What Creates An Idea Group, And Group Levels And Virtues

     What is groupthink? There is a simple definition for it, but is it truly that simple? The term groupthink refers to the inclination of group members to have the same opinions and beliefs; it frequently leads to mistakes. It often occurs without an individual being aware of it. Conflict is considered to be a harmful element when related to groups, but conflict is good when considering groupthink because it helps to eliminate the existence of a groupthink. The explanation sounds simple enough, but it is more complex than the description given.

In evaluating Socrates ' success in arguing against Thrasymachus ' account, it is imperative to begin by appreciating Socrates ' intentions and the place of Thrasymachus ' account within that goal. As the literary director of Republic, Plato is well-positioned to articulate any arguments contained in Republic to his advantage, and I suggest that he very much does. Further, although Socrates is but Plato 's literary vehicle in Republic, for the sake of clarity I shall attribute and refer to arguments and views expressed throughout as belonging to Socrates.

In the conclusion, Socrates explains virtue is a gift from the gods that everyone should have it. An alternation to saying virtue is knowledge. Based on the reading, virtue is a true opinion. Subsequently, true opinion needs to be tied down to be knowledge. Still, true opinion is as valuable as knowledge, if it is dependable. Socrates says that we still have not scrutinized what virtue truly is.

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

Towards the end of Meno, Socrates states that knowledge differs from true opinion in its ability to last over long periods of time. Socrates acknowledges that in many ways, knowledge and true opinion are equal; since both are certainly true, they lead to correct action without distinction. For example, in the passage Socrates compares a man who knows the way to Larisa to one who has a right opinion about the directions but has never actually been there, concluding that both would be equally competent guides. However, knowledge is, he argues, “fastened by the tie of the cause,” meaning one who has knowledge of a certain statement has grounded that truth in explanations and reasoning. Earlier in Meno, Socrates

Dismissing your own individual opinions to reach group consensus, now that’s negative peer pressure! Peer pressure will always be a problem and can affect anyone. I say that because no matter where you’re from or who you are, peer pressure is lurking about. Anytime you’re pressured to do something and your conscience is telling you not to do it, and you follow through with the task anyway, that is dismissing your opinion just to please other group members. Not wanting to be ostracized by others is the basis of conformity. Peer pressure doesn’t discriminate against race, nationality, or social class. It’s like a plague waiting to spread like wildfire throughout your school, your

Everyone knows that Greeks invented democracy, but it was not democracy as we know it now-days. The charges that were made to Socrates would be ridiculous today, but in Ancient Greece, they were legitimate crimes. At that time, speaking of other gods, having different ideologies, disagreeing with Athenian politicians, etc. were seen as unacceptable. Socrates was believed to be that kind of man. Plato and Xenophon, two of Socrates students, claimed that because of Socrates openly criticized of Athenian politicians made him gain many enemies. Not to mention that at that time Ancient Greece went through a time of war, famine, loss, and plague. There was crisis in Athens and Socrates came in with his new teachings. Many of Athens thought that his teaching were corrupting the youth, the only people that could now bring Athens forward (cam.ac.uk). But were the accusations true? Was Socrates actually innocent? I believe he was. Three reasons why I believe Socrates was innocent was because Socrates did believe in Athenian gods, he didn’t actually corrupt the youth, and many of the bad things said of Socrates were rumors.

Socrates' belief on majority opinion was that it did not have much power even though he personally wished it did. Crito believes that the public has an unlimited amount of power when working together and gives the example of Socrates' death sentence, but Socrates contradicts Crito's statement by exclaiming that if the public had an infinte amount of power to do bad then they would have an infinite amount of power to do good. Therefore, in believing that majority opinion does not have an true power, Socrates says that there is not a way that the public can persuade a man to be smart or foolish, but that it is all up to chance when it comes to making the final decision.

Plato creates a seemingly invincible philosopher in The Republic. Socrates is able to refute all arguments presented before him with ease. The discussion on justice in Book I of The Republic is one such example. Socrates successfully refutes each different view of justice presented by Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. Socrates has not given us a definitive definition of justice, nor has he refuted all views of justice, but as far as we are concerned in Book I, he is able to break down the arguments of his companions.

In the Apology Socrates is accused of being a sophist. A sophist is someone who will argue for any cause using rhetoric for money, a sophist makes a weak argument strong. Socrates disputes this accusation, he claims that if he is guilty he simply is ignorant of it. In the Republic, Socrates has a dialogue with various people with one main objective, to determine what is justice. Following the dialogue, the reader can start to see that Socrates is not a sophist. His arguments seemed to be weak but is strengthened by Socrates use of rhetoric. However, his arguments are logical, he isn’t arguing just for fun, and he is not being paid. Socrates is not a sophist. He is a great speaker and uses rhetoric to his advantage, that does not make him a

As people, when confronted with a problem where a solution must be found, our ideal situation is to come up with the best possible one. To do this, we ideally gather the most knowledgeable, intelligent individuals into a group and attempt to derive the best solution to the problem. With the collection of these people, one would think that finding the best possible answer to the problem would be a rather simple task. However, what has happened in many situations is the complete opposite. Rather than finding the best possible solutions, many ideal, cohesive groups arrive at the worst possible answer largely due to problems in communication within the group. This is what we call the radical theory of

Socrates argues that he must remain in prison and accept his death sentence because he feels he has benefitted from the society he lives in. He feels he has benefitted from its security, having the ability to raise a family, and being employed. Making Socrates believe because of this he has obligations to comply with the laws of the society he chose to live in for so long. Socrates states an opinion of an expert is more important than the opinion of the majority, using someone in training as an example (Farrell, n.d.). This person doesn’t pay attention to the advice of the general public but pays attention to his trainer (Farrell, n.d.). If the person did listen to public opinion (take steroids, eat anything they want, or train 10 hours a day),

In the first episode of the online series “Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness”, Alain de Botton focuses on Socrates and his philosophy toward self-confidence. When identifying with the Socratic thought process, culturally, it is the most influential catalyst in history. I say “catalyst” because once one starts to develop the Socratic thought process, they cannot stop sharing their new philosophies with friends until they come to fruition. Yet, obtaining the self-confidence to question the norm is the head of revolutions, legislation, politics, etc. Socrates was not a fan of democracy for the reason many of us choose not bleach our hair or wear the newest Jordan sneakers… because everyone else was. If majority rules every decision where is the

The Republic is divided into many books. Book 1 is set typically in the form of an early dialogue. The central theme of our study begins in Book 2 wherein Socrates attempts to hash out an elaborate positive theory of justice which continues till the end of The Republic. In particular, in Book VIII, Socrates prepares to discuss four types of unjust constitutions, namely, timocracy, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. These arguments are

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid