Plato and Aristotle Essay

According to Socrates one of the most important things that identify with human being is their desire. Socrates argues that desire that can change people minds quickly and very abnormally. The three-part division of the soul is crucial to Plato’s overall project of offering the same sort of explication of justice whether applied to societies or individuals.

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

Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.

Plato was a philosopher who was born in Athens (470-390 BCE), and was also a student of Socrates. He felt that intelligence and one’s perception belonged to completely independent realms or realities. He believed that general concepts of knowledge were predestined, or placed in the soul before birth even occurred in living things. Plato believed that the cosmos was intelligible, and the the universe was mathematically understandable. He believes that mathematical objects could be seen as perfect forms. Forms, a doctoral of Plato, can be understood as an everyday object or idea, which does not, exists in the everyday realm, but merely is existent in the hypothetical realm or reality.

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

In Plato’s Republic, there are a several key passages including “The Good”, “The Sun”, “The Divided Line”, “The Cave”, “The Summoners”, “ The Curriculum”, and “The Model Recruit” that help us better understand the four main points of this reading. The four main points are intelligibility, the good, and dialectic and how these things make people more moral individuals.

Plato assists the readers by stating in the republic when one is challenged with the appetitive soul questions will rise. Each time an individual questions the desires of the appetitive soul the answer will be yes. This question and answer is what drives Tranquinius to complete his shame

To begin a discussion upon Plato’s use of the sentence, “the unexamined life [is not] worth living for a human being,” in the Apology, it should first and foremost have its principle parts defined. The two key parts which seek clarification in this sentence are that of “unexamined” and “worth living.” It will be through the context of these two constituent elements that we shall seek the verisimilitude which underlies the statement that an “unexamined life [is not] worth living.”

In order to explain the fundamentals of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, one must acknowledge his primary motive in this study, which is to understand what it means to live well. Unlike

In Plato’s Pheadrus, Plato separates the psyche into three parts the first part - reason (nous) - which holds the virtue of wisdom, the second - spiritedness (thumos) - which is responsible for the virtue of courage/animation, and the final part - desire or passion - which can exhibit the virtue of motivation when balanced by self-moderation.

In the following text, I will argue why Plato believes the desires of the body are so problematic. Plato’s teacher, Socrates, believed in this notion as well, by trying his best to keep his feelings and emotions from interfering with his pursuit of wisdom. I will also explain in what ways the desires of the body stem from ignorance and how Socrates’ solution to this created tension between philosophy and his city. Although Socrates never wrote anything down, his student, Plato, wrote about several situations Socrates was faced with and how he dealt with them. In The Republic, written by Plato during the induction of his teacher the reader can clearly decipher the the personality, wit, and wisdom that Socrates possessed. Socrates was very concerned with social and ethical issues, he believed that people were too filled with pride, conceit, and the beliefs they clinged on to in order to retain an order of sense, identity, and security. These characteristics, to Socrates, were all the desires of the body that led people towards gaining faulty logic. Socrates challenged all of the preconceived opinions of the day in Greece, which created tension between him and his city.

The words are critical of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies. Machiavelli alludes that the human motive is to get pleasure and satisfaction and to have power to rule over people. On the other hand, Plato says that the human nature remains unchanged because people are good when circumstances are at par with their wishes; however, they stop being good when the circumstances cease to suit them. Machiavelli criticizes Plato’s philosophy using the illustration of the prince. He is not entitled to be loved by the people; rather, he is to be feared as long as it does not translate to hatred and also, fulfills his political ambition. He says that virtues are not judged by theoretical reason but by practical reason. Besides, people are always weak and unstable, and subject to whim and passion; therefore, political life commands that the strong to suppress the weak in the gladiatorial arena to attain preferential access to limited resources.

Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the

The exact birthdate of Plato is unknown. Based on ancient sources, most modern scholars estimate that he was born in Athens or Aegina[b] between 428 and 427 BC[a] His father was Ariston. According to a disputed tradition, reported by Diogenes Laertius, Ariston traced his descent from the king of Athens, Codrus, and the king of Messenia, Melanthus.[4] Plato's mother was Perictione, whose family boasted of a relationship with the famous Athenian lawmaker and lyric poet Solon.[5] Perictione was sister of Charmides and niece of Critias, both prominent figures of the Thirty Tyrants, the brief oligarchic regime, which followed on the collapse of Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian war (404-403 b.c.e.).[6] Besides Plato

tragedy, he is somewhat lacking in his descriptions of how tragedy is enjoyed by an