The Similarities Between Socrates And Moore

Today, everybody is seeking success. Success comes from different factors. Some of those factors are individual which can be decided by people, such as dedicating ten thousand hours of practice or having a growth mindset. But some of those factors cannot be controlled. Those factors cannot be decided by the people, or predicted by them in anyway. The Other Wes Moore is a story about two boys with similar backgrounds and similar situations, growing up in similar neighborhoods. .Wes Moore offers his readers a clear insights into how success can be affected by both individual and uncontrollable factors such as culture legacy, growth, fixed mindset, and meaning of life.

“A person’s a person, no matter how small” (136). The ethics of abortion has been argued emotionally for many years. In The Unaborted Socrates (Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1983), Peter Kreeft approaches this important debate using fictional characters and a logic based argument. Socrates, the great ethical philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece in about 400 BC, returns in the present day (then 1983) to challenge the pro-Choice position of an abortion doctor, an ethicist and a psychologist. The result is a thoroughly logical and entertaining exposure of flaws in the pro-choice platform. The author organizes the debate of this serious moral issue -- is abortion murder -- by engaging Socrates in three dialogs. In each dialog Socrates questions a pro-choice representative about his beliefs. In each case, Socrates shows his opponent the fallacy of his position using the opponent's own words. Socrates mission is to “follow the common master” (20), using rational thought to follow the argument wherever it leads. The Unaborted Socrates draws the reader into questioning thoughts of all human beings having the right to live, the harm and evil of liberal abortion laws, and being pro-choice or pro-force.

Plato claims in his text The Phaedrus that all souls are immortal. He states that “every soul is immortal, for that which is always changing is immortal” (1), and that “since it does not come into being, it also necessarily does not perish” (1). This perfectly illustrates Plato’s claim as he explains that a soul is at every moment changing itself from within and since it is capable of changing itself, it will never stop changing. Furthermore, because the soul is a source of change, it must also be an origin. This means that the soul cannot be created or come into being, and consequently cannot perish. As a result, the soul must be immortal, for it will never ceases to exist. On this subject, Lewis would completely agree with Plato’s claim. According to the text The Three Parts of Morality by C.S.

The similarities between these two are most evident in their desire for freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted freedom from segregation and Plato wanted freedom from ignorance. They both wanted justice, and knew that it was immoral to take deny another being justice. For example, Plato has said,

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

Meno was a student of Gorgias, and he has a long discussion with Socrates about what virtue is. Socrates and Meno wonder if virtue can be taught, Meno proposes that it may be a result of practice or an inherent trait, but before they can answer that question they first need to agree on what virtue is. Meno makes multiple attempts at a description of virtue and Socrates points out potential problems. A definition of virtue is not settled, which leads to the discussion about the problem of learning. If neither or them know what virtue is then how will they know if they find it. Plato describes this ongoing discussion between Socrates and Meno.

In 469 B.C. a man by the name of Socrates was born. Socrates was a very wise man that cared about doing the right thing. He believed that the best ways to develop ideas was in the give and take of conversation, and that the best way to educate people was to ask them a series of questions leading in a particular direction (now named “Socrates method). Socrates had been quick to identify the drawbacks of democracy, and he had also been the teacher of two men who in different ways harmed Athens: Alcibiades and Critias. Which made the parents of the children that Socrates had taught very upset and angry. Granting all this, it lead to the Trial of Socrates 399 B.C. During this trial Socrates expressed his view of death by using his question-and-answer method, for which he was famous for and what seemed to have gotten him in trouble. Socrates did not write so we have to depend on on what others wrote, and by doing that we now get to see the diverse ways people read and understand what was written about his speech. My chosen primary source, Socrates View on Death, is important, because it gives one view of Socrates speech while my outside source, Ancient Greece, gives a slightly more in depth view.

To begin the comparison between these two authors, I will first examine Moore’s ideology. As it is obviously stated in the title of his book, Moore is not exactly subtle person.

There is no doubt to the fact that Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. had similar characteristics—whether it be their willingness to make the public aware or their passion to do what was right to them. But to say that Martin Luther King Jr. is a twentieth century Socrates does not seem fit to par. The way I will attempt for you to understand this will proceed as follows: I will first explain each of our character’s stories, perhaps heavily implicating some of their most distinct characteristics that can be discovered from the text. I will proceed to include their similarities, as well as their differences. Then I will attempt to explain both subjects’ profession/title, and comment on how the two may have similar things they want to

He goes on to explain that an agitator or reformers purpose is to influence public opinion, especially on moral standings. They are to act as a balancing act for the more “responsible” and vote-driven politicians, “The agitator is necessary to a republican commonwealth; he is a counterweight to sloth and indifference.” Hofstadter states, that Phillips had an immense mission towards moral progression and believed that there was no higher office than expressing and influencing the moral standing of the general public to put a good foot forward towards our future as a country. Agitators and politicians go hand in hand

Activists fought for what the believed in like Malala Yousafzai, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr who fought for what they believed in. The one who first started all this activism was Jane Addams (1860-1935). Jane Addams was the national chairman for the woman's peace party. But then was Gandhi, he said that you should fight your Enemies with peace, not with violence. But he had died on January 30, 1948. Later was Martin Luther king jr.

Socrates in this section does put forth a compelling argument if you agree to all of the terms in his premises. I would first like to ponder what he means by the term ‘opposites’. Although, smaller and larger are comparative states, it does not seem convincing that being asleep and being awake area or being dead and being alive are. Even though the processes of becoming larger or smaller are logical; I can concede something can be a bit larger or a bit smaller; they can come from each other and are opposites. One can make the same object bigger and smaller and there is variation and comparison there however, you cannot make something a little bit dead or a little bit alive, it is either one or the other. Additionally, you cannot go back and

To compare Socrates and MLKs conclusions is much easier. They are both fighting for their society’s to be more just. Willing to do unjust acts to make that desire become a reality, which of course falls under the category of just disobedience. Socrates goes before a jury (knowing that some sort of penalty is going to come his way, weather he knew it was death nobody knows) demanding the truth and calling out the individuals on the council that sit before him. Very much knowing that he was going to make his penalty much worse by doing so. Martin Luther King, protests in Bringham Alabama and is thrown into jail for standing up for what he believes in; once again knowing that by standing up for his civil rights, repercussions will follow. One

     Socrates was wise in respect to the fact that he never accepted a “truth” that was told to him, without getting incontestable evidence to back it up. He made the realization that people believed in things without even knowing where their ideas came from. In ancient Athens, citizens believed in many gods and myths associated with them.

Socrates is known in today’s world as one of the greatest philosophers in history. Born in 469 BC just outside of Athens, Socrates was properly brought up and thoroughly educated, he developed both physical and mental strengths. Socrates spent time with the philosopher Archelaus, where he studied astronomy, mathematics, and was introduced to philosophy. Archelaus taught with a scientific approach. Socrates turned from this approach and created his own. He decided instead of trying to understand the universe, he would try to understand himself. Socrates spent many days in the Athens marketplace where he became skilled in the art of arguing.