Plato

Summary Protagoras

In Plato’s dialogue “Protagoras” Socrates tells a companion his experience and interview with a man he deems fairer than Alcibiades. His name is then revealed to be Protagoras.

Protagoras is described as a wise man because if one makes friends with him and gives him money, he would make the benefactor as wise as he is himself. From this it can be understood that Protagoras has the gift of speech. He is able to persuade a man as well as have him to whatever he wishes. A Socrates question that, if soul is more sacred than body, why does Hippocrates choose Protagoras over his family and friends to consult in the matter. He believes that Hippocrates does not even know what a Sophist truly is but still chooses to offer his soul to him.

Socrates believes that the food of the soul. He compares a Sophist to a dealer and as all dealers they praise all of their goods indiscriminately. So the customer is in danger of purchasing something that may harm him. If one is not a specialist in the particular field he may be cheated. When absorbing the knowledge of a Sophist one should also be careful and calculate what knowledge is useful to him, as the knowledge will have effects on the soul.

Then Protagoras says that by associating with him, he would make Hippocrates a better man by sharing his wisdom daily. He would teach him prudence in private and public affairs, teach him to order his house in the best manner, teach him speak in the affairs of the state. So to say, teach politics and make a good citizen out of him.

However, Socrates doubts this. He says in the affairs of the state every citizen has a say and it does not matter if he is or is not taught politics. As well, he says that if a man does gain wisdom there is no guarantee that he would share it with others or be acknowledged for it.

Although, the man is given the gift of wisdom in comparison to other animals, he is not able to govern himself properly, which results in raging, never-ending wars and conflict. Every man if taught properly can attain needed skills (medicine, sciences), however, those already able to teach did not choose lightly their pupils. Good and bad qualities may be influenced by nature and chance.

A rational man does not punish in regards of the past (something that cannot be undone) but thinking about the future. He punishes to prevent the wrong from repeating so as emphasising that virtue may be taught. A man punishes those he believes are evildoers.

Protagoras believes that justice, temperance and holiness must be taught to all who wish to learn. If the pupil does wrong, he must be punished so he would become better. Those who refuse should be exiled or sentenced to death, as they would be deemed as incurable.

People teach each other their virtues according to their own abilities. It may be difficult to find a teacher for an expert artisan but easy for one who is a complete beginner.

Virtue may be divided into parts, for example, justice, temperance, and holiness. Although, they are all related, they also differ. They each have their own function.

It is said that each quality or action has only one opposite but both temperance and wisdom were concluded to have the same opposite – folly. Later, the characters analyse poems. It is said that it may be hard to become good but impossible to remain good as a man makes mistakes and has weaknesses. Circumstances may make the man lose his goodness. They question what makes a man good. It is said that the good man may become bad in time, but the bad man cannot become bad, as he is already bad. * While a good man will feel for those wronged as well as his family and his country, a bad man will gain join and find faults.

ARISTOTLE AS A CRITIC. Aristotle (384-322 B. C. E. ), the son of a physician, was the student of Plato from approximately 367 B. C. until his mentor’s death in 348/347. After carrying on philosophical and scientific investigations elsewhere in the Greek world and serving as the tutor to Alexander the Great, he returned to Athens in 335 B. C. E. to found the Lyceum, a major philosophical center, which he used as his base for prolific investigations into many areas of philosophy.

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. As a prolific writer and polymath, Aristotle radically transformed most, if not all, areas of knowledge he touched. It is no wonder that Aquinas referred to him simply as “The Philosopher. ” In his lifetime, Aristotle wrote as many as 200 treatises, of which only 31 survive.

Unfortunately for us, these works are in the form of lecture notes and draft manuscripts never intended for general readership, so they do not demonstrate his reputed polished prose style which attracted many great followers, including the Roman Cicero. Aristotle was the first to classify areas of human knowledge into distinct disciplines such as mathematics, biology, and ethics. Some of these classifications are still used today. [There has been long speculation that the original Poetics comprised two books, our extant Poetics and a lost second book that supposedly dealt with comedy and catharsis.

No firm evidence for the existence of this second book has been adduced. Our (knowledge of the text of the Poetics depends principally on a manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century and a second manuscript dating from the fourteenth century. ] (not to write in notes)*. Aristotle could be considered the first popular literary critic. Unlike Plato, who all but condemned written verse, Aristotle breaks it down and analyses it so as to separate the good from the bad. On a number of subjects Aristotle developed positions that significantly differed from those of his teacher.

