Good And Good Life In Plato's Life Worth Living?

The Greek philosopher Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Document 1). In this quote, Socrates is saying that people should get out of their comfort zone and live life to the fullest. This line, “Live life to the fullest”, has become popular especially in today’s culture. People today are now willing to do what seems to be uncomfortable to them and what does not seem normal so that they may life their life to the fullest potential. Another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, believed that human reason sets humans apart from other beings and that those who live with reason, are superior to those who do not (Document 2).

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher who lived from 470 BC to 399 BC. Today he is credited with many influential philosophical ideas and quotes, but one in particular “An unexamined life is not worth living”. What Socrates means by this quote is that a life without the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is no life at all. Socrates reflects on this idea to his audience of jurors during his trial. The men of Athens felt threatened by Socrates, believing him spreading his philosophical ideas would disrupt their way of life and order in the city of Athens. During his trial Socrates pleads his ignorance about the world around him and that all he wishes to do is to explore his thought and attempt to gain as much knowledge as he can. Throughout his life Socrates has gained a number of enemies and critics just for being a curious person. He understands this and preaches it to his jurors at the trial explaining to them that he would venture around the city conversing with professionals of a certain craft, not for the purpose of exposing their ignorance of the world around them but to learn for himself along with attempting to teach them to think critically and on their own. Socrates uses the craftsmen as an example in his defense. He explains that he approaches the craftsmen to become more knowledgeable about their profession and that they would be wiser than he was about the subject, he goes on to say “the good craftsmen seemed to me to have the

However, Plato’s philosophy is very unpractical, given that each person has his or her unique combination of qualities and abilities.

“Is the unexamined life worth living?” (The Apology, 2016, para. 48). This question has been asked by people since the time of Socrates. Many people delve into the quandary of this question seeking a greater understanding of their purpose. Often times, people live on the surface and never truly strive for self-examination, whereas others believe it is crucial to deeply examine one’s true self. Every life is worth living. However, the difference between simply existing in an unexamined life versus living life as God intended is momentous. An examined life is lived for the benefit of others more than oneself. Socrates’ question has revealed several different truths, including the value of self-examination, the importance

As the wisest man in all of ancient Greece, Socrates believed that the purpose of life was both personal and spiritual growth. He establishes this conviction in what is arguably his most renowned statement: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Plato's views on life after death were manifold, and developed over time as an examination of a bevy of his literature readily indicates. However, during all phases of his writing he does demonstrate that there is in fact life after physical death, which is widely attributed to his notion of the soul. Plat always viewed the soul as an entity that was distinct from the physical body. Moreover, while the physical body was destined to die, the soul was enduring, interminable, and destined to go on somewhere in some state of being. In just what sort of way the soul would endure was a matter of question, in which at various points in his career as a writer Plato offered different accounts. Yet the most consistent part of this conception of the author's was the fact that the soul was everlasting.

In order to do this, he goes about Athens questioning those he believes to be wiser than him, including politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Upon this questioning, he discovers that even those perceived as the wisest actually know far less than one would expect. Even the craftsmen, who have much practical wisdom in their respective fields, see their success as merely a tribute to their vast knowledge of many subjects. This, Socrates claims, is not true wisdom. Human wisdom can be described as the acknowledgement and acceptance that one does not know everything, nor is one capable of knowing everything. This, however, does not mean that people should sit idly by, never pursuing wisdom, for it is still vital to the attainment of a good life, which should be the ultimate goal of mankind.

In Plato’s Apology and Emerson’s Self Reliance, the belief of the definition of a good life expresses in both pieces. In Apology, Plato tells a scene about a philosopher Socrates who is held for trial because his accusers accuse him of being an evil-doer, claim that he corrupts the youth, and a curious person who makes the worse appear better. Socrates of course disagrees with the accusers and claims that his accuser’s aren’t wise and are investing their time by spreading rumors of what is wrong with him rather than fixing themselves by feeding their souls with knowledge. Similarly in Emerson’s Self Reliance, Emerson expresses his ideas on how a wise individual should devote their life into trusting themselves with their knowledge and not go with what the majority believe in. Although Socrates states that the unwise are the ones who assume they are wise can contradict with Emerson’s idea in believing in yourself because too much faith can lead to ignorance by not taking in more knowledge that’s around you, I claim that Socrates agrees with Emerson’s notion of self- reliance which leads to the good life because both talk about pursuing the good life means to pursue knowledge.

     “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)

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

What is life? This is the one question that to this day still cannot be answered. Over the years millions of people have had there own interpretation of what is means to live. However the quest to answer this rhetorical question goes back to the golden days of Greek civilization when the worlds greatest philosophers first attempted to find the answers to this question. "As his position takes form in the Republic, Plato claims that only a very few individuals are capable of understanding how human life is to be lived. If it could be done, the rest of us would be best off it we were to let out lives be controlled by such individuals". This position held by Plato has been one of much discussion and disagreement over the years. In this paper I

Everyone has a life to live; however, there are quite different between the unexamined life and the examined life. In the word of Socrates,” The unexamined life, for a human, is not worth living”, “the unexamined life” means people have no question, they never question the life, and they don’t want to know about the truth, and they don’t know who they are. Those people just get up every day, go to work and go to sleep, keep repeating these and never wonder what is the meaning of their life. On the other hand, the examined life is that people always searching for reasons, they know who they are, and they know who they want to be and keep working hard, try to improve themselves. Therefore, the unexamined life is not worth living because they

"An unexamined life is not worth living."  (Plato, trans. 1871, pa.68)   As Socrates stands against the court, on his final moments, he stands against his firm beliefs, and his insubordinate teachings.  He feels that it is his mission, by God, and his purpose, to seek for this truth within both himself, and other men.  It is often asked what makes life worth living?  In the eyes of Socrates, this 'unexamined life' is one who lives with ignorance, and is not willing to live through experiences, and constantly searches for the truth.  Both self-reflective and self-critical, they walk on a path that seeks for answers to the bigger (and sometimes smaller) questions.  The thirst for knowledge and, through examining his own life, encouraging and reflecting on others' lives, and being critical of those who do not examine their own, Socrates drew to the assumption that an unexamined life is certainly just not worth living.

I will first examine Plato’s ethics. Plato was a philosopher who was both a rationalist and absolutist. According to his view, people must be schooled to acquire certain kinds of knowledge i.e. mathematics, philosophy and so forth. This training will give them the capacity to know the nature of the good life. Since, evil is due to lack of knowledge.