Compare And Contrast Plato And Socrates

Most of the information that we learn about Socrates comes from the work and writings of one of his students, Plato. It has been alleged that the great Philosopher wrote nothing down for others to read, and as such, the knowledge and the teachings from Socrates that is relied upon to convey his philosophy and the epic story of his life comes not from himself, but his students who attempt to provide and accurate picture of the methods and philosophical beliefs held by their mentor and teacher.

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

Socrates has a unique position in the history of philosophy. On one hand he is the most influential on another he is the least known. In his later life he is seen to stalk the streets barefoot, to spite shoemakers. He went about arguing and questioning people and revealing inconsistencies in their beliefs. He began teaching students but never accepted payments for doing so. This was possible because of the inheritance left by his father. Socrates wrote nothing of himself so we are dependent upon the works of both his students and associates who present a view as close to

Additionally, this work includes “The Allegory of the Cave” in which Socrates discusses that facing truth can be painful but proves far better than entertaining false notions. The entire work defines and discusses Socrates’ method of being a “gadfly” and questioning and pushing others to examine themselves and find wisdom. The Republic provides great insight to the Socratic method and how effective it is when put into

In this paper, I will show why Socrates’ arguments on choosing to stay in prison is better than Crito’s argument. As an inexperienced reader in philosophy, I believe it would be difficult for a reader to choose a side. This is because both sides of their arguments can be easily refuted. Thus, the question to be answered is: Whose argument is more effective? Socrates’ arguments yield to specific scenarios that shows how his action could harm the state of Athens and his future life whereas Crito’s arguments are narrower and geared more to himself. Hence, after meticulous analysis, Socrates made the right decision by staying in prison and not letting Crito convincing him to commit an unjust action.

The conviction of Socrates is the darkest moment in Athenian history. In Crito Socrates argues that it is always in one’s best interest to act justly. He argues that those who voted against him were only voting as they did to do damage to him. He says that they did so without so much as an inclination that their votes would lead to his conviction and execution. Socrates had made a fool of almost every politician and had made many enemies, many of whom considered themselves as the higher echelon of Athens. He had not regarded these “wise” people with the amount of respect that they felt they deserved. He had denounced their wisdom, position, wealth, power, and intelligence publicly. They hated Socrates because of the respect that he was being given by the people of Athens and he wasn’t anyone of status or power. Yet the people followed him and the young men from the aristocratic party listened to him, discussed with him, debated him, and loyally followed his teachings.

Socrates; the founder of Western Philosophy, the first user of the Socratic method and Socratic irony, contributor to the field of ethics, and martyr for teaching what he thought was right. Indeed, Socrates is a household name, yet the picture many hold of Socrates may not be true to who Socrates actually was. Socrates considered himself a teacher and a thinker, not a writer, thus he wrote none of his teachings or thoughts down. As a consequence, the only surviving accounts of Socrates come second hand from his pupils, Plato and Xenophon, and from the playwright Aristophanes. However, it is difficult to tell how much of the Socrates depicted in the works of those men is embellishment or outright fabrication, and how much is truth. This problem, the Socratic Problem, has been troubling historians and philosophers for centuries, and will go on doing so. While the real Socrates may never be known, Socrates the character may be studied extensively through the works of his pupils. Plato’s Symposium depicts Socrates in an informal setting, getting drunk with friends, and offers an opportunity to see Socrates’ character and personality more clearly. While Symposium is set at a party, Socrates is still shown to be a larger-than-life, idealized character, who may have been too brilliant and perfect to be true.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

     “The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living.” This is the famous quote proclaimed by Socrates, a controversial philosopher of ancient Athens. He believed that anyone could lead a significant and meaningful existence by examining his or her own life and ideas very thoroughly. (Soccio)

The philosophical thought is that the mind and body are two separate things; with one being able to exist without the other has caused much discussion and debate among philosophers and theologians over the years. René Descartes and Plato, two well-known philosophers, argue that people have a mind or soul, which is somehow connected with the body, but the mind or soul can exist independently from our body. Descartes introduces the mind-body argument while Plato presents the soul-body argument. Although the arguments differ in some ways, Descartes and Plato also have similar opinions on the issue. As a person of faith, there is some difficulty in explaining to a non-believer that when a person dies, the soul does not perish with the body. While siding with Descartes and his belief in a perfect God, this essay seeks to review the issues of dualism and meditation, through the eyes of Descartes and Plato.

In the various discussions of imitative art there has been a notable disagreement between two distinguished philosophers; Plato and Aristotle. Although it was Plato who first discussed the concept of imitative art, it is my belief that Aristotle was justified in his praise and admiration of imitative art, specifically, the tragic drama. In my discussion on the two philosophers’ dissertations I will begin with the ideas of Plato and his position and requirements for imitative art and its respected uses, after which I will discuss the ideas of Aristotle to show that the tragic

Plato was among the most important and creative thinkers of the ancient world. He was born in Athens in 428 BC to an aristocratic and well-off family. Even as a young child Plato was familiar with political life because his father, Ariston was the last king of Athens. Ariston died when Plato was a young boy. However, the excessive Athenian political life, which was under the oligarchical rule of the Thirty Tyrants and the restored democracy, seem to have forced him to give up any ambitions of political life. In 388 BC he journeyed to Italy and Sicily, where he became the friend of Dionysius the ruler of Syracuse, and his brother-in-law Dion. The following year he returned to Athens, where he devoted his

We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.

Comparing the political theories of any two great philosophers is a complex task. Plato and Aristotle are two such philosophers who had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. While both Plato and Aristotle were great thinkers, perhaps it is necessary first to examine the ideas of each before showing how one has laid the groundwork and developed certain themes for the other.

In ancient Greece, being a philosopher carried various implications, several of which were unfavorable. In a time when natural philosophers were accused for being non-believers in the traditional deities and sophists were defamed for selling their intellectual services for money, Socrates fit in neither category. Nonetheless, the moment Socrates decided to become an enquirer, or a philosopher of human nature, he was chastised. His enemies, men he had either insulted or embarrassed, sought vengeance and in their process to do so, tried to define him. Accused of being an atheist and a corruptor of the youth, Socrates was viewed harshly by the society he lived in, but, despite this, his true nature revealed itself through his words and Plato’s dialogues. His prosecutors aimed to vilify his name and profession, and ultimately sentence him to death, a goal they eventually completed, but the accusations were not definitive of who he was. Socrates was a philosopher, first and foremost, attempting to find the reasons for various phenomenon, but he was also a self-professed prophet, indirectly given a prophecy from the gods, determined to use dialectic to bring about self-awareness in his fellow citizens. His ideologies, thus, became the building blocks for the philosophers of the generations succeeding him.