We very clearly note this profound difference of opinion with Plato and, indeed, observe the overt correction of his erstwhile master in Aristotle’s literary and aesthetic theories. Aristotelian aesthetics directly contradicts Plato’s negative view of art by establishing a potent intellectual role. The principal source of our knowledge of Aristotle’s aesthetic and literary theory is the Poetics, but important supplementary information is found in other treatises, chiefly the Rhetoric, the Politics, and the Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle’s main contribution to criticism may well be the idea that poetry is after all an art with an object of its own, that it can be rationally understood and reduced to an intelligible set of rules (that is, it is an “art,” according to the definition in the Ethics). The main concern of the rules of the Poetics, however, is not with the composition of literary works; it is rather with their critical evaluation. Consequently, criticism can be a science, and not a mass of random principles and intuitions. Aristotle speaks of the educative value of visual, musical and verbal arts.

Both the Rhetoric and the Poetics can be considered –to be expansions of this view. We might say that Aristotle sets literature free from Plato’s radical moralism and didacticism, while he still expects it to be conformable to a moral understanding of the world. For him, literature is a rational and beneficial activity, and not an irrational and dangerous one, as it was for Plato. Aristotle? s approach to literature is mainly philosophical: he is more concerned with the nature and the structure of poetry than with its origin.

The origins of poetry had been grounded on the instinct of imitation which is natural to man. The first poetical works were spontaneous improvisations. The origins of the different genres is justified by Aristotle thus: “Poetry soon branched into two channels, according to the temperaments of individual poets. The more serious-minded among them represented noble actions and the doings of noble persons, while the more trivial wrote about the meaner sort of people; thus, while the one type wrote hymns and anegyrics, these others began by writing invectives. (Poetics II). ” The development goes through serious or comic epic poems such as those written by Homer to comedy and tragedy; “these new forms were both grander and more highly regarded than the earlier” (Poetics II). Aristotle does not, however, decide on whether tragedy (and by implication, literature) has already developed as far as it can; but he does assert that it has come to a standstill.

Aristotle makes a brief outline of the history of tragedy: “At first the poets had used the tetrameter because they were writing satyr-poetry, which was more closely related to the dance; but once dialogue had been introduced, by its very nature it hit upon the right measure, for the iambic is of all measures the one best suited to speech . . . . Another change was the increased number of episodes, or acts. (Poetics II). ” Aristotle also deals briefly with the rise of comedy: “the early history of comedy. . . s obscure, because it was not taken seriously. Comedy had already acquired certain clear-cut forms before there is any mention of those who are named as its poets. Nor is it known who introduced masks, or prologues, or a plurality of actors, and other things of that kind. Of Athenian poets Crates was the first to discard the lampoon pattern and to adopt stories and plots of a more general nature. (Poetics II). ” The work of Aristotle as a whole may be considered to be an attempt to develop a structural and metalinguistic approach to literature.

Although it preserves a concern with valuation, its main thrust is towards the definition of theoretical possibilities and general laws. Some critics have spoken of Aristotle’s sin of omission in relationship with lyric poetry and the inspirational element in literature. This is a fact. But it does not seem so important when we look at what Aristotle does say and the principles he establishes. We can barely recognize the aspect of criticism after Aristotle’s work, if we compare it to its previous state. His is the most important single contribution to criticism in the whole history of the discipline.

Critical Analysis of “Phaedo” by Plato Much of the Phaedo by Plato is composed of arguments for the nature of the physical world and how it relates to the after life, for example, the way our senses perceive the world and how indulging in those senses has negative consequences in our after lives. These arguments find basis in scientific analysis of the time as well as the mythos of the his age. One of the key talking points within the story is the theory of forms.

The aforementioned theory is formed from two beliefs, the first of which is that our senses deceive us and that there’s an existential plane where perfect beings exist and the perfect ideas of the physical things in the world are there too. All of these concepts are intricately intertwined through out the story although Plato doesn’t explain all of them in great detail. That leaves one to question whether he writes them to justify his life or if perhaps he’s figured something out that we as the readers have not.

Despite how questionable some of Plato’s hypotheses are there are a couple that provide an interesting perspective on our world. The theory of forms ps the entirety of the book and is the most important argument in the Phaedo. This theory is the basis for the classic cave metaphor as well as one of the most referenced beliefs through out the text. The theory of forms comes from the belief that there are two planes of existence consisting of the world we can see and that world that is “beyond” ours. Within the latter plane there are the perfect forms of all the things that we know.

A “form” in the Phaedo is a perfect representation of the physical objects and ideas of our world they are also “divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself. ”[1] For example, the form of a table is the perfect idea of what a table should be while an actual table is just the imperfect physical representation of that form. According to Plato it’s not possible for us to ever build a table as strong as the form of table because our senses are flawed and they don’t allow us to perceive the world perfectly.

The last point in the explanation of a form is another part to this argument. Plato makes it well known that he doesn’t believe that people should trust their senses because we are naturally prone to deceiving ourselves. Such an idea isn’t scientifically possible; but the concept really sticks when you look at it not as a[1] statement for reality but as a statement for the metaphysical. That is to say that when you apply this concept to our human world one could say that there’s something beautiful hidden in the notion that we can never achieve perfect beauty.

