| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "CONVERSATIONS THRASYMACHUS SOCRATES": |
|
|
Conversations of Thrasymachus and Socrates, 2007.
This paper analyzes Thrasymachus' conversations with Socrates regarding justice.
1,096 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer explains that total skepticism is easily the frame of mind in which Thrasymachus wallows at the end of many portions of his conversations with Socrates. The author points out that, throughout the entire conversation on justice and despite Thrasymachus' widely held belief that 'human behavior is and should be guided by self-interest', he is very seldom able to refute many of Socrates contentions. The paper relates that Thrasymachus allows himself to be manipulated in many instances, which is quite ironic since his behavior is definitely not governed by his own self-interest.
From the Paper
"If this is true, then Thrasymachus could have taken a more philosophical approach to the questions posed by Socrates and would have probably been a lot better for it. After all, it was not the beliefs of Thrasymachus that were under attack, it was the examination of such beliefs that floated Socrates' boat. Socrates enjoyed the art of examining beliefs, whereas, judging by Thrasymachus' responses, he was more concerned on whether he was correct or not in his thinking."
| |
|
Socrates and Thrasymachus, 2005.
An analysis of the conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Plato's "Republic".
785 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 0 sources, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Socrates and Thrasymachus have a dialogue in "Republic" which progresses from a discussion of the definition of morality, to an understanding of the expertise of ruling and eventually to a debate on the state of human nature. It looks at how the Thrasymachus view of human nature has interesting implications and how although Thrasymachus is thwarted in conversation, Glaucon finds the outcome not entirely conclusive and directs Socrates to proving that morality is a worthwhile pursuit.
From the Paper
"Throughout "The Republic" there exist different characters that each holds a unique importance towards the development of certain philosophies, in this case, the meaning of "justice". Thrasymachus is such a character, which could be considered a cynic by some; he plays an imperative role in the quest for the meaning of justice in the first book of "The Republic". While Cephalus and his son Polemarchus are unsuccessful in providing Socrates with an adequate definition of justice, Thrasymachus presents himself annoyed with the dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, and furthermore demands an answer from Socrates in what he believes that justice is, instead of simply questioning the rhetoric of others. "
| |
|
"Apologia of Socrates" by Socrates, 2002.
An examination of the trial and death of Socrates in "Apologia of Socrates" by Socrates.
1,545 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the beliefs of Socrates and how his aim in ?Apologia of Socrates? was to prove that death was better than a life without independent beliefs. Socrates article is written as a defense of his probable suicide and offers three points about the suicide. That he is innocent of the charges against him, that he would be going to a better place and finally that he is old and was going to die soon anyway. The Apology of Socrates is his defense at his trial, where he is found guilty. In conclusion, the writer discusses that whilst Socrates is sentenced to death, he has no fear of death.
From the Paper
"Socrates did not seem to fear death, as it was inching closer to him every day. He told his fellow Athenians that his forced suicide would come back to hunt them, because he had no doubt that one day people would recognize his wisdom and criticize the people of Athens for killing him. Socrates advised his prosecutors to juts let him die naturally, especially since he was innocent.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. Socrates is aware that his accusers have warned the jury against Socrates' eloquence. However, Socrates states that the difference between himself and his accusers is that he, unlike them, is speaking the truth."
| |
|
The Trial of Socrates, 2005.
This paper argues that, in the trial of Socrates, Socrates was wrongfully condemned.
1,010 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in his trial, Socrates was found guilty although he presented an adequate argument, but public bias wrongfully executed him. The author points out that Socrates was attempting to convey to the masses that he had followed the letter of the law on every occasion, even when it went against the decision of the Council: "I must obey the law and make my defense." The paper concludes that the Socratic Method is one of the most widespread and universal methods of deductively drawing a conclusion; thus, if Socrates corrupted the minds of the youth, then today the world is corrupted.
From the Paper
"Due to the unpopular exposure, Socrates had amassed during his quest for knowledge, the jury that heard his apology was bias; some, possibly having been ridiculed by Socrates during his search of philosophy. The people of Athens had come with the intention of convicting Socrates so that he would have been exiled. This could be seen in the dialogue between Crito and Socrates. Crito recommended to Socrates that he should flee in exile. If Socrates did so, none of the citizenry would pay any attention or care. However, Socrates being a man who had abided by the will of the State could not allow himself to flee and retain the status of a criminal. The point, which can be made from this example, is that the primary notion of the people of Athens was not for Socrates to be executed."
| |
|
The Apology of Socrates, 2004.
Analysis of Plato's "Apology", regarding the prosecution of Socrates and a summary of Socrates trial.
