I know that, for the journal, we are supposed to write something about it everyday, but since the beginning of trying that out, I have found that I was just saying the same things in every paragraph and ending with the same questions and beginning with the same answers. So, I have decided to set up my journal in this format, as to show what I am trying to say in a refined technique. I will try and add my questions and answers at the end, and I hope, Dr. Coyle, that this is an all right journal entry for our first journals.
A. Sophistry…
Or, more correctly, the Platonic likeness of sophistry. At 19d-21a, Socrates claims, in attempting to differentiate himself from the sophists to whom he has become incorporated in the Athenian popular perception, that sophists claim to be experts about human superiority and can make humans exceptional, like horse trainers claim to be able to make horses exceptional. Socrates denies having this kind of specialist knowledge about human brilliance, claiming only to have a certain type of intelligence. The Greek words are significant: expertise = episteme or science; wisdom = sophia. This is an ancient conflict: philosophers trying to differentiate themselves both from divine inspiration and from engineers/scientists. In this case, the things to be studied and controlled by scientific sophists are human beings.
We can't be humanists and lament this loss of valuable individuality, as if it were the "natural" condition, our birthright as free persons that is taken away from us, etc. The point is to examine the social machine that produces either restricted reaction or flexible decision. What Socrates is irritable about in terms of what he calls "virtue" or "true human excellence" is the generalization involved in producing perfect repetition. To be a good citizen, Socrates claims, one cannot be trained into disciplined reiteration, one cannot be simplified, but one must be multifaceted. To have virtue is to have judgment, to be able to respond to the new, the impulsive, or to situations that are too complex for words and can only be responded to aesthetically, by feel or touch, in both the literal and figurative senses of those words.
To have such ability, one's brain must be persuaded into exploring complex character zones, where new patterns are able to form: self-organization. Discipline is exactly the channeling of reaction, the installation of huge personality attractors: reception of orders from above.
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates purposefully uses ignorance and irony to insufficiently define excellence for Meno. Initially, Meno argues a particular definition, which is a universally inconsistent proof, is sufficient to define excellence. However, Socrates asserts that the definition of excellence must be consistent and applicable to all individuals, by comparing individuals in a society to bees in a colony. Socrates demonstrates the failure of a particular proof to define all constituents of a group. In order to exemplify the errors of inconsistent and universally inapplicable definition, Socrates uses a universally inconsistent proof to erroneously assert a figure is not a shape. Socrates purposefully applies an inconsistent proof to define all figures because Meno, as a student, must be critical of a teacher’s argument. In order to stimulate Meno’s development, Socrates erroneously uses a consistent proof to determine excellence is different than knowledge. Unable to define excellence, Socrates deliberately attributes excellence to the divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a new definition of excellence and determines the errors in particular proofs. In order to emphasize contradictions and stress the areas necessary for logical review, Socratic ignorance fails to determine a universal conclusion from a consistent proof. Ultimately, Meno’s review of Socrates’ argument must determine that both knowledge and excellence are defined by a consistent proof. As a result, both excellence and knowledge are either divine awards or attainable by humans.
Alain de Botton commences the section by delineating the story of how Socrates became the figure he became. Socrates lived a lifestyle in which he did things that he thought were correct and did not worry much about approval from society. de Botton states, “every society has notions of what one should believe and how one should behave in order to avoid suspicion and unpopularity” (9). In other words, de Botton believes that society has placed views for people to know what is right and what is wrong. People will submit to conformity by behaving in ways that people will view as “acceptable”.
... them to acknowledge the unjust state of affairs that persists in the deteriorating city-state. Socrates believed it was better to die, than to live untrue to oneself, and live unable to practice philosophy, by asking people his questions. Thus, we can see Socrates was a nonconformist in Ancient Greek society, as he laid down his life in the hopes of saving his state, by opening the eyes of the jury to the corruptness and evils of society. Socrates also laid down the framework for a paradigm shift to occur in his city, as his acquired a formidable fan group, or following, of individuals, who, began to preach his philosophy and continue his Socratic method of questioning and teaching. Socrates philosophy is still influential and studied today, thus his ways of thinking about life, truth and knowledge, changed the way western society perceives the world.
...Greeks, for their part, considered wisdom a virtue, but their conception of wisdom always contained a conventional, conservative element. ..."Wisdom" is not the term one would use to describe a scientific genius, a brilliant artist, an innovator in any field. But these, for Rand, are the highest exemplars of rationality.