There’s no point arguing that which isn’t plausible but there’s a lot of value in applying it to other aspects of our mortal lives. The second belief that is prevalent through out the Phaedo is the belief that our senses deceive us. The most clear example from the text of this comes from a conversation between Simmias and Socrates in which Socrates asks “What again shall we say of the actual acquirement of knowledge? — is the body, if invited to share in the inquiry, a hinderer or a helper? I mean to say, have sight and hearing any truth in them?

Are they not, as the poets are always telling us, inaccurate witnesses? and yet, if even they are inaccurate and indistinc… ” This is belief finds scientific basis in things that occur naturally in the world. For example, a very common example for this belief is refraction in water. When this occurs one could argue that it is indisputable proof that our senses deceive us. The evidence presented in the Phaedo for this subject is not debatable. The case could be made though for the belief that we have scientific tools now that allow for us to understand our physical world quite accurately.

However, the Theory of Forms ps more than just the physical concepts in our world but it also extends in to the metaphysical such as our emotions and concepts such as beauty and perfection and none of these things are capable of being accurately perceived. Perhaps, despite what Plato has said earlier about our senses deceiving us, with all the technological advances we have to better understand our world there is the possibility that we have further skewed our ability to analyze the world.

All the tools scientists use in this day and age come from mathematical calculations and human senses. Plato at times conveniently talks about how the philosopher upon death is destined to live in Hades, a place where all souls go when they die. However, he also makes the claim that a philosopher doesn’t just go to Hades but he is destined to spend time among the gods understanding the forms that they live among. “he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world. [2] This belief has an ulterior motive, Plato spends a great deal of time arguing that indulging in your senses in any way from eating food that you love to having an intimate relationship is wrong despite the fact he had a wife and kids. He also claims that only the common man fears death because they are obsessed with these physical responses from the things in our world. Thinking realistically as opposed to idealistically there’s no reason that an individual can’t indulge in the pleasures of the world and continue to gather knowledge.

Many philosophers would disagree with Plato’s analysis of the human condition. That is to say that, many philosophers look towards expanding our experience in the physical world as an optimistic and healthy endeavor. Plato’s belief that our experience in the physical world isn’t as important as the afterlife is very dangerous and limited thinking because it encourages individuals to live their life with a very small frame of reference. If Plato’s belief system was commonly accepted then we wouldn’t have the chance to understand the complexities of emotion and our relationships with other people.

Nor would individuals understand the impact of drugs on their body and the life experience that comes from using those substances. As mentioned earlier, it’s extremely limited thinking and damaging to the quality of life of most individuals in society. However, despite Plato’s limited belief system I think a lot of what he said holds a lot of value in his time. It’d be hard in Plato’s era for an individual to sort through the obvious mistruths communicated within the Phaedo due to the lack of science as it relates to our biological functions.

But what an individual can’t take from Plato’s Phaedo there’s a lot they can. For instance, if one can’t believe in Plato’s Theory of Forms they can still appreciate the value of knowing that if there was a perfect form of beauty that humans could never understand then at least there’s still things in this world that cause our hearts to stop for a moment in awe of their beauty whether it be a spouse, the ocean, or earth from from more than 12,000 feet in the air. Bibliography Eva, Brann, Kalkavage Peter, and Salem Eric.

Plato’s Phaedo. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing. Roland, Jon. The Constitution, “Plato’s Phaedo. ” Last modified 2012. Accessed October 30, 2012. http://www. constitution. org/pla/phaedo. htm. ——————————— [ 1 ]. . Eva, Brann, Kalkavage Peter, and Salem Eric. Plato’s Phaedo. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing. [ 2 ]. Roland, Jon. The Constitution, “Plato’s Phaedo. ” Last modified 2012. Accessed October 30, 2012. http://www. constitution. org/pla/phaedo. htm.

Born in Northern Greece. Aristotle’s male parent was a tribunal doctor to the male monarch of Macedon where Aristotle himself would be requested by King Philip II to tutor his boy Alexander ( who grew up to go “Alexander the Great” ) .

Aristotle. one of the most influential minds in doctrine including political theory is besides known as the legendary Greek philosopher. logician. scientist. and pupil of Plato. Aristotle studied in Plato’s Academy in Athens. Plato being the pupil of Socrates and besides known as the male parent of political theory helped educate and determine the head of immature Aristotle who so became known as the first political scientist.

It was the diverse ambiance in which Aristotle was raised. along with his instruction and so his many travels that gave him the deepness of being able to see and see the good and the mistakes in the universe. Aristotle saw doctrine within the physical universe. He believed that our truths came from physically interrupting down systems and analyzing them to understand them. He had experience with travelling and seeing different universe governments. Aristotle believed one had to interrupt things down through empirical observation and scientifically.

