Phaedrus Essay

Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often

Socrates explains to Phaedrus that “the most ambitious politicians love speechwriting and long for their writings to survive” after Phaedrus states that most politicians are afraid of making speeches for the fear of being called sophists. Socrates challenges Phaedrus’ belief of the sophistic view of rhetoric. Socrates goes against this argument of persuasion being the most important than the truth in a speech by talking about the significance of using philosophy in reasoning. He claims that the sophistic view of rhetoric is “not an art but an artless practice.” Socrates view of rhetoric’s relationship to the soul deals with enchanting the soul through it. He believes that the orator should learn the differences of human souls. Socrates claims that rhetorics is a way of “directing the soul by means of

He differentiates between madness as a clinical condition and a mystical madness. He further supports his argument with Elie Wiesel distinctions of the two. Clinical madman isolates himself from the world while mystical madman brings the Messiah in him (112). Patterson further discusses the notion of madness before the creation of human and

When consideration is given to the status of philosophy in Greece at the end of the fifth century

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

Socrates is referring to “going beyond” human reason. In the Phaedrus, Plato says, “There are two kinds of madness; one is produced by human infirmity, the other by a divine release from the ordinary ways of men.” Aristotle says that plants have a nutritive soul, while animals have a sensitive soul and humans have a rational soul. Imagine a plant going beyond its nutritive soul into the realm of an animate or rational soul. For example, the Ents from Lord of The Rings, they are sensitive in that they walk and they are rational in that they talk and reason. Similarly, Plato is saying that humans in the second state of madness, “divine madness,” move beyond the capacity of their rational soul into the realm of the divine. That is why he uses the term “possessed,” because the artist is essentially being possessed by the power of the divine working through him.

Strepsiades confirms the traditional viewpoint when saying, “I have a son, but he’s a gentleman, you see, with a true gentleman’s natural distaste for learning.” (The Clouds, p62) Aristophanes describes the connection between being an elite member of Athenian society and disdain for knowledge beyond what’s necessary. In a parallel situation, the debate between the personification of Sophistry and Philosophy includes Sophistry calling the other a “fossil” (The Clouds, p69). In comparison, after sending his son to learn sophistry, Strepsiades realises that Pheidippides, became very skilled in sophistry and upon realising what conflict this has caused, the chorus says, “in fact, it’s coming now when poor Strepsiades will wish to g-d Pheidippides were DUMB!” (The Clouds, p97) Before attending Socrates’ school, Pheidippides appeared taciturn, rarely asked questions, and lived extravagantly; after education, Pheidippides manipulates logical statements to gain an advantage in the

Madness is used as a literary device in order to introduce chaos and excitement. However, below the surface there is a warning, no one is safe from their own mind or fears. What is madness after all but just the absence of social norms and social conventions? So how can madness be characterized. What causes madness? Madness is when a person abandons society’s most basic rules and expectations and becomes a raw uncivilized thing. A mad person has not only abandoned civilization but also the rational mind which is cultivated by civilization. Madness defined simply is a deviation of the established norm. The results of abandoning civilization and accepting madness are tragedy, suffering, and loss. Literature often uses the trope of madness to illustrate the consequences when one goes again society and abandons reason. Two excellent examples of the tragic affliction that is madness are Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex and Shakespeare’s King Lear. Madness is the rejection of society’s rules and moral obligations.

Socrates was one of the most famous classical Greek philosophers, known for being different from other philosophers of his time. It is for this reason that he gained both lovers and critics alike. The paper explores his characteristics as depicted by his student Plato in his books The Apology and The Republic. The paper also compares and contrasts the interests, methodologies, and presuppositions of Socrates, the poets and the sophists of Athens.

Hans Rockwell 8/26/17 Question 1 Question 1.) One of the responses people usually have about Oedipus is if he really deserved the fate that he ended up with. It’s not his fault that Jocasta and Laius tried to outsmart fate and dispose of him.

In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss what the definition of knowledge is. As Socrates guides Theaetetus’ proposed definition that knowledge is perception, he brings about an example concerning the relativity and motion of the proposal in which he explains “… that good and beautiful and all the things we were just speaking of cannot be said to ‘be’ anything, but are always ‘coming to be’” (157 d.) This argument agrees with his previous arguments that an object always holds the potential for change, specifically his dice example about the change in the perception of the object (154 c), as the way that the object is perceived allows for the current state to be what it appears to be to the individual as opposed to another individual who may view the object in another state.

Despite how Aristophanes’ The Clouds blows Socrates’ shortcomings out of proportion to achieve a comedic effect, it still sheds light on Socrates’ actual shortcomings within The Symposium by making them more clear to the reader. These shortcomings are undesirable or bad characteristics a person, in this case Socrates, possess or certain behaviors which are unusual. In order to create a comedic satire, Aristophanes exaggerates Socrates’ shortcomings to represent the foolishness and absurdity of philosophers and sophists as a whole. This extreme exaggeration in The Clouds makes Socrates in The Symposium appear to be a different person. However, upon closer examination of Socrates in The Symposium, the reader can see that Socrates posses the

What defines madness? Is it a state of being that is derived from deterioration of the brain, or is it just extremely foolish behavior created by mayhem and chaos? Perhaps, it is a collaboration of the two, for without sane cognition the basis of irrationality would not be present, such is the case of King Lear. He is a man riddled with madness inside and out, yet through his state of frenzy and turmoil, Lear unveils unexpected guidance, validity, and enlightenment. It seems impossible for two opposing ideas to have subsequent logical soundness, but it is the goal of this essay to clearly defend the paradox that exist between madness and truth. “King Lear,” illustrates a paradox of how madness illuminates the truth by demonstrating how an

We see how Socrates is trying to make Phaedrus think by asking questions back to back and providing Phaedrus with tales that he thinks are made up by Socrates. What I got from reading this piece of writing was that writing is more than just letters

In the book, Phaedo by Plato, he discusses the immortality and divinity of the soul, and uses the philosophical theoria to prove that such a thing exists. Plato spends a lot of time trying to prove the idea to his fellow philosophers the divinity of the soul. Yet, in the book In Defense of Philosophy by Josef Pieper, he talks about how philosophy is not about finding an exact truth, but merely seeking to get close enough to it. This shows a clear contradiction between Plato’s belief that a soul is divine and continues to live on and Pieper’s thoughts on what true philosophy is, because he creates dialogue that clearly shows influence of his religious background that takes away from the philosophical discourse. It is due to this, Pieper would not agree with Plato in his interpretation on the divinity of the human soul.