1,478 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the trial and execution of Socrates from the perspective of Plato, the general moral and religious ideology of Greek society during that era, Greek fathers, and prominent Athenians. The paper also provides an overview of the arguments Socrates presented in his self-defense and his reasons for refusing to escape the death penalty.
From the Paper
"As one of the greatest and most influential of all the Greek philosophers, Socrates (469--399 B.C.E.) passionately believed that just behavior was better for human beings than injustice and that morality was justified because it created happiness and well-being. Essentially, Socrates seems to have argued that just behavior, or virtue, was identical to knowledge and that true knowledge of justice would inevitably lead people to choose good over evil and therefore to have truly happy lives, regardless of their material success. Since Socrates believed that knowledge itself was sufficient for happiness, he asserted that no one knowingly behaved unjustly and that behaving justly was always in the individual's best interest. Thus, as Socrates defined it, "moral knowledge was all one needed for the good life" (Stone 168)."
| |
|
"The Trial and Death of Socrates", 2006.
This paper explores Socrates' refusal to escape his death sentence in the tragedy "The Trial and Death of Socrates."
1,409 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author explores why Socrates refused to escape his death sentence in the tragedy "The Trial and Death of Socrates." Although Socrates had opportunities to flee the prison, the author argues that Socrates felt escape would have been acting unjustly. Socrates did not want to manipulate the jury with his dialogue or use any other means except his beliefs to defend himself. The author sees the final decision of the court to be unjust in many ways. However, the author feels Socrates' acceptance of the death sentence upheld his moral beliefs.
From the Paper
" To Socrates, for anyone to live well, their soul must be in the best possible state. To achieve this state one must not commit any unjust acts. Committing an unjust act corrupts a person and ultimately harms their soul. For Socrates, having a corrupted soul, prevents him from living the best possible life. While speaking to Crito, Socrates states that "life [is not] worth living for us with [the soul] corrupted" (47e). This statement meaning that a life is not worth living unless you live it well. This can mean doing or seeking what someone's purpose in life is. To Socrates this purpose, or how he lives well, is by pursuing what is true and just. Since he can not know what is just, he must always be seeking it. He also says that one can not properly pursue what is good and just if one's soul is unjust or corrupt. Therefore, for Socrates to live a fulfilling life, he must never do anything unjust act that would harm his soul and prevent him from seeking what is just and true. For this reason, fleeing is not an option because an unjust act like that would harm his soul."
| |
|
Socrates and Justice in Plato's Republic, 2001.
The following paper discusses how Socrates set out to define the idea of justice and the just man when he began the conversations archived in Plato?s Republic.
2,035 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores Socrates attempt to define the ideal city, hoping within it to discover the form of justice itself. The author takes the reader through critical points in this book and shows us how no Apollonian dedication to the things of the mind, nor virgin dedication to warfare and the ways of the hunt, could truly save Socrates' city from the uprising of its youth.
From the Paper
"As part of creating this utopia, he set about to entirely restructure the modern family. He suggested, reasonably, that men and women should be set to the same sorts of work, according to their gifts, being equal in all things save that the men were stronger. To prevent conflict, and continue the owning of all things in common, he spoke of having wives and husbands and children all in common. So that the stock of his city should all be strong and healthy, he suggested a rigged lottery determining who should mate with whom, the outcome determined by genetics and success. The healthy offspring should be raised, the inferior disposed of appropriately."
| |
|
Analysis of ?The Apology of Socrates?, 2005.
A look at the self-portrait Socrates presents in "The Apology of Socrates" and his self-defense at his trial.
1,011 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper summarizes and analyzes the self-defense Socrates presented at his trial and explains how Socrates was condemned to die not because he did not mount a successful defense, but because his accusers were threatened by Socrates?s wisdom and perseverance. The paper concludes by pointing out that Socrates defended himself successfully by proving he was not an evildoer and that he never intentionally corrupted the youth and that God alone is wise.
From the Paper
"Socrates was known as one of the most influential Greek philosophers of his time. ?The Apology of Socrates? offers a self-portrait based not on false gods or corruption, but rather on a vigilant attention to and exposure of common thinking and false wisdom. Socrates strongly believed that just behavior was better than injustice, and that living morally correct would bring about happiness and well-being. For his life, that is proven to be true. Socrates lived a righteous life, and died a happy man. Throughout the ?Apology?, Socrates is falsely accused of being a ?doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state? (733). Socrates? self defense was a success because throughout his trial, he was able to prove he was not an evil doer, that he did not corrupt the youth, and that there was no man wiser than God."
| |
|
The Morality of Socrates and Euthyphro, 2008.