Therefore deriving his rubric of political scientist who used scientific methods to analyse and reason his beliefs. ideas. and sentiments. Aristotle believed that one must believe critically and rationally utilizing inductive ground and an empiricist attack. Aristotle studied over 100 governments and analyzed which 1s were the strongest. how they functioned. and which best served the people. He concluded that the best type of authorities government was that of one with a strong in-between category to equilibrate the upper and lower categories to make the most stable and merely society.

He believed that this government would be a combination of facets from a civil order ( an elected authorities that has the bulk of the common people’s best involvement ) . nobility ( regulation by the rich but with the people’s involvement in head ) . and monarchy ( a individual swayer if there is the possible that that metropolis has a qualified swayer as such which Aristotle admits is rare and can easy turn into dictatorship ) .

Aristotle felt that most people did non hold adequate intelligence or power to manage running the authorities so it is best to set those in power who do. In his work. The Politics. Aristotle is explains that a metropolis is made up of many people. many persons who possess different positions and values.

It is the diverse group of the metropolis that makes it a metropolis. If a metropolis were to go more and more a unit so it would lose its singularity in sentiments and do up and get the better of the full definition of a metropolis. Aristotle believes that people are entitled to their ain ideas. sentiments. and ownership. He states in his work ( Politics. page 40-41 ) that is non in the nature of a metropolis to be a unit. Aristotle believes that metropoliss are made up different parts and different entities that work together as a whole.

They do non work as one but instead work together. Aristotle provinces that utmost fusion of a metropolis is non a good thing. Aristotle states that “The metropolis exists for the interest of a good life” . significance that a metropolis is at that place to map as an mercantile establishment to run into the demands of each of its citizens. Each citizen has his ain demand to be met. Aristotle realizes that what makes one individual happy may non do the other happy. “It is obvious that a metropolis which goes on going more and more of a unit will finally discontinue to be a metropolis at all. A metropolis. by its nature. is some kind of plurality” ( Aristotle. p. 39 ) .

Aristotle is reasoning that if a metropolis becomes more and more incorporate so merely one voice is heard and it will so miss the really alone constituents of different voices. maps. and positions that made it a metropolis in the first topographic point. Aristotle believed that a metropoliss intent was to heighten plurality. a diversified metropolis that comes together to map. Known as the first political philosopher. Plato saw all physical things to be illusional. to be “a shadow of reality” ( Simile of a Cave ) and he stated that worlds are falsely led by their senses. Because of this. harmonizing to Plato- merely a society lead by Philosophers is a merely society ( Republic 473-475 ) .

Plato believes that philosophers are the lone 1s to seek out absolute truth and justness and will hence be more educated and more inclined to do the best determinations for the group. At the same clip Plato thought that every individual had the possible to obtain ground. truth. and cognition by “stepping out of the cave and seeing the “light” . Plato believed that if people were educated decently so they would do good determinations. He believed people’s basic nature to be good. Whereas Aristotle tended to more of a realist and knew that some people did non hold it in them to “reason” or to “see the light” .

In his book. The Republic. Plato discusses his belief in making a metropolis like utopia where there are no categories and everyone portions everything including adult females. kids and belongings. Plato’s positions are a bit unrealistic because he seems to non take into consideration human nature. Worlds are of course competitory and with clip would go more individualistic. Plato would non hold with Aristotle’s transition that a metropolis that grows into a unit will finally discontinue to be a metropolis. Plato on the reverse would province that the more of a unit the metropolis becomes. the more of Utopia it will be with everyone in common idea and understanding. common ownership of land. animate beings. and adult females.

Plato’s ideal metropolis was that of a Utopian that would be governed by philosophers. He desired a perfect society with no jobs where people were happy. His society would dwell of three categories: swayers. aides and labourers. The swayers would be the philosopher male monarchs. would ever govern the province. The aides ( warriors ) would support the province and the labourers would be responsible for material production of goods needed by the province. Plato believed that the philosopher male monarchs should run the province being that they are the wisest and best possible campaigners.

Plato was wholly molded by his instructor Socrates. taking on all of his ideas and doctrines whereas Plato’s pupil Aristotle took on many of his ain decisions and ideas many times beliing Plato’s. Plato was more of a dreamer while Aristotle was more of a realist. Where Plato sought out the “Utopia ideal situation” . Aristotle sought out how to break the current state of affairs. Another difference about Aristotle and Plato’s attack is that Plato is more focussed on the flawlessness of the universe and how people come to cognize about this. While Aristotle focal points more on the observations in nature and he knows non everything in nature is perfect.

