Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of plato and socrates
Compare the ideas of plato and socrates
Comparison of plato and socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparison of plato and socrates
Agathon’s speech comes directly before Socrates and is much less complex due to his ideas being shallow to the naked eye. However, it is irresponsible to throw out Agathon’s speech due to its position textually, it’s the turning point between the first set of speeches and Socrates’ climactic dialogue. The speech opens with an attempt to connect love and youth directly (195a), however, fails to account for people who are past their youth. He also tries to justify this viewpoint by saying that since love is the youngest of the gods, it was the force of Necessity that ruled the gods in the earlier times (195c). When taken at face value, his argument pales in comparison to those of his companions. However, Agathon’s speech isn’t just mindless …show more content…
This idea that love isn’t something that affects the physical, but rather affects the soul, is the key message of Agathon’s speech. The other important aspect of Agathon’s speech is the distinctions he makes about love. He’s the first speaker to make the distinction betaween beauty (which Agathon calls attractiveness) and goodness (195a), which other speakers equate (Eryximachus does so in 186b-186c) and Aristophanes ignores. Agathon’s speech then proceeds by comparing love to the four cardinal virtues, justice (196b-196c), temperance (196c), courage (196d), and wisdom (196d-e). This could be seen as a combination of all of the previous speeches, in where the four previous speeches each dealt with one of these four cardinal virtues, courage by Phaedrus, justice by Pausanias, temperance by Eryximachus, and piety by Aristophanes. Agathon, however, does swap wisdom for piety, but this is an important step forward, since a person possessing wisdom would not act on ideas based on faith without adequate …show more content…
In terms of the understanding of love, Agathon’s speech sows the seeds of understanding in the reader’s brain, and Socrates’ speech nourishes and makes it a fully grown concept. Agathon’s speech is meant to combine the previous four speeches of Phaedrus, Pausanias, Eryximachus, and Aristophanes, and cultivate their common ideas into the realm of the soul and away from the physical. Socrates’ thoughts about Agathon’s speech are clear, as he praises Agathon’s diction and wording, but neglects talking about their value or truth (198b-198c). Socrates sets out by interrogating Agathon to establish that love has a subject of which love originates, and an object of which is loved (199e-200a). This in combination with the points that Agathon made, are what he was looking for as groundwork to build upon. In Socrates’ speech, his younger self mirrors Agathon’s perspective, which suggests that Plato’s purpose in having multiple speeches instead of just spelling out the teachings of Diotima is to allow us to learn by slowing exposing us to a logical progression of ideas that begins with Phaedrus and ends with the heightened understanding of Diotima. Lots of ideas that Diotima discusses are also continuations of Agathon’s ideas. For example, Agathon mentions earlier that Love is a teacher of poets and
Aristophanes believes that two humans used to be combined as one, and we were separated by the Gods because they thought we had too much power together. He thinks the purpose of love is to seek out our other half and be with them. In his speech, however, he fails to think about whether or not our other half is good or bad. Diotima takes goodness into account. She says “…a lover does not seek the half or the whole, unless, my friend, it turns out to be good as well” (205E). Her speech is superior to Aristophanes’ because she states clearly that you are not supposed to love someone unless they are good. By good I mean having knowledge and wisdom.
Plato's Phaedrus is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus. In this conversation the young Phaedrus is overjoyed to tell Socrates of the speech that he had just heard Lysias, "The best writer living" (Plato Phaedrus 22), tell. In this speech Lysias uses his rhetorical skills to argue that physical love without emotional attachment is preferable to physical love with emotional attachment, "That is the clever thing about it; he makes out that an admirer who is not in love is to be preferred to one who is" (Plato Phaedrus 22). Socrates listens to this speech, as relayed by Phaedrus and quickly becomes aware that this speech was a ploy by Lysias to get Phaedrus into bed with him. Socrates then fashions a speech, on the spot, that argues the same points that Lysias did. Socrates? speech is going well but is interrupted by "divine sign." Socrates then has to fashion a new speech that renounces the blasphemous nature of the first. Socrates? second speech contains the famous image of love as a charioteer with two horses. He also addresses the nature of the soul and the effects that love has on it (which will be ...
