Clouds Socrates Unjust Speech Essay

Aeschylus was an ancient Greek playwright who wrote “The Oresteia” post Athens win over Persia, in the Persian War around 465 B.C. During that time Athens and democracy were seen as strong and Aeschylus portrays the strength of Athens and democracy in his plays. He wrote in hope of people understanding that for a society to work there have to be rules and force, but not so much of either that circumstances are not taken into account. Throughout “The Oresteia” there are family ties that take president with the gods of the underworld. These family ties are blood, being born into a bond with someone.

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

The Unjust even went as far as to state that Just was “ancient”. Although these traditions and ideas may be fading, they are not necessarily wrong. However, Unjust speech uses the fact that justice is ceasing to exist to imply that it is of no importance and does not necessitate a role on Greek society. The novelty of the Unjust speech allows it to flourish and triumph over the Just speech.

The Republic presents two very different views of justice as argued by two skilled thinkers. The beginning of the discussion starts off with Thrasymachus explaining what exactly he believes justice is; “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Although Thrasymachus’ definition is clear, Socrates attempts to spite him by using a wild comparison, by saying “If Polydamamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is.” (338c) This statement from Socrates disgusts Thrasymachus because Thrasymachus was simply referring to “stronger” in the sense of being a ruler, not strong in the sense of being physically larger. To counter Socrates, Thrasymachus explains how different societies are ruled throughout the world whether it be tyrannically, democratically, or otherwise, and how the rulers, those who are strongest, are the ones who make the laws and they do so to their advantage. Thrasymachus establishes this by saying how, “A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same.” (338e) It is clear from this line of reasoning that Thrasymachus has a solid position that justice is, rightly or wrongly, the enforcement of the rule of law as dictated by the “strong leaders” that make the law.

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

In Plato’s: The Apology Socrates was charged and put on trial for impiety, as well as accused of committing many other crimes. I will first explain the most important issues of why Socrates was sent to death. Then I will argue the position that Socrates is innocent, and should not be have been found guilty.

Athens is a major Greek city-state in European history. It was a great center of cultural and intellectual development, and thus home to philosophers. Socrates and Pericles, two of these philosophers, had polarizing opinions about the city-state and its citizens. While Pericles chooses to praise the Athenian citizen, Socrates criticizes Athens’ people. Pericles gave his opinion at a funeral during the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, while Socrates gave his during the trial that ultimately led to his death. The Athenian city-state has become a model for today’s systems of government and a hearth for western philosophy, so Pericles’ opinion seems to be the one that is more accurate.

Making use of rhetoric devices and compromising the ideals of democracy breach the ideals of traditions in the Greek society. Unlike that in the “Clouds”, Thucydides does not show any sign of flaws of the traditional values.

Elenchus, as a famous Socratic method for education, uses dialogue and questions to approach philosophical truths. The method is presented in both Plato’s the Euthyphro and Aristophanes’s the Clouds. However, Socrates’s personal image and characteristics, as well as the nature of his questioning differ a lot in these two works. While the Euthyphro presents a philosopher king guiding the less wise people in discovery of truths, Socrates in the Clouds has little interest in either exploring the ethical truth or helping others get out of “Plato’s cave”. Instead, he is portrayed as a sophist who corrupts people with mysterious and useless knowledge, ignores traditional Athenian education, and debilitates Athenian men. Compared to Plato’s focus on Socrates’s wisdom reflected in the dialogue, the Clouds is a distorted interpretation of Socrates’s elenchus. Rather than justifiably criticizing Socrates, Aristophanes depicts him from a common Athenian 's perspective. It is this misunderstanding of the value of Socrates’s teaching by Athenian citizens that constitutes the failure of elenchus in both the Clouds and the Euthyphro.

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

In Plato’s works Apology and Crito there is an attempt by Socrates to defend himself in court and defend his choice to receive the death penalty when found guilty. Although he makes very valid and strong arguments throughout one can only wonder why such a wise person would choose death over life. The following essay will analyze three quotes from Apology and Crito, find the correlation between them, and reveal any flaws that may exsist inside these arguments made by Socrates.

Aristophanes’ play, The Clouds, has an inconsistent message about morality. Morality is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Morality affects our action, thoughts, and what is perceived as good and bad. For the ancient Greeks nomos was the concept of law and moral conduct, while physis was natural behavior. In both plays there were incidents that have a moral argument. In The Cloud, there are scenes where morality is question about what a character is doing. Compared to Euripides’ play, Electra, morality is a key issue. Some people may say that in The Clouds, the moral argument is view differently than in Electra. In this paper I will argue that the concept of what is moral is different yet the same for the characters in both plays and some characters are more vulnerable to having their sense of morality swayed.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

Cleisthenes was the Athenian politician setting the stage of democracy around c.520 BC and to c.400 BC. An opportunist is defined by Oxford dictionaries as: ‘A person who takes advantage of opportunities as and when they arise, regardless of planning or principle’. For many, this sums up the rule of Cleisthenes as he took advantage of the anti-tyrannical movement and of the power he was given to improve the position of himself and his Alcmaeonid family. However, this essay will argue that although Cleisthenes did take advantage of opportunities, he was ultimately very principled in nature and was actually a reactionist. This is to say that he reacted to problems and events that occurred and dealt with them the best he could, rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to better himself, the elite classes or his family.