Aristotle. unlike Plato. was non focussed or concerned about the thought of a perfect society ; alternatively he wanted to better upon the 1 that he was portion of during his being. He believed that society should endeavor to use the best system it can achieve. He felt that Utopia was unrealistic and pointless. It would be best that society was at its highest possible and you can merely better upon the bing one. Therefore the integrity of a metropolis would decrease the individualism and different constituents that unambiguously make up a metropolis. therefore in the terminal the devastation of the really significance and map of what a metropolis ought to be.

Socrates spent most of his life in Athens. During his life he witnessed the rise and glory of Athens and the rapid decline of Athens during the Peloponnesian war. Socrates met and talked with a variety of people such as politicians, statesmen, sophists, poets, architects, and ordinary citizens. He taught philosophy to the youth of Athens, devoted friends, and pupils like Crito. Plato was one of Socrates’ students, and he is considered to be most brilliant student of Socrates. In fact, Plato is the major source of knowledge about Socrates’ life.

Socrates questioned and cross-examined Athenians about their moral, religious, and political beliefs. People found it difficult to understand him. His habits were strange, and his arguments were hard to understand. Socrates created a revolution in Greek philosophy. Plato portrayed this revolution in Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, and Crito. Socratic Method is characterized by asking questions. When Socrates talks, he asks the questions all the time. He teaches and refutes with questions. He talks to people with questions.

The central element that upset the Athenians was the destructive cross-examination of the principles and beliefs that Athenians lived by, which consequently led to Socrates’ death because his contemporaries did not want to admit their own ignorance. Socrates was searching for the meaning of things; he wanted proof of what was defined which would give logical reason for itself. The fact that really hurt Athenians was the attack of the most fundamental principles of Athenian life. Socrates did not recruit people to follow him; rather he went out and asked them their views.

His lectures were not characterized by forcing his ideas onto other people. The individuals brought their point of views on particular subject in dialogues set up by Socrates. Socrates’ way of testing or challenging a belief is by seeing what believer is committed to. A man, who makes a statement, especially in debate with Socrates, must be careful what he claims to know. One of the examples is a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates. They both have pending lawsuits. Socrates is accused of impiety, and Euthyphro is going to prosecute his own father.

Euthyphro’s father is charged with killing a day-laborer. According to Euthyphro his actions to prosecute his father is a model for piety. It doesn’t matter if the guilty one is a relative or a stranger, murder is murder. Euthyphro justified his actions by saying that he knows what holy or unholy is. Socrates wants to know what is holy or unholy since he was accused of impiety, and it seems that Euthyphro has exact knowledge of religion. The discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro illustrate an alternative approach to answer.

Euthyphro’s answer to what is holy is in a form that lists individual actions. Socrates presents the questions that are mutually exclusive. For example,”…is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved? ” He asks plenty of questions like that. Euthyphro (the respondent) has to make a choice between the alternatives presented. Socrates accepts what is a false answer to his question. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrated the untruth. The definition of holy was not discovered. This cross examination made Euthyphro very uncomfortable.

As Socrates demonstrated, Euthyphro did not have exact knowledge of religion and what holy or unholy is. If Euthyphro, who is professionally devoted to religion, cannot produce an adequate answer or some valid criterion of holy, it is hardly to be expected that Athenian citizens will provide intelligent answers to such questions. Socrates was charged with irreligion, impiety, and corruption of youth. The Defence of Socrates is divided into three speeches. The opening is the criticism of the peroration in the court, and Socrates is carried away by the speeches of his accusers. His defense is based on the word “truth. At the beginning of the speech he makes it clear that he is interested only in truth: “… my accusers have said little or nothing true; whereas from me you shall hear the whole truth…” The speeches in court generally have no relation to truth. The speakers aim to persuade others in believing what the speaker is saying. Socrates is compelled to make speech in court to defend himself. Socrates replaces the speech that is common in Athenian courts and exercises his own kind of cross-examination, whenever law permits him to do so. He proceeds according to his method of examining by questions and answers.

Also, he wishes to converse with judges for more than one day and perhaps convince them that his accusers are wrong. Socrates acquired a bad reputation because he has some special wisdom as his accusers are saying. This is based on the account of Chaerephon, Socrates’ friend. Chaerephon asked the Delphic oracle who is the wisest. The oracle’s answer was that Socrates is the wisest. When Socrates heard the story, he was perplexed how this possibly could be the truth. Socrates went and questioned poets, craftsman, and politicians. He made enemies for himself during his quest for wisdom. Socrates realized and …formed opinion that, although the man thought to be wise by many other people, and especially himself, yet in reality he was not. ” Through this process Socrates came to conclusion that only god is truly wise, and Socrates’ wisdom is worth nothing. With this confession Socrates sets up tension against the absurd charge of impiety. For Socrates, piety refers to his mission based on the conviction that he and others are ignorant. Socrates exposed through examination the ignorance of others. They claimed they knew something, when in fact they did not know anything. Socrates made people think and find the truth.