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
The basileus finds himself entirely humbled by his misadventure of a speech. Agamemnon is drowning here and does what good leaders do, uses his teammates’ strengths. His commander Odysseus is known for his silver tongue. With the help of Agamemnon’s scepter, Odysseus is able to get the men to return, and list to their leader once more. By putting his pride aside for a moment to allow Odysseus to help him Agamemnon does what’s best for his community. In the eyes of the ancient Greeks, his action is one of the most beautiful things a person can do. By accepting help Agamemnon is able to understand and admit his own flaws; he tells his men “Achilles and I are quarrelling about this girl, in which matter I was the first to offend”(Gutenberg). In showing his humility, and being able to speak so soundly he gains a “roar of applause” from the men who just deserted him shows that Agamemnon has once again returned to his full glory as a Basileus
Socrates has Agathon confirm that when one does not have the thing that he desires and loves, that is when he desires and loves it. They agree that one "loves what he lacks and has not" (96). In Agathon's view of love that he expressed earlier, love is always of beautiful things. Therefore, if one loves what he lacks, then "Love lacks and has not beauty" (96), Socrates says. Agathon says this must be the case and no longer has any idea of his previous statements. If Love loves beautiful things, then it is not itself beautiful. And if everything beautiful is good, then love also lacks goodness.
Mich Landrieu’s speech that he delivered to the public on May 19th, 2017, was a beautiful speech written and expressed by him about the removal of the four monuments within the city of New Orleans. This message was given by the Mayor due to racist comments of these statues and Landrieu expressed in his speech the true history of the city. For some of the people of New Orleans, they thought these statues were the identity of the city and a celebration of confederacy, however, African Americans took offense to the statues. The mayor effectively uses logos, pathos, and ethos to persuade his audience that taking down these confederate monuments is what needs to be done. Confederacy and the widespread demonstrations found many in other southern states as well discussing different monuments and their meanings. .Bill Golash, a gentleman interviewed from Richmond, Virginia said “I love the city of Richmond and I want to see us grow” (Raddatz). This statement reaches out to many of the issues being faced with decisions of change and Golosh echoing we can’t change
Pausanias brings up an excellent way to think about Love. He explains that love can be broken down into two types, that of Common and Heavenly love. The common love is that when a man and a woman join merely to satisfy their sexual desires. On the other hand the heavenly love is the type that occurs when two people are attracted to each other with a strong force that goes past the physical appearance but comes from deep within as if from the soul. Although Plato presents examples of the two loves with having the common love as if only happening between a man and a woman and the heavenly love happening between a man and a man, there is not enough proof in the text to say that this if what the whole of Athens really believed.
In the Symposium, a most interesting view on love and soul mates are provided by one of the characters, Aristophanes. In the speech of Aristophanes, he says that there is basically a type of love that connects people. Aristophanes begins his description of love by telling the tale of how love began. He presents the tale of three sexes: male, female, and a combination of both. These three distinct sexes represented one’s soul. These souls split in half, creating a mirror image of each one of them. Aristophanes describes love as the search for the other half of your soul in this quote: “When a man’s natural form was split in two, each half went round looking for its other half. They put their arms around one another, and embraced each other, in their desire to grow together again. Aristophanes theme is the power of Eros and how not to abuse it.
In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God but that is one god that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.
Nearly everyone experiences the feeling of love. Whether it’s for another person or for food, almost everyone feels love during their lifetime. In the play Antigone, the writer, Sophocles, illustrates a very important fact regarding love: love is our most important and most dangerous motivation for doing anything, and without moderation, love can be deadly.
Love, in classical Greek literature, is commonly considered as a prominent theme. Love, in present days, always appears in the categories of books, movies or music, etc. Interpreted differently by different people, Love turns into a multi-faceted being.
The Achaeans are more concerned with personal glory and achievement rather than the well-being of the city. Two Characters who definitely display this characteristic are Agamemnon and Achilles. Agamemnon is selfish and is only concerned with his own honor. This is seen almost immediately in the poem. In book one, during the tenth year of battle, Chryses visits Agamemnon and offers ransom for his daughter, Chryseis who was taken as plunder early in the war. Although the ransom is attractive, Agamemnon refuses the money because the girl represents power and glory and that is far more important than wealth. Plunder represents victory; therefore, the more women Agamemnon possesses, the more glorified and powerful he feels. Eventually, Agamemnon returns the girl to her father; however, he insists that someone give him a female to compensate for his loss and restore his honor. He views the situation as a challenge to his authority and complains, "I alone of the Argives go without my honor. That would be a disgrace" (1.139-40). Agamemnon demands, the "Argives will give me a prize, a match for my desires, equal to what I have lost, well and good. But if they give me nothing I will take a p...
Gill, N.S. "Lysistrata by Aristophanes - Make Love, Not War." Ancient / Classical History - Ancient Greece & Rome & Classics Research Guide. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
From the works of William Shakespeare and Edmund Spenser it is clear that some similarities are apparent, however the two poets encompass different writing styles, as well as different topics that relate to each other in their own unique ways. In Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 18” and Spenser’s “Sonnet 75”, both poets speak of love in terms of feelings and actions by using different expressive views, allowing the similar topics to contain clear distinctions. Although Edmund Spenser’s “Sonnet 75” and William Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 18” relate in the sense that love is genuine and everlasting, Spenser suggests love more optimistically, whereas Shakespeare focuses on expressing the beauty and stability of love.