Draft #1 Why do the living suffer? This essay will explore why the living suffer. To do this, the reader will be introduced to three main figures: Crito, Socrates, and Plato. Their industrial works on suffering will be discussed. And finally, their answers will be explained. Crito, an Athenian citizen from the 5th century BCE, is known for being a close friend of Socrates and his appearance in Plato’s dialogues. There isn’t much known about Crito’s early life other than he was born in Athens and his birth and death dates aren’t known and according to Silva, T, in Guiding Principles: Ethics of Living and Dying, “according to Plato's account, Crito was a wealthy and respected citizen of Athens who maintained a strong friendship with Socrates.” …show more content…
He founded the Academy in Athens, one of the earliest known institutions of higher learning in the Western world. Plato’s philosophical contributions are immeasurable, but one of his most significant ideas related to suffering is found in his famous Allegory of the Cave (Silva 13-16). In The Republic, Plato describes the Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners are chained inside a cave, only able to see shadows cast on a wall by objects behind them. The prisoners believe the shadows are reality, but they are only seeing shadows, not the real world. The allegory represents the people that are trapped in ignorance, unable to perceive the true nature of reality (Silva 16). The escape from the cave symbolizes the philosopher’s pursuit of knowledge. Richard Kraut writes in Plato from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that “We must recognize that the soul is a different sort of object from the body—so much so that it does not depend on the existence of the body for its functioning.” Plato’s Philosophy as shown in The Republic that the idea that the physical world is imperfect and filled with error. Plato's answer to why the living suffer is that the body has limits, and the soul is free from those limits, and the soul can understand eternal truths like justice and goodness. In conclusion, the perspectives of Crito, Socrates, and Plato offer different philosophies on why the living suffer. Crito attributes suffering to external factors like societal injustice, while Socrates ties it to ignorance and the failure to live a virtuous life. While Plato believes suffering arises from the body's limitations, true understanding of justice and goodness is attainable only by the soul and the pursuit of
horrible suffering that she carried with her (Sophocles, 1970, p.28). Again, this suggests the idea of individual freedom in Greek democratic culture does not exist in the 5th century
Plato and King: Crito and a Letter from Birmingham Jail Making a comparison of Dr. King’s letter from Birmingham with the woks of Plato particularly in the apology is just like comparing two statements regarding moral theory which in most cases do overlap. Each of the two texts makes a discussion of the nature of justice plus the kinds of injustices not forgetting what challenging justice implies. The two pieces of work are in one way or the other, from the political standpoint, that is, in Socrates’
Socrates could easily be viewed as suicidal due the portrayal put forth in Plato’s Five Dialogues. First, there is the Apology. Numerous times Socrates was given the opportunity to defend himself in a manner that would be persuading to the jury, but he seemed to have sullied each and every chance. A compelling argument for why his actions were not the crimes he was accused of committing was given, yet he did so with harsh logic and never with an appeal to emotions. He believes such appeals, for instance
Two ancient examples of disobedient actions come from different ages revered for standards that hold today and provide a basis for modern law; the Greek and ancient Roman empires. From the Greeks, we have come to know the story of Socrates as memorialized by Plato, and the Roman age was the time of Perpetua, an early Christian woman. The fate of those individuals is the same – a death sentence handed down by the society they lived in. Although the conclusion of their respective lives is the same
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe
power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself." (King, 4) The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not
Critically examine Nietzsche’s interpretation, in Gay Science 340, of the last words of Socrates, with reference to Plato’s Phaedo. Give evidence for or against Nietzsche’s claim and include a few other passages from Nietzsche on Socrates and Plato. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Nietzsche’s position, based on Plato’s portrayal? Do you agree or disagree and why? Socrates—in his dying words—spoke, "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius; make this offering to him and do not forget. " Nietzsche
In the “Crito,” Socrates chooses not to escape prison because he has chosen a standard for justice. He argues that the system itself which prosecuted him was not unjust. Although the verdict was wrong and he was charged with something he didn’t do, his belief was that
Morality of Immoral Laws In “Crito” and “Antigone,” Plato and Sophocles both talk about disobeying the law. Plato claims that it is wrong to disobey the law when the individual will gain something from his disobedience. On the other hand, Sophocles argues that it is wrong to disobey laws that do not follow the laws of God. While I agree with Plato and Sophocles in regards to their concepts of the law, I claim that Socrates and Plato would both agree that it is not right to follow an immoral law;
brief synopsis of each major theme, with an analysis and my opinion following, and ending with the question of Socrates' own death. Firstly, Plato introduces the important concept that it is far worse for one to do wrong than to suffer wrongdoing. Socrates, refusing to be harmed by Meletus, believes that “it is not allowed that a good man be injured by a worse” (pg. 41). Despite Socrates' impending death or banishment, he does not think that these are the worst possible situations and still goes
this will be weighted heavily on the soul after physical body dies. Socrates feels content with his decision to stay in prison and thus not to be unjust to the laws of Athens and Crito is left nothing more to say. In Phaedo, there is an immense form of development and the dialogue focuses primarily on death and the immortality of the soul. It starts with Phaedo, Simmias and Cebes, all interlocutors who recount the story of Socrates execution. This dialogue is unique because it contains discussions
Kant says that moral values are ‘good without qualification.’ This assertion and similar remarks of Plato can be understood in terms of a return to moral data themselves in the following ways: 1. Moral values are objectively good and not relative to our judgments; 2. Moral goodness is intrinsic goodness grounded in the nature of acts and independent of our subjective satisfaction; 3. Moral goodness expresses in an essentially new and higher sense of the idea of value as such; 4. Moral Goodness cannot
Since the idea of truth came to being by the previous thought of ancient times, many philosophers have developed their ideas on this notion. They ask themselves questions such as: “What is truth? Does a universal truth exist? Are their countless truths? Is it possible to know?” This is a major debate amongst philosophers and it really separates them within their belief systems. Many names have been given to the different thoughts: Relativism, Skepticism, Dogmatism, and Perspectivism. These thoughts
Impermanence and Death in Sino-Japanese Philosophical Context This paper discusses the notions of impermanence and death as treated in the Chinese and Japanese philosophical traditions, particularly in connection with the Buddhist concept of emptiness and void and the original Daoist answers to the problem. Methodological problems are mentioned and two ways of approaching the theme are proposed: the logically discursive and the meditative mystical one, with the two symbols of each, Uroboros and