Once they were exposed to Socrates questioning, they realized they were ignorant and no truth was found. Because Athenians had a reputation to protect, they brought absurd charges against him. Next, the whole populations of Athens, the judges, the members of the Assembly are claiming to be educators, except Socrates. This absurd exaggeration expresses the sophistic relativism and is ironic, since Socrates is accused of being a sophist. We must make a clear distinction between the two. First, sophists charged fees for their services, next sophists in Athens were not citizens and they traveled throughout the Greek world.

Finally, the sophist would use or find the argument that worked the best and did not care whether they uncovered the truth. Socrates did not charge fees, was an Athenian citizen, and believed in uncovering the truth. Additionally, there is another absurdity concealed in Socrates’ indictment. Socrates asks Meletos if he is corrupting youth intentionally or unintentionally. Meletos replies without hesitation-intentionally. Socrates said that his wrongdoing is impossible. If Socrates is so stupid that he does not realize that he harms other, then he must do it unintentionally.

Also, Socrates makes a clever remark towards Meletus: “Are you so much smarter at your age than mine as to realize that the bad have a harmful impact upon their closest companions at any given time, whereas the good have a beneficial effect? ” Socrates explains that if he is corrupting youth he must do it unintentionally, and according to the law he should not be brought to court based on such a mistake. To add, he explains other reasons why alleged corruption of youth might be happening. Since all others are teachers of the youth, they should teach the youth justice and what is right.

Evidently, they failed to do so, since Socrates has so many loyal followers. Finally, there is Socrates’ defense against the charge that he does not honor gods. According to Socrates, this charge is too vague. He asked his accuser to make the point more precisely and explain it. Socrates begins to ask Meletos a series of questions. One of the Meletus’ charges is that Socrates does not acknowledge gods and claims that the sun and the moon are made of rocks. Socrates exclaims that this is mistaken identity. It is Anaxagoras of Clazomenae who made such a claim in his books which you can get anywhere for a cheap price.

Socrates makes another clever remark that he does not believe that members of jury are illiterate and therefore they should know that Meletus’ charge is absurd. Furthermore, Socrates questioned Meletus and came to conclusion that according to Meletus, Socrates believes in some sort of spiritual being. Socrates ends with the question: “ How could you possibly persuade anyone with even slightest intelligence that someone who accepts spiritual beings does not also accepts divine ones, and again that the same person also accepts neither spirits nor gods nor heroes? Socrates refuted the charge of impiety by showing through questioning, that he could not be a despiser of gods since he believes in spiritual beings and descendants of gods. Socrates exposed Meletos self-contradiction, ignorance, and ignorance of the judges and jury, since they allowed charges to be brought to the court. In addition, Socrates takes unmistakable delight in the process of uncovering one’s ignorance. Following the custom, Socrates must propose the proper penalty for himself. Socrates considers a variety of punishments. He examined his own life.

He believed that he fulfilled the duty towards the whole community by examining others and himself and did not wrong anybody. The exile would not be appropriate punishment. Socrates proposes that his penalty should be free meals, since he is doing a good thing in Athens. Socrates stands his ground as is portrayed in the third part of his speech. He accepts his death penalty, but also he warns his executioners that putting people to death will not prevent anyone from living unjustly and in ignorance. Socrates is convinced that his philosophical life of examining his own and other Athenians beliefs and actions is his duty.

He does not fear death. He does not know if death is good or bad. Socrates warns Athenians not to value wealth, power, and prestige more than moral excellence. The moral excellence is the best possible state of one’s soul. Socrates commitment to reasoned argument is evident in Crito. There, in conversation with Crito, Socrates justifies his decision to remain in prison. Crito listed the reasons why Socrates should escape. First, Crito does not want to lose a friend, next what will other think that Crito doesn’t want to make sacrifice for his friend.

Socrates begins with the reply that he must follow the logic: “I cannot reject the very principle that I previously adopted, just because this fate has overtaken me; rather they appeared to me much the same as ever, and I respect and honor the same ones that I did before. ” This principle is within him and appears to be the best, regardless of situation. Additionally, Socrates examined his own morality. For Socrates, the greatest good is to be prudent and evil is to be imprudent. Prudence is the ability to act by use of reason and allows to distinguish when acts are reckless, cowardly or courageous.

Socrates, also examined other of his principles such as not to do injustice, not to do bad things to other human beings, obey the laws of Athens, which he voluntary accepted. Yet again through the questioning of his own principles and in dialogue with Crito, Socrates comes to conclusion, that one shouldn’t care what other people think, but think what is just or unjust. If Socrates would escape, he would violate the sacred laws of Athens. The escape would be unjust. Socrates reasoned that if he would escape, the life time of his work would be destroyed.

