Socrates 'Alcibiades' Ignorance

Plato’s Theaetetus starts off with Euclid of Megara by speaking with his friend Terpsion about a dialogue he has between Socrates and Theaetetus. He says, that the dialogue was from when Theaetetus was young. Euclid of Megara’s conversation with Terpsion acts as the structure for the dialogue itself. The other participants of the dialogue are Socrates, Theodorus, and Theaetetus. The question that the participants are asking is “what is knowledge?” Theaetetus gives four definitions to the question “what is knowledge?” The first being that knowledge is arts and sciences, the second being knowledge is sense-perception, the third that knowledge is true judgment, and the fourth being knowledge is true judgment with an account. But Socrates was

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 points out that this allegory corresponds to the earlier discussion about the good. Hence, it relates to the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided line. Socrates describes analogy of the sun as "a child of the good and most similar to it". He begins with saying that there are things which we can see and feel (visible realm) and there is the good itself, something we can only think about (intelligible realm). He continues, saying that eyesight requires light in order for object to be seen. Light comes from the sun, hence, sun gives a possibility for objects to be seen. Socrates compares the relationship between sight and the sun to the intellect and the good. Good gives power to things that are known. So, just as sun enables

Plato 's dialogue Meno touches on many important questions of virtue and the ability to teach someone to be good. Arguably one of the most interesting of these questions concerns the nature of learning itself, as Socrates and Meno discuss the relationship between knowledge and true opinion. Socrates concludes by not only defining knowledge and true opinion as separate entities, but also by placing knowledge as the higher of the two in value. He makes this value judgment by pointing to knowledge 's status as opinion that is substantiated with reasoning and truths, arguing this makes knowledge concrete and unwavering. However, due to the notion of change as the central tenant in the search of scientific knowledge, I am inclined to disagree with this static description.

As the wisest man in all of ancient Greece, Socrates believed that the purpose of life was both personal and spiritual growth. He establishes this conviction in what is arguably his most renowned statement: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

In order to do this, he goes about Athens questioning those he believes to be wiser than him, including politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Upon this questioning, he discovers that even those perceived as the wisest actually know far less than one would expect. Even the craftsmen, who have much practical wisdom in their respective fields, see their success as merely a tribute to their vast knowledge of many subjects. This, Socrates claims, is not true wisdom. Human wisdom can be described as the acknowledgement and acceptance that one does not know everything, nor is one capable of knowing everything. This, however, does not mean that people should sit idly by, never pursuing wisdom, for it is still vital to the attainment of a good life, which should be the ultimate goal of mankind.

Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and

Athenian citizens, I implore you to understand Socrates guilt within the matter of impiety. Impiety is lacking respect for a god or gods. Actions or words that go against the status quo of religious activity would certainly fall under the category of impious behavior. This includes the unnamed “divine” voice within Socrates head. Those that accused him may not have done so for the right reasons, but it does nothing to prove he is innocent of impiety.

If Socrates were alive today, how must he feel about the Delphic inscription of “Know thyself” would still be a relevant question in which our society is still trying to answer in 21st Century living? In today’s fast paced society, the individual can easily get dehumanized by their work, technology, family commitments and the political process. A person is easily swayed by public opinion and not be able to think for themselves in fear of retribution and conflict. Sometimes it is easier to go with the mass than being the obstacle in the river that moves the water move in a different direction. If one seeks to attain self-knowledge before commenting on other matters I believe that our society today would be a more compromising and better place.

Plato once said that, “Ignorance [is] the root and stem of all evil”. Ignorance is the cause of everything that is wrong and bad in the world since people are unable to see the truth. If people start breaking free from ignorance, mankind will become happier and more transparent. In the short story, “Allegory of The Cave” by Plato and The Matrix by the Wachowskis, they portray the idea that in order to gain enlightenment, one must break free from ignorance; which opens himself to knowledge; this new truth must then be shared with others for the good of mankind.

In addition, people of unexamined life don’t like change, and they never try to change themselves to become a better person. They don’t know why they need to change, and why they should pursue a better life. Plato used Socrates word, “It is clear then that those who do not know things to be bad do not desire what is bad, but they desire those things that they e believe to be good but that are in fact bad(10)”. The unexamined people keep repeating what they are doing every day, just like a “walking dead”. And they believe being lazy, sleep all day long, keep watching the TV show to get the entertainment is good for them. Consequently, they do not desire to do the good thing, and they are being no change, of not improving themselves. However, they should feel ashamed of doing that because they are human beings. Plato said, “It is a human being’s goal to grow into the exact likeness of a God(52)”. The examined life people always want to change, they know they are human, sometimes they make mistake. They may have a lot of weakness, that why they need to improve themselves to be a better person. Everyone is not perfect, that why we must change. And how much we should change? Plato showed us a goal, to become perfect, liked a God. Although it is impossible to become a God, it is a goal for us to pursue, try our best to change. As examined life

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.

Socrates goes on to develop criteria necessary for such knowledge which drives onto the ethics of life, or the proper way on behaving. According to Socrates the criteria is to determine whether something is right or wrong and that one shouldn’t concern themselves with the outcome but whether the act was just or unjust, which brings morality into the picture. Socrates believed that in order for morality to exist depended on whether one had knowledge of such definitions. So in essence, virtue is knowledge, if you know what is right, you will do what is right. The necessity and sufficiency for moral behavior hinged upon knowing a Socratic definition. This in the end depicts to us the difference between a life lived with pleasure or utilitarian goals, a life lived honorably. So in reality to practice philosophy is to practice for dying and death, which is the separation of body and soul. The soul referring to matters of ideas and intellect and body to material matters. Philosophy thus teaches us how to care more for our mind than our body and to move away from body because the body is an obstacle to gaining