Essay on Plato Vs Socrates

Polus disagrees and claims that there are many people who have done wrong that are happy and that to experience discomfort from punishment is not happiness (Gorgias, 470). Socrates still persists that those who do evil are unhappy, but Polus retorts by citing a tyrant as an example of one who has done wrong but is happy (Gorgias, 473). Polus talks about a tyrant who killed his young nephew in order to gain power and then argues that by having so much power this tyrant is now happier than he was before (Gorgias, 473). Socrates disagrees and says that he is in fact unhappy due to the shame he feels for the terrible acts he has committed in order to attain his power and that he holds a lot of guilt inside him for what he has done (Gorgias, 476). Socrates then goes on about why those who commit evil and shameful and crimes and then escape punishment are the least happiest of all.

Socrates then tries to refute this by examining Polemarchus' thought processes. He asks the question of how one can tell if someone is good or bad, as well as how can a just man do harm to another. The two agree that Polemarchus' views do not truly define justice.

In this paper, I will be discussing harm, specifically in the view of Socrates as depicted in Plato’s The Apology of Socrates. I will discuss the various instances in which Socrates weighs in on what harm means and I will make the claim that Socrates’ definition of harm is ambiguous yet targeted at preserving his own sense of pride; and I will defend that claim.

Plato is remembered as one of the worlds best known philosophers who along with his writings are widely studied. Plato was a student of the great Greek philosopher Socrates and later went on to be the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s writings such as “The Republic”, “Apology” and “Symposium” reveal a great amount of insight on what was central to his worldview. He was a true philosopher as he was constantly searching for wisdom and believed questioning every aspect of life would lead him to the knowledge he sought. He was disgusted with the common occurrence of Greeks not thinking for themselves but simply accepting the popular opinion also known as doxa. Plato believed that we ought to search for and meditate on the ideal versions of beauty, justice, wisdom, and other concepts which he referred to as the forms. His hostility towards doxa, theory of the forms, and perspective on reality were the central ideas that shaped Plato’s worldview and led him to be the great philosopher who is still revered today.

Now let us take a look into the background of the story. Plato gives his ideals on a perfect society and everything it should include. He basically implies that justice is rightness, and rightness is whatever he feels it should be. He breaks society down into guardians, wage earners, and auxiliaries. Wage earners are people such as surgeons or shoemakers.

How will this happiness be accomplished? It will be accomplished by making the State just. Plato believes that justice for the individual consists in fulfilling one’s proper role – realizing one’s potential while not doing what is contrary to one’s nature. This is also true for justice in the State. Each class and each individual has a specific set of obligations to the community that will result in a harmonious whole if everyone fulfills them.

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

If we believe that the one who does good for one's soul participates in a life of true happiness, then Socrates is correct. By harming others, we are truly harming ourselves, destroying our chances for happiness and the good. It is an interesting point, however, that although Socrates claims that no one knowingly does wrong, is he not crediting his accusers, such as Meletus, with the evil intention of trying to unjustly put Socrates to death?

Polus can't believe this claim and asks Socrates why it is that he would rather suffer injustice than inflict it. Socrates says that he believes that, "…doing what's unjust is actually the greatest of evils." If we are going too morally suffer for deeds that we saw fit, it is actually worse than suffering at the hands of someone else. By inflicting injustice on others we do not use our power intelligently and morally hurt ourselves, and therefore are

Socrates would rather be punished or die before he breaks the laws that were set forth by his state, and this he says later in the same passage, “I should run any risk on the side of law and justice rather than join you. (Cahn pg. 38 Apology b10-c2).”

Plato had some views that seemed realistic to society while others to me seemed to be unjust for the people. According to Plato everyone by nature has their own function and in order to make an ideal state they each need to serve that role and only that. They are not permitted to do more than one thing or venture off of what they are suited best to do. These roles are people that are motivated by three

He writes, “when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then [the soul] has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and seems to have no intelligence” (Book VI, p. 25). By establishing opinion as the opposite to the ultimate good, and by definition, the ultimate evil, he criticizes the use of rhetoric and persuasion while praising to his long-winded, circuitous form of writing. By continually asking questions and telling parables, Plato avoids direct advocation of his beliefs and allows his readers to discover the truth for themselves, rather than to be coerced through eloquent language.

In my eyes Plato is describing how the society today is full of “unenlightenment” or ignorance and how we as a culture have been conformed to accepted ways and if we were to step away from these accustomed ways we would be casted out and ridiculed by our peers. According to Swapnil

In his book called THE REPUBLIC he tell us that the “Good”is the end of all endeavour,it is the object on which every heart is set,so this good according to him has a form,infact all the abstract ideas like good, justice ,beauty ,love etc has an ideal form according to plato.This form exist outside of space and time.This form remains permanent and is real.All that we see around us

Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in