When one is asked with a question with deep thought some may ponder upon the answer, whereas others may answer in haste and appear foolish even though they believe they have come to the correct conclusion. A situation where this happens is in Socrates dialogue of Hipparchus, in this dialogue a citizen of Athens and Socrates, a philosopher have contradicting views of what a lover of gain is. Socrates asks a citizen of Athens, “So what is the love of gain?”(225a) and who are those lovers of gain. The comrade, what the citizen is called by in the text, replies saying the lovers of gain are someone who think they should gain from worthless things. However, Socrates knows that does not seem logical, it does make sense for a person to think they …show more content…
Socrates and the comrade both agree on how they love all things which are good. Therefore, since the word good and gain correspond with each other it leads them to the conclusion that everyone loves something that is good even if they are evil. Which causes the agreement that everyone is a lover of gain. First defining the word gain helped to find the answer to the question of who are the lovers of gain. Without that definition, as shown in the beginning of the dialogue, it would be difficult to know what a lover of gain …show more content…
This view makes more sense as Socrates has thought about the issue more than the comrade and instead he thought about what gain was to conclude to what a lover of gain is. Their contradicting views relate to the human problem of the philosopher versus the city. A philosopher will have a wiser view on the answers due to their deep thoughts; whereas, the city’s view is more irrational and is not ruled by wisdom. This the reason why the human problem could not be solved as the city’s view will contradict the philosopher’s just the views on the lovers of gain. Overall in Hipparchus, there is different views of what a lover of gain is and those views depend on the person. The comrade and Socrates had contradicting views on the issue of what it is to be a lover of gain representing how the city’s views and the philosophers’ views will not agree. The city and the philosophers’ problem will continue to exist since not everyone use wisdom when coming to
... 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.
While Adeimantus and Glaucon appear to enthusiastically accept Socrates’ conclusions about the nature and benefits of justice at the end of Book IV, even going so far as to complete his argument about the profit of justice themselves, they only do so because they have followed Socrates’ argument linearly without going back to test new claims against established premises. Had they done so, they would have been to discover the gaps in Socrates’ logic and the full implications of his constructed city—a city that not only failed to illustrate how justice was profitable in itself and correlated with happiness, but actually proved the precise view of justice as a sacrificial act that it was constructed to disprove.
Idealists throughout the ages have proposed formulas to solve the problems of societies. These characters in their eagerness to design a harmonized society where all people have their basic needs covered. Many times they have ignored the individual right of people to decide for their future and had their aspirations. These goals of individuals should not be tied to a leader's ambition to achieve a political goal. In this book, we visualize how Socrates was seduced by the idea of formulating a city where there was harmony between social classes. Socrates envisions a healthy state city supported by a government that distributes resources in the justest way. To protect the city, Socrates says that certain citizens should be lied
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
(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
There is an ethical theory that we covered this quarter that I strongly agree with which is the theory of justice. There is a specific thinker that surprised me at and made me think about moral issues in a new way. That thinker was Socrates who surprised me and made me think about moral issues in a new way. I feel that socrates is someone who challenged what you thought or believed about ethics before taking this class. Those dialog investigates two vital inquiries. Those 1st inquiry may be “what will be justice?” socrates addresses this address both As far as political groups and As far as those unique man alternately souk. He does this to address those second Furthermore driving inquiry of the dialogue: “is those simply persnickety happier
It is possible to divide man into three basic types; the man of reason or logic who seeks wisdom; the spirited man who seeks success and honor, and the man of desire who seeks gain and appetite. Although each man is dominated by one component of the soul, the three elements are in constant conversation. Upon being asked each person would say that his or her class lives the best and the philosophers feel they must discuss which of these classes’ lives best. Each believe their greatest pleasure in life to be the paramount, however Socrates argues that only the man of reason could have experienced the happiness of knowledge because he alone of the three possesses it. He explains that the pleasures of the other types of men are not true pleasures as they are “the pleasures of necessity, since he would have no use for them if necessity were not laid upon him” Of these three classes, the man of reason (the lover of wisdom) possesses knowledge of the Forms, in turn, Justice. Therefore the man of justice and reason is correct in his judging himself to be the happiest, solidifying his argument that the lover of wisdom has the greatest pleasure and in turn the just man leads a happier life than the unjust man. Plato also suggests that of the three type of man the man of reason would be the most kingly i.e. the most suitable to rule. He envisions an ideal society where those who have knowledge of the Forms have
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
Socrates devotes a generous amount of The Republic to creating a Utopian society wherein philosophers rule. As he believes that philosophers ought to lead a city, Socrates first defines a guardian by unmasking elements belonging to philosophers. Above all, philosophers have a hunger for wisdom, and are individuals, “capable of comprehending what is eternal and unchanging,” (Sterling and Scott 174). Additionally, Socrates categorizes truth, pleasures in the soul, generosity, magnificence, courage, grace and temperance, (Sterling and Scott 174-177)...
Socrates has been leading a philosophical life and spends his whole life examing what the truth is. The truth here is a tangible truth, whereas it is more likely to be the rules or the orders of the world. In Socrates’s defense, he expresses the idea that he is a gift or a messenger that is sent to Athenians by the god. His task is to talk to others and then discuss intriguing and valuable problems with people in order to find out the most worthy and useful truth and wisdom for human beings because humans only know a little about themselves and the world in fact. “Whereas just as I don’t know anything, I don’t think I do either.” ( The
This paper highlights a few fallacies that surround Socrates’ ideas about acting against unjust government.
Socrates focuses his philosophy on life entirely on the discovery of knowledge and wisdom, ethics, and the soul. He was obsessed with seeking of knowledge and wisdom: he believed that they are the key to a good life. He went on to state that, “an unexamined life, is a life not worth living.” According to him, knowledge and wisdom correlate to ethical actions, ultimately resulting in a life of happiness, by
Kephalos defines justice as returning what one has received (Ten Essays, Leo Strauss, page 169). On the other hand, Kaphalos’ son, Polemarchus, states that justice is found in harming one’s enemies and helping ones’ friends (Republic, 332D). The final opinion in the discussion is given by Thrasymachus as he says: “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Republic, 338C). However, the lack of knowledge to apply their definitions in reality creates a problem for Socrates. For example, Polemarchos’ view on justice requires a person to be able to distinguish between a friend and an enemy (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Socrates then refutes their definitions of justice and states that it is an advantage to be just and a disadvantage to be unjust. According to Socrates’ philosophy, “a just man will harm no man” and the application of justice becomes an art conjoined with philosophy, the medicine of the soul (History of political philosophy, Leo Strauss, 36). Therefore, the use of philosophy in ruling a city is necessary and the end goal of justice cannot be achieved unless the philosophers
...ons of the people. Socrates brings out the argument that the leaders do whatever they do for the interests of the people. The leaders are stronger than the citizens, the leaders should consider the people as their bosses and work for them. This explains why Socrates accepts that everything the leaders say or do. They do things with the interests of the others. As Socrates argues, leaders are not in power to benefit them. They are in power to serve the interests of the people who put them to those positions.
philosopher that he was, he had quite a different take on the issue. Socrates strove