He dedicated his life to justice, to the state, and the law. Socrates must confirm his teachings trough his actions. On the whole, Socrates during his lifetime pursued the truth. For Socrates, the truth was the only moral anchor in uncertain world. His method was direct. He asked questions in dialogues with anyone who would engage in conversation. This dialectic process was a purifying process. Similar to water filter, removing all the scum and sediment until results were pure. Socrates revealed through this process what is untruth.

For Socrates, the inner truth is covered by the layers of untruth, and he tried to peel them away. This method is also known as negative method-eliminate what leads to contradiction. Socrates forced his contemporaries to re-evaluate, reflect and reconsider their beliefs. He did this in the ways that left people with uncertainty, in the state of unease, and realization of their own ignorance (but not admitting to it) as Plato portrayed in Euthyphro, Crito and Defence of Socrates. Furthermore, the Oracle of Delphi response to Chaerephon, who is the wisest man, provided Socrates with insights to education.

The most powerful motivation to learning is acknowledgment of own ignorance. Next, Socratic Method seeks to find universal definition. Socrates believed that all things have something essential within them which can be uncovered by reason. The essential properties can be summarized in definition. For example, he seeks to find the definition what is holy or unholy in Euthyphro. The results of Socrates enquires in search for truth, knowledge, and wisdom through cross-examination, led to his death, because his contemporaries did not to want admit their own ignorance.

Plato’s Lysis takes on the issue of friendship and what, in essence, makes one a friend. Socrates encounters a group of boys who lead him to begin the discussion, in the effort to show Hippothales how he might act toward his beloved, Lysis, so as not to drive him away but rather to draw him closer. It is clear in this dialogue Socrates is seen as a wise, old man who the younger generations generally look upon for answers, and it is clear that these boys respect him enough to stop him on his way and ask of his opinion regarding several matters.

The matter at heart of this dialogue asks, “What is a friend?” Here Plato is attempting to get at the essence of friendship, and he uses the innocence of youthful boys as a springboard for the conversation. The boys are themselves friends with each other, and it is appropriate that Socrates would converse with them about the nature of friendship in general.

The dialogue begins with Hippothales asking Socrates for help regarding his beloved Lysis, the object of affection who is not within reach. Hippothales’ way, Socrates makes known, of loudly praising that which is not yet in his possession, is equivalent to a “hunter…who scares away his prey as he hunts” (Plato 21). After Hippothales makes known his method of showing his love for someone with whom he is not yet acquainted, he asks Socrates to show how he might converse properly with the object of his affection so that they can be friends, rather than scaring Lysis off and incurring loathing instead.

Luring Lysis into a conversation with his friend Menexenus, Socrates begins to illustrate to Hippothales how to charm someone, “by humbling him and drawing in his sails instead of puffing him up and spoiling him” (Plato 29). Here the dialogue takes a turn away from the initial premise, and Hippothales more and more fades into the background as the dialogue progresses.

By this Plato is suggesting what Socrates the character will later state, that opposites attract; Lysis and Menexenus are opposite of Socrates in that he is old and wise and they are young and naïve. In this they benefit from each other, as Socrates is able to impart his methodic wisdom to the boys, and the boys in turn learn from him. This is one of the main points in the conversation as the interlocutors attempt to get the essence of friendship.

Another of the main points is that of proficient knowledge in a particular subject, such as cooking or tending to a herd, a discussion that serves to illustrate further that the boys are less knowledgeable than their elders, and thus is why there are limitations on their actions. Comparing the difference between a slave and a free person, Socrates shows Lysis that he is very similar to a slave in that he has many limitations imposed on his actions despite the fact that his parents love him dearly. Yet Socrates is able to get Lysis to admit the reason behind these limitations, “because I understand the one, and not the other” (Plato 27).

By getting Lysis to admit that he is not proficient in many things, and therefore his parents set limitations upon him out of love, Socrates is showing all the boys the difference between slavery and limitations. He is also making the boys come to realize the base value of love behind setting such limitations, which is the base value in friendship. Limiting one to their knowledge does not necessarily equal complete master over one like a slave.

Socrates slowly builds on the main points so that the interlocutors can agree on the basics, which include the attraction of opposites, the attraction of likes to likes, limitations versus mastery (slavery), proficiency in knowledge of particular subject matters, and the variations in which one can love and either be loved or be hated by the beloved. He must show these boys how it is possible to love someone who hates the lover—for the beloved to hate his lover—in order to get to the essence of friendship.

The beloved who hates his lover is not necessarily a friend to his lover, but that does not negate the love the lover holds for his beloved, and therefore the possibility of friendship does not necessarily follow. This is important to the way the dialogue ends because it will illustrate precisely what Socrates means here. Such a distinction is possibly the closest Plato comes to getting at the essence of friendship. To love despite being hated is what makes a good friend possible.

