Wise Man Vs Socrates

I believe Socrates and Voltaire had the same view of the relation between reason and religion. To both philosophers religion was not the same as faith, but a matter of reason.

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

Another way in which Socrates shows his wisdom, and gains my vote for innocent, is through simple things he says to the jury during his trial. He tells them that he knows that the jury is biased, and that he already expects to loose. Near the end of his speech, Socrates also states “you would have liked to hear me weep and wail, doing and saying all sorts of things which I regard as unworthy of myself, but which you are used to hearing from other people.”

Finally i will have to tell you who is this man you are falsely accusing today. Even though we all, men of Athens, hates Socrates’s way of seeing and doing things and the way he embarrassed our greatest men of Athens in public. But the past had proven to us that he is a good wise man that rarely been mistaken in term of what was good for Athens. Moreover, one event that we cant forget is the trail of the 8 Generals where he oppose the exception of the 8 men. Even though he was threaten to take the same fate as theirs. Athenian thought he was crazy back then and ordered to execute the 6 Generals they have at hand and the same fate awaits for those who fled. However, few years later Athens needed as much strong men as they can get so they dropped

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.

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

In order to determine whether or not Socrates was wise about God, we must first define the term “wise” in this context. What is the definition of wisdom? What makes someone wise? The literal meaning, or etymology, of the word is derived from the Indo-European stem woid which means to see. It also relates to similar words such as the Greek idein and the Latin videre, both also meaning “to see” (Mohr, pg. 3). Whereas, in English and Germanic languages the verb “wit” took on the meaning of knowing, because of the likeness to knowing to seeing, and thus resulting in the modern word “wisdom” which is defined as a type of knowledge (Mohr, pg. 3). So, the literal meaning of wisdom is to see and to know, which typically means same they are substitute of each other. As I mentioned above that wisdom is a type of knowledge, then what is knowledge? It is defined as a union of the consciousness of a subject, the knower, and an object, the thing known by means of an idea. Similarly, vision is a union between a seer and a thing seen by means of an image. (Mohr, Pg. 3). But, there are two kinds of knowledge. There is theoretical knowledge, such as knowledge of what love is, and there is practical knowledge, such as knowing how to love somebody. Wisdom could be described as a union between these two kinds of knowledge.

In Plato’s Meno, there are many arguments Socrates and Meno encounter. They never seem to find a common ground and that leads to disagreements. The disagreements seem to never become an agreement because not only does Socrates makes it so difficult to give a definition of a word that he thinks is suitable but Meno is just letting him change his mind about his definition. The argument does not just consist on if knowledge an opinion can be taught, they argue that knowledge can be the only way to find correct actions, but opinion can also mean the same. Meno brings up a question, “ What makes Knowledge so prized than correct opinion.” Socrates answers with an example of Daedalus and when he uses a slave for example. That a slave will still

One piece of advice offered by Epictetus that Socrates would agree with is that “if you want to make progress, let people think you are a mindless fool about externals, and do not desire a reputation for knowing about them” (#13). Socrates does not try to convince others that he has supreme knowledge or expertise, nor does he have the desire too. However, since the oracle proclaimed that Socrates is the wisest of all men, he repeatedly proves to pompous individuals that they are not wise, even though they think they are. Socrates is considered so wise because he consciously admits what he doesn’t know, rather than lying to himself like most other men (Apology, 22 d-e).

Meno, written by Plato, is a dialogue between two men, Socrates and Meno, which discusses the nature of virtue. At the end of the dialogue, Socrates suggests that a man’s virtuous actions can be derived from either knowledge or true opinion. Meno then wonders how knowledge and true opinion are different if both concepts can produce identical results. Socrates answers with an analogy, which provides a valid and sound argument about why he believes knowledge to be more valuable than true opinion.

In page 7, Socrates starts by questioning Meletus about the living area of people. Miletus believes that Socrates “corrupting and deteriorating the youth” intentionally, so he charges Socrates. But according to Socrates’ query, nobody is willing to get the bad influence “intentionally”. Besides, Socrates never corrupt anyone. Even if he has, he does it unintentionally. Therefore, Socrates states that Meletus’ charge of him is illogical. “You hated to converse with me or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.” He believes that he is not guilty. Even if he is, he should not come to this court and facing the charges.

In Gorgias, Plato presents a series of conversations Socrates has with Gorgias and Callicles that explore oratory and the rules of law and nature. Socrates’ criticism of oratory and espousement of the rule of law imply a dislike for democracy, but for different reasons than Callicles’ dislike. Through these conversations, Plato suggests that democracy is actually a rule of nature with orators as the superiors.

Socrates and Machiavelli are both very influential philosophers and two of the great minds of their time. However, both of these men had their own separate ideas that did not completely agree with one another. Machiavelli was born into a Renaissance time period of fragmented politics, lots of bloodshed, and angry citizens while Socrates grew up in a time of political adjustment and instability in Athens. Machiavelli constructed The Prince as a political pamphlet to his friend Lorenzo de ' Medici on how a prince would successfully rule his land or kingdom most effectively. This guide consisted of ideas that involved cheating and lying to keep people happy and asserting dominance over others. The Greek philosopher Socrates, on the other

Plato goes a long way in attempting to distinguish Socrates from the likes of Protagoras, a self admitted sophist. In Protagoras, Socrates is depicted as a street smart, wisdom dispensing young man, brash with confidence and a bit of arrogance that goes a long way when confronted with the old school rhetoric of Protagoras. Plato begins to separate the two at the hip right from the get go. The dialogue between Socrates and his inquisitive friend Hippocrates went a long way to show that Socrates had more questions than answers about Protagoras, the sophist, especially when it came to talk about what it is exactly that he offers. Socrates' companion is eager to hear the words of

Socrates knew that he would be convicted and sentenced to death, so his speech on death was not foolish. He was just addressing the inevitable. He says that a man of any worth does not think of life and death or of anything except whether he is acting as a good or bad man. Socrates does not fear death, "for no one knows whether death may not be the greatest good that can happen to man. But men fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils."(24) Socrates was borderline foolish when he discussed his political career and how he was ill suited for it because was just and made his decisions accordingly. This was a thinly veiled allusion to the