The meaning of sophist, is one who used his smarts to later manipulate reality, and Socrates did that, because many young men learned from Socrates, but Socrates later stated that he knew nothing.
Plato often had Socrates use Elenchus,a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on having those he discussed with present their ideas first and then had them themself discuss the holes and inconsistencies within their own answer. Plato often presented Socrates as believing that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Socrates, 399 BC) meaning that questioning everything is good for both the individual and a community. Thus highlighting one of the differences between Socrates and the Sophists; while both are concerned with the "human and social kind of excellence," the Sophists focused on teaching it, and Socrates only with asking about it. Thus showing that, Plato 's Socrates is not presented as a Sophist, perhaps because Plato himself does not agree with the Sophist method and so would not associate his teacher as such (Euripides, 480- 406
Platos’ The Last Day of Socrates gives us a glimpse into the final chapter of Socrates’ life. Socrates placed his own philosophical twist on what makes something “good,” saying to the jury - that has control of his life – that he “has only one thing to consider… whether he is acting justly or unjustly, like a good man or a bad one” (Apology 54b). Later, through his dialogue in Crito, Socrates says that he has followed his own morals and values, so he is
According to Plato, Socrates means that human nature shapes out politics. Where in Book 2, Socrates and the companions discuss how one behaves depends on his human nature, for example, Socrates discusses about how it is human nature to keep one’s body healthy. (Plato, 1992, p. 33). H...
Of the philosophers I have studied, Socrates stands out to me from all the rest. Although I would be the first to confess that I have never put forth the time nor the effort necessary to consider myself a philosopher (at least not in the sense that I imagine most would consider to be the credentials of a philosopher), my philosophy about life is most closely aligned with what I understand Socrates philosophical beliefs to be. Although there are some distinct differences in what I believe to be the ultimate meaning behind life, which I will later address, I believe his thoughts on how one should live their life to be the wisest of any philosopher we have studied. First, let me relate what I understand Socrates philosophy to be. Socrates believed that we all have a soul. He believed that we are to live our life by principles, and that these principles should be what is considered to be good. He was convinced that there were moral absolutes, a right and a wrong, his reason being that if there weren’t everything would just be relative. This seems most logical. Also, according to Socrates, in order to find which standards we should live by we should test these standards in real life situation to see if they are right or wrong. From what I understand, we are to live our lives according to rights and wrongs - in our dealings with others, and our private life as well. And, this is all in order to be living according to the dictates of the soul, if you will, and not by the desires of the flesh. One of the most interesting ideas Socrates had, I believe, were his thoughts regarding the “true philosopher.” He said that the true philosopher is often misunderstood by other men, that they do not understand that his who...
Socrates was a traveling teacher and talked and challenged everyone he met. Socrates taught the art of persuasive speaking. He did not charge people money like most of the other Sophists did, but he did have similar beliefs as the Sophists. Sophists thought that our minds are cut off from reality and that we are stuck in our own opinions of what the world was like. Socrates believed that reason or nature could not tell us why the world is the way it appears. The Sophists' point of view is best summed up as this: we can never step out of the way things appear.
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
Throughout the dialogue of “Meno”, Socrates inquires what virtue is and whether virtue is innate, acquired through learning, or received as a gift from the gods (Jowett, 1949). After some discussion with Meno, Socrates first proposes the theory that virtue is innate. Subsequently the knowledge of innate virtue is of a priori knowledge, which is in turn contingent on a priori justification (Russell, 2011).
He talks about virtue like it is the result of living “The Good Life.” He says, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (Slayer). In brief, Socrates is saying that in order to have true “virtue” one needs to be consider where they are in the standards of morality, rather than the standards of material gain (Slayer). Additionally, Socrates also argues, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.” He is basically saying that anything worth obtaining in the world is only worth obtaining justly because without “virtue” one will have nothing of value
Socrates was a philosopher who set out to prove, to the gods, that he wasn't the wisest man. Since he could not afford a "good" Sophist teacher, surely a student of one had to be smarter than he. He decides to converse with the youth of Athens, but concludes that he actually is wiser than everyone he speaks with. He then realizes that their lack of intelligence is the fault of their teachers. Socrates understands that the practice of "sophism" leads to a lack of self-knowledge and moral values. Socrates was later accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and put on trial. In The Apology of Socrates he sta...
In my opinion, Socrates’ analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us