One more point is the argument Socrates brings to light regarding the possibility of good and bad people being friends. This is an interesting sidetrack because it raises some excellent questions, such as, “Is it possible for thieves and liars to be friends?” Here Plato is able to elaborate on the idea of the good inherent in all of his dialogues. Socrates brings up a good example of bodily health, desired in and of itself and therefore good.

Disease is conversely considered evil because it aims to destroy bodily health. By association, the “medical arts” align with the good because it aims to restore bodily health. But without disease, there would be no medicine, and bodily health would be no issue and result in being neither good nor bad. Bodily health would just be. Similarly, without bad people there would be no good people, and there would just be people. The question of friendship would itself never arise.

Plate takes aims to insure that the subject of his dialogue is relevant, and he seeks to prove its relevancy by showing how it is so. Such a sidetrack is important here especially for the youthful boys conversing with Socrates, for it allows them to distinguish why such questions are important. Plato stakes the importance of philosophy as a whole in this sidetrack, the undercurrent driving the conversation.

The dialogue ends with Socrates and the boys no closer to the essence of friendship than they were at the beginning of the discussion. “For these fellows will say, as they go away, that we suppose we’re one another’s friends…but what he who is a friend is we have not yet been able to discover” (Plato 52). Such ends all of Plato’s dialogues, but this one ends peculiarly to topic at hand.

The attendants of Lysis and Menexenus uproariously and seemingly disrespectfully interrupt the conversation to tell the boys that it is late and they must get home. Socrates speculates that they are drunk because they are so boisterous, and stubborn to the crowd gathered around Socrates’ urging the attendants to leave them be, “and we broke up our group” (Plato 52). After the whole discussion regarding the nature of friendship and what makes one a friend, the boys and the attendants are at odds with each other.

The reader must then recall what Socrates mentioned earlier about the nature of slavery versus that of limitations, and how limitations are set because of the boys’ lack of proficient knowledge in general. The lack is the reason why the boys have attendants at all. The dialogue takes full circle in this way, while ending as it began. And yet they and even Socrates seem to forget the reason why the attendants are yelling at all. The group heeded the attendants only when the attendants refused to go away at the goading of the boys, Socrates included.

Socrates sought to show the boys, first Hippothales and then Menexenus and Lysis, what it takes to make a friendship with someone. The dialogue turns into looking for what a friend, at its essence, really is. In dealing with friendship, it seems that the dialogue might have ended less aggressively, except that Plato made certain to state that though like may be resistant to like, like is more resistant to what is opposed to it. The attendants were the “others” while the group discussing friendship was a unit engaged in something they all found time worthy. For the attendants to disrupt the conversation in such a beastly way was to the group a signal that the attendants were opposed to the group, and therefore despite the reason for the attendants, the group felt a solidarity that was threatened by the attendants.

Despite seeming like a terrible influence on the boys, Socrates actually was able to get the group to display friendship at its finest—they wished to stay together to continue talking about the virtue of friendship. Though the boys were, at bottom, resisting the attendants’ orders, they were, more importantly, displaying the nature of friendship Socrates was unable to articulate. It would not have been possible to show this without first going through the ideas of proficient knowledge, opposites and likes, and whether bad people can be friends.

Works Cited

Plato. “Lysis.” Plato’s Dialogue on Friendship. Trans. David Bolotin. Cornell: Ithaca, 1979.

Missing Works Cited As an Athenian philosopher, Socrates spent his life in constant pursuit of insight. He loved engaging in conversations that helped him derive philosophical views on a number of different issues. The birth of ideas through critical reasoning can be credited back to his method of teaching, which is now known as the Socratic Method. Although widely respected today, many of his teachings were found controversial in Athenian times. Socrates was placed on trial and put to death soon after because of the disapproval of his ideas.

Even with the anticipation of death linguring in his path, Socrates remained composed and curious. During his defense, he made it clear that death was nothing to fear, but rather an accepted inevitability of life. “Those of us who think that death is an evil are in error”(Plato, 39). Instead of viewing his sentence as a burden, Socrates regarded it as a potential opportunity. If death was the soul’s journey to another place, the possibilities could be endless. He could obtain a considerable amount of knowledge by conversing with… … middle of paper … .. development (Mandela, 166). ” He believed it was the only cure for poverty and ignorance. “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions,” this famous line quoted by Lillian Hellman depicts the outlook of Socrates and Nelson Mandela. Even after being accused of some form of treason and being subjected to the punishment of losing their lives, neither man chose to conform to the basis of their authority. They had already carefully conceived their notions, and were not ready to mold them to fit someone else’s standards.