An analysis of the characterization of Socrates and Euthyphro, as depicted in Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates."
1,622 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper contrasts the characters and moral fiber of Socrates and Euthryphro, as Plato has described them in "The Trial and Death of Socrates." The two men meet outside the court in Athens, where Socrates is being charged with impiety and corrupting the youth, and Euthyphro, a priest, is prosecuting his own father for murder. The author illustrates how Socrates is shown throughout the book to be humble, principled, caring, and just, while Euthryphro is exposed as an arrogant, foolish and impious man.
From the Paper
"Not least of all, Euthyphro is an arrogant man. He talks of being laughed at by the Athenian assembly for foretelling the future. He is convinced that they laugh because they are envious of his gift of prophecy. He rates himself as superior to most men and states that he has knowledge surpassing most men. He cannot back these claims as Socrates easily turns over every definition of piety the man can create. He does not even have the knowledge to teach a man who claims he knows nothing of piety himself, such as Socrates."
| |
|
Socrates, 2002.
A discussion of I. F. Stone's essay ?When Free Speech was First Condemned: The Trial of Socrates Reconsidered? which challenges some of the longstanding assumptions about Socrates.
695 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the way in which Stone in his essay appears to be acting as a kind of prosecuting attorney across the ages, asking Socrates why and how the philosopher behaved in ancient Athens the way he did. By doing so, by using the format developed by Socrates himself, Stone hopes to shift the emphasis from the image of the hemlock-drinking, condemned philosopher to Socrates as he was in life.
From the Paper
"First of all, Stone challenges the simple association of Socrates with free speech. In fact, Socrates periodically challenged the democratic, free speech ideals of the Athens he lived in. Socrates hoped to create an ideal philosophical kingdom, ruled by a philosopher king. Although Socrates was condemned to death in Athens for what he said and advocated, this did not mean therefore that that Socrates had advocated free speech during his life, in his philosophy. Socrates was only able to flourish as long as he did in Athens because of the free debate and discussion encouraged in his resident city. Even though he condemned such free and democratic Athenian debate, Socrates benefited as a result of the city?s tolerance."
| |
|
Socrates, Kant and Morality, 2008.
A comparative analysis of the views of Socrates and Kant on morality.
1,982 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Socrates' and Kant's philosophies regarding morality and looks at how the fundamental difference in the definition between the two is that Kant's moral failure is an independent act to a moral right by virtue of the lack of impact of consequences while Socrates' main model of immorality is based on injustice resulting from the action. It discusses, therefore, how the dilemma of immorality in the former is an ethical one and immorality in the latter is presented as a social dilemma.
Outline:
Socrates
Socrates on Morality
Kant on Socrates
Socrates, Kant and Morality
From the Paper
"Kant's Moral philosophy is one of the main alternatives to utilitarianism which marginalizes moral humanistic virtues. Kant's view on morality is essentially deontological which implies a focus on the action to be done regardless of the consequences ("Kant: The Moral", 2001). This implies that if a person is doing something that is right, then even if the results of his actions create a negative outcome, then he still did the right thing. There is also a prescriptive quality to Kant's view: the assumption is that everyone should do what is right and that it should be universally right (Wood, 2004). Thus, for an action to be considered moral, it should be within the capacity of everyone and viewed as a correct action universally ("Kant's Moral Philosophy", 2007). Viewing Socrates' action through Kant's Moral Philosophy, there are arguments both to support the morality of Socrates actions."
| |
|
Socrates and Plato, 2006.
This paper examines the teachings of Greek philosopher Socrates as well as that of his student, Plato.
902 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on the Socratic method, which unlike most philosophical teachings, seeks to debase beliefs rather than build them up. This paper discusses the views and opinions of both Plato and Socrates in regards to the Socratic method. The writer of this paper contends and explains why readers of Plato's works should be skeptical of his presentation of philosophical notions through the argumentative style, which he attributes to Socrates. This paper discusses the basic philosophy behind the Socratic method, in which Socrates' reliance upon the soul to lead into the discussion of virtue could be attacked upon the assertion that insufficient evidence exists to contend that there are such things as souls. On the other hand, Plato believes that souls must exist because they explain the competing inclinations people can possess. This paper also delves into Plato's and Socrates' roles as philosophers and theorists.
