From the works of Plato to the views of Socrates, the definition of justice has been argued and disputed by the wisest. Socrates believed that justice was good and discovered a universal good; therefore every man is capable of finding good. Good exists as happiness, determined by what we value most. What lies in the midst of our thoughts, that an “unexamined life” is acceptable? Through the use of questioning we begin to break down the walls of ignorance and live a life that is worth living.
In 399 B.C., three Athenian citizens brought a public charge against Socrates, which is seen throughout the book, The Apology. Like all other Greeks, specifically the Athenians believed that the gods would damn the entire city if people went against
…show more content…
The politicians, poets, and artisans were perplexed at his continual questions that they failed to realize that they had no wisdom; they didn’t realize their ignorance. Refusing to stay quiet, even after his conviction, say states that he would rather die than give up philosophy saying that, “an unexamined life is not worth living.” He could have chosen life in prison or exile – examining the world around him – but without his “examined life” there is no point.
How should we live? What is the goal of living? What is the knowledge we lack? Good things are contributed from happiness. Real wisdom is seen through happiness, in the way we value things. Everything else we value is what we account as good, valuing them because we believe it coincides with happiness. What is an unexamined life? An unexamined life is a life that does not question. A foundation is formed when we begin to question what is seen and see what is virtuous and excellent. Socrates refused to consider living an unexamined life because he wanted to show people the ignorance that foreshadows their mind. The game of illusion – knowledge that is not beneficial, leading to the wrong reality of what is important. The Socratic Method mirrors the questions, leading to reality of what is important.
The Socratic Method is not available to mold individuals into conformity, enhancing self-esteem. According to Scott Greenfield, it’s not about wisdom either – we all think of ourselves as wise, but
Socrates was a Western Ancient Athenian Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BCE until his death in 399 BCE. He was a student to another philosopher, Sophists, Socrates was different from most Greek philosophers he wanted to get at the truth and find out how one can truly be ‘good’ and moral in life. “To Socrates the soul is identified with the mind; it is the seat of reason and capable of finding the ethical truths, which will restore meaning and value of life” (ADD IN-TEXT CITATION SEMINAR). We continue to use many of Socrates teachings today, such as, ‘The Socratic method’, which is known as asking a question and within these questions you lead it to the answer you wanted to hear, many uses this as a teaching technique and is shown to be highly effective. A great number of Athenians looked up to Socrates and considered him the wise man of Athens, he had many followers whom would ask questions and seek answers. As popularity and following of Socrates grew so did accusations. The charges laid on Socrates by the Athenians were unjust and therefore his death was highly wrong in the eyes of true democracy that Athens was apparently known for. In this paper, I will discuss how Socrates was wrongfully convicted for the corruption of the youth despite having many young followers, introducing new Gods while still being considered an Atheist, and the main reason he was seen as a threat to Athens was that he brought change to the city.
The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.
Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.
Socrates is charged for not regarding the gods correctly, creating new deities and corrupting the youth of Athens, so he
* But he says the unexamined life is not worth living (does not want to live without philosophy)
To add context to my response, I shall give a brief description of the Socratic method. According to the textbook, the Socratic method is “ a conversational method that proceeds by means of a series of questions and answers…” (Text). The goal of this method is to force the person being questioned to evaluate their originally inadequate responses and to work toward clearer answers brought on by thinking more deeply about what is being asked. This method allows a person to grow not by being given the answers, but by
Book II of The Republic by Plato showcases the two very different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that justice is desirable for its own sake and, additionally, the consequences that it provides. In the defense of justice, Socrates begins to explain that justice is a virtue that needs to be found in the individual as well as the state. Socrates believes that true happiness can only exist with a true set of virtues that are justice and respectable morals. Socrates’ assumption is on the fact that a man committing unjust actions will never be able to have complete satisfaction with his life if he has achieved everything through unjust actions because he cannot fully claim his accomplishments. Through examination of the assumptions of both arguments presented, Glaucon’s opinion on justice is superior to the views of Socrates. Glaucon’s presumptuous claim that humans are innately greedy is able to provide an understanding that justice is only a social contract for the weaker people of society by handicapping the strength of the
There has been a drastic change in the way we perceive the world and this can alter the way we see each other. We tend to jump onto a bandwagon because it seems easiest or because of one personal scenario. This is one of the main causes for prejudice and injustice. How a person reacts to being oppressed may bring out another side of them, but this side is their true self. This reaction speaks of his or her morals, ethics, and values. To these people, all the perpetrators appear the same, but it is known that while some may easily go along with it, some may choose to stand above it all. The concepts referenced to earlier will be soon elaborated on in further analysis as this essay goes on.
Unlike many other disciplines and ways of studying the world, the philosophical approach can vary from person to person and take many shapes, without restricting itself to one specific method at all time. That quality alone has given enormous freedom and variation to the work of many great philosophers, even on the subject of philosophy. To this end, we now turn our attention to Socrates and Voltaire, two of the great philosophers and their concerns and though on philosophy.
Socrates lived most of his life constantly examining his own ideas and character. He saw such self-examination, whether conducted by himself or conversation with partners, to be the greatest good of a life worth living. Socrates' focus was to determine how to become a better human being. In this Socratic perspective, the quality and persistence of the attention we pay to living an examined life is at the heart of living well. Examining anything will result in understanding it. As for that Socrates quote "The unexamined life is not worth living". To me, that means to understand what you are living for is more important than actually living. Understanding yourself, your choices, and why you make those choices; Understanding others that influence you or are influenced by you. Truly understanding what you're doing in your lives endeavors are all things that would make your life "examined". Living an unexamined life would consist of never asking questions to help obtain knowledge to be intelligent instead of being completely ignorant to the world around you. However in this current society, knowledge seeking students are fed ideas and frameworks of interpretations, and attitudes about life and subjects
This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”
The term “philosophy” means the love of wisdom, and those that study philosophy attempt to gain knowledge through rationality and reason. 1 Socrates, the father of ancient philosophy, once stated “the unexamined life is not worth living”. This is the most important part of life and it is need to find purpose and value in life. If a person chooses to live their life without examination, their life would lack value and they would be unhappy. They would also be ignorant to the effects of their choices on themselves and the people around them.
In 399 BC, Socrates was executed on charges of not believing in the same Gods as Athenians, and for being a bad influence on the young. Were these charges just and fair? No, they were not. Socrates was not guilty of these charges. In fact, in the presence of his accusers, Socrates proved that he was an innocent man and was simply in the process of carrying out his mission to share truth in an attempt to improve the lives of his neighbors. Though with no avail, Socrates was still found guilty of crimes with corrupted evidence.
Socrates, a Greek philosopher, once said that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38b). Like Socrates, Albert Camus believed that a man needs to live meaningfully.
Socrates, in skepticism, began a search for those with a reputation of wisdom. After studying men and their knowledge, he reasoned that the only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing. Although one may have extensive understanding in one area, there is way too much knowledge in the world to be contained by one man. Socrates stated, “I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish, and that some inferior men were really wiser and better” (Plato, 23). Those who believed that they knew it all could not be more ignorant, and those who admitted ignorance achieved the highest wisdom attainable on earth. Socrates accepted the idea that he, just like all men, contained very little or no wisdom at all. He was content with knowing this, and upon meeting others that lacked this philosophy, felt he was superior to them. He was unsure of the limitations the afterlife had on wisdom, but he was aware of it’s constraints on earth. This self awareness is what gifted him with the highest sense of enlightenment.