socrates from the beginning on 336b was asking questions all the way to 347e building up his defense to Thrasymuchus statement that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" (Pg. 338 Para. C). Socrates disagrees with Thrasymuchus and he states, "Surely, then, no doctor, insofar as he is a doctor, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his patient?" (Pg. 342 Para. D). Thrasymuchus and Socrates agreed to all these professions and what was considered a leader and what wasn't considered a leader. Socrates goes on with this, "… that a ship's captain or ruler won't seek and order to what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to a sailor …" (Pg. 342 Para. E). Specifically there in those two statements Socrates has already shot down the idea of Thrasymuchus, but here is an example that Thrasymuchus gives to defend himself earlier in the reading:
Throughout his life, Socrates engaged in critical thinking as a means to uncover the standards of holiness, all the while teaching his apprentices the importance of continual inquiry in accordance with obeying the laws. Socrates primarily focuses on defining that which is holy in The Euthyphro – a critical discussion that acts as a springboard for his philosophical defense of the importance of lifelong curiosity that leads to public inquiry in The Apology. Socrates continues his quest for enlightenment in The Crito, wherein he attempts to explain that while inquiry is necessary, public curiosity has its lawful price, thus those who inquire must both continue to do so and accept the lawful consequences of their inquiry. Each of the above values, holiness, inquiry, and just lawful obedience, interlock under what Socrates describes in The Republic as, “the very cause of knowledge and truth, [it is also] the chief objective in the pursuit of knowledge,” (Sterling & Scott 198) – the good. The good embodies each Socratic pursuit: it acts as an umbrella for all things perceived in what Socrates names, “the intelligible sector,” (Sterling & Scott 199).
The last person to speak is Socrates. First, he examines Agathon’s speech through a series of questions where Agathon finds himself rejecting many of the points that he previously made. While Agathon’s speech is beautifully delivered, according to Socrates, it is incorrect because it lacks real philosophical content. In the midst of all the questions, Socrates comes to the conclusion that “Love is of something; second, that it is ...
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
By writing Symposium, Plato uses six characters to convey his idea of Love, the process of learning and thinking in a philosophical way. Each of these characters has a particular mission to elaborate different spheres of Love. However, these speeches given by six characters are not totally independent. They, to some extent, are connected; some of them agree or disagree with the previous one; some of them improve the idea of the former speakers. In conclusion, according to Symposium, Love is multi-faced.
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 ...
we do not have, and at times cannot have. Love for Socrates is a superficial
Socrates thought is that a rhapsode speaks not from knowledge but from inspiration, his thoughts being ‘breathed into’ him without the use of his own understanding at all. Using the analogy of a magnet, with the power to draw one rhapsode ring to itself, and through that another, and another, Socrates says that Homer himself had no knowledge of his own writing his poetry, but was divinely possessed. Every rhapsodes are also divinely possessed both when they recite poetry and when they speak. Their work, is the product of the gods working throught them, not of any human intelligence and skill.