From the Paper
"However, the chief limitation of the manner by which Socrates is expressed through Plato is that his lessons are no longer personalized with respect to the audience; they are only personal with respect to the characters Plato generates. The power of Socrates' technique is that it forces him to investigate many of his centrally held beliefs simultaneously with the person he is communicating; any questions that arise from his audience, or possible objections to his line of reasoning, must be addressed. This capacity is necessarily lacking when it is placed upon paper because any questions or objections that might be evoked in the reader inevitably go unanswered. For example, when Socrates argues, "So one may say this about everything; all other human activities depend on the soul, and those of the soul itself depend on wisdom if they are to be good."
| |
|
Socrates and the Concept of Justice, 2001.
This paper examines Socrates' philosophy and opinion on the concept of justice.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Socrates' views are analyzed by studying a conversation between Socrates, Cephalus, his son Polemarchus and his followers. The author explains how Socrates enters into a philosophical dialogue with several different individuals who attempt to set down a firm definition of justice. Socrates then sets out to test and challenge their definitions?through his method of questioning and counter-examples?in an attempt to arrive at a more secure definition of justice, that which cannot be refuted.
From the Paper
"Cephalus first raises the idea of justice with Socrates and then passes the debate on to his son, Polemarchus, to carry forward. In line with his father?s arguments, Polemarchus develops the most basic definition of justice suggested in the Republic. He makes the claim that justice means simply to speak the truth and to give people their proper due; for example, old debts should be repaid. Justice also means treating people in accordance with their essential character. For example, Polemarchus concludes that if a certain individual is considered an enemy, that individual should meet with ?something harmful? (26); if another individual is considered a friend, that individual should be treated well."
| |
|
Socrates, Forms & Epistemology, 2008.
This paper looks at Socrates' argument concerning forms or ideal structures and epistemology.
1,114 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer discusses that Socrates accomplishes much of his rational argument based on establishing that forms or ideal structures only result in knowledge and he argues that sophists make of knowledge nothing but a commodity. The writer points out that Socrates' ultimate demise is well-known through the reproduction of his argument by his star pupil, Plato and it is to Plato that most Socratic researchers must rely on to gain a better understanding of Socrates because he never wrote anything at all. The writer notes that it is Socrates' use of forms as a paradigm for epistemological study which has freed philosophical pursuits from simple contemplation of knowledge and moved it to the application of insight and wisdom. The writer maintains that for Socrates, the world of forms was useful as a rational construct upon which to make his philosophical points; that is, knowledge to Socrates was only the starting point for philosophical debate whereas for others such as the sophists, knowledge and the pursuit of it were the ultimate goal or pursuit.
From the Paper
"However, the force of Socrates' renunciation of sophist thought and doctrine comes through so clearly in Plato's work that it is clear that Plato relied on Socratic opinion almost exclusively for the foundation of his most renowned works such as the Republic which contains a series of Plato's works. Therefore, were this last the case then Plato would be known almost exclusively as the father of philosophy rather than Socrates and Socrates would be a mere footnote. Yet, the marvel of Socrates' fame and his foundational position in the philosophical body of knowledge is that through him philosophy was given a greater conception of itself as separate from pure knowledge which Socrates demonstrated was relatively invaluable without the more important qualities of moral justice, wisdom, and restraint.."
| |
|
Funeral Oration for Socrates, 2001.
Using the literary device of a funeral oration, this paper analyzes Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates".
1,446 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, the author persuades the reader that Socrates was a man of great moral character and uses excerpts from Plato's "The Trial and Death of Socrates" in order to prove this. It also demonstrates how the people of Athens took Socrates to be a threat to their static day to day lives and saw to it to conspire against him and ultimately eliminate him. Using his argument in his defense, this paper shows that Socrates would certainly admit that he is a menace to the people of Athens, but only to stir them up into an intellectual frenzy. The paper shows that Socrates demonstrates through logic that he would never try to spoil the minds of the youth intentionally. The paper argues that Socrates died as a martyr because he held to his moral beliefs even in the face of an unfair death.
From the Paper
"Today we mark the day in which a part of Western thought died. For when the great philosopher, Socrates, died yesterday at sundown, he took with him a way of thinking that will never be quite duplicated. But let us not grieve for what we may miss out on in the future; let us instead celebrate the gifts we have received from this great thinker. For with the advent of the spoken language and the written word, we are able to record and remember Socrates? contributions to the citizens of Athens and the world. In effect, they will reverberate through the ages and continue to affect the way philosophers think for centuries to come. Unfortunately, Socrates? unorthodox nature earned him a number of enemies, enough to warrant death wishes. Certainly one could believe this statement when one looks at the circumstances of his unnatural death. Unfortunately, those who persecuted him were superstitious individuals, who shall remain unnamed. They persecuted him under the false pretense of impiety. Truly, however, they were simply frightened that someone might not only question the current propaganda and dogma of the time, but also have the audacity to persuade others to do the same."
|
|
|
