The Importance Of Relativism

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

The most prevalent form of arguments that appears in Modern Romance is the use of logos, which helps offer trustworthy evidence to aid Ansari’s overall argument. The two fundamental arguments of logos are artistic proofs versus inartistic proofs. Conversely, Ansari weaves in countless examples of both forms in his book. Artistic proofs pertain to the “constructed argument having to do with appeals to reason and common sense; while

Throughout the Pro Archia Poeta Oratio, Cicero employs many elements in his speech to convince the jurors in the trial of Archias’ innocence in regard to his citizenship and his contributions to Roman society. He achieves this not through brash accusations or bragging of his own character, but by through epideixis, or praising speech, as he praises the ability of the jurors, Archias’ tale of glory, his character, and his contributions to the Roman empire. Throughout his speech, Cicero uses epideictic rhetoric to interweave elements of pathos, ethos, and logos to convince the jurors of Archias’ legal, and expected, status of citizenship.

The ‘speech of the laws’ as witnessed in Plato’s Crito is of utmost importance to one of Plato’s shorter dialogues and serves multiple purposes, some of which will be engaged with here. The speech will be looked in terms of its methodological purpose and will question what functions this serves. Philosophically speaking the Crito remains a dialogue concerning justice and the ‘speech of the laws’ provides a different interpretation of the concept of justice to that of which the character of Crito holds. The conflict between the ‘speech of the laws’ and Crito

Rhetoric, by Aristotle, emphasises the importance of enthymeme as a fundamental persuasive tool in rhetorical argument. Aristotle defines an enthymeme as a rhetorical demonstration that makes up the body of proof. Aristotle also identifies “that the enthymeme is a kind of syllogism” (Aristotle 1.1.11). In practice with the overall function of Dialectic, all syllogisms should be examined for their matter and forms, so enthymemes should be examined as well. After understanding the forms and matter, or essence of the enthymemes, one can use them to further legitimize proofs with the same or similar essences. For example, take the argument that in the United

Cultural relativism is the idea that all cultures are equal and no one is better than another. This way of thinking was created and elaborated on by three main philosophers. Franz Boas, Alain Locke and Robert Lowie were nineteenth century philosophers who shaped the ideas on concepts of Cultural Relativism. These three men focused on the idea that one cannot judge other cultures because they only see through eyes that have been influenced by their surroundings. They used relativist ideas that existed already and expressed them on the world and the many different cultures that exist in it. They created a mainly atheistic viewpoint in which the idea of a central moral truth and a higher power was discounted. Only the people within a culture could create moral codes and laws for themselves.

In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato presented to his audience a debate between the wise philosopher Socrates and the renowned sophist Protagoras. Throughout the course of their interaction, it became clear that the two great thinkers differed in more ways than simply their opinions on the topic at hand. Not only were philosophers and sophists inherently different in nature, but these differences were specifically illuminated when analyzing Socrates’s and Protagoras’s motives for entering their intellectual discussion. Moreover, when considering the qualities embodied by both a sophist and a philosopher, it is better to be a philosopher if knowledge and morality are one’s priorities.

The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one’s life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth. Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of

The crux of this argument will focus on three of Plato’s works: Gorgias, Apology, and The Republic.

During the 18th and the 19th centuries, the age of reason and enlightenment, enlightenment thinkers were influenced by the empirical approaches to scientific studies and redefined rhetoric on the bases of human sciences. This age was characterized by paying minor attention to the emotional appeals that can be provoked to move audiences, thus the classical proves of the ethical, emotional and logical appeals were not emphasized (Sloane,:2001:227). In this century rhetoric was subject to various directions such as ‘neoclassical rhetoric and stylistic’, ‘epistemological and belletristic’, and ‘elocutionary manuals’ rhetoric. All these directions represent the mutual relation between logic and rhetoric on one hand and between them and speech, psychology,

While many may find Plato's drama a refreshing alternative to the dry argumentation of a treatise, it is likely that Plato's purposes are not limited to reading ease. In fact, in many ways the use of drama makes reading Plato a great deal more complex. Plato certainly makes use of arguments, yet frames them in real life contexts. Thus, the reader must consider not only the nuances of argumentation, but also the characters' abilities and motives behind presenting the argument in a particular way. So the argument should not necessarily be taken at face value; instead, such

Greek philosopher, Plato, is considered to be one of the most influential people in Western Philosophy. The fact that he was a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle leaves no questions about his competence. One of his fundamental works is the “Republic”. Even though it was written in 380 BC, Plato’s and Socrates’s thoughts are still relevant in twenty first century. This paper will evaluate the quote from the “Republic” and provide a summary of a quote; provide a context from the text for the quote; and finally, it will include my own thoughts on the quote and the Socrates’s argument as a whole.

Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue, was a sophist who claimed that the man is the measure of all things, meaning that anything is good if it is ultimately good for something. In other words, everything is relative to the individual, the experiences, the judgment, and the interpretation. Ultimately, he thought that there was no final truth. Protagoras defended the common sense to which he related moral truth. He claimed that a common individual’s idea of moral truth was most likely a correct one. In addition, as a professional expert in wisdom, he believed that his teaching could help people in perfecting their idea of moral truth. For instance, moral truth was already instilled in the common people, and it only needed perfecting. Protagoras tried

For ethical ideology, I scored 28 points indicating high idealism. In addition, for the second portion of the assessment, I scored 18 points specifying moderate relativism. My results culminate into an absolutist classification of people who rank high on idealism but low on relativism. The general mindset of an absolutist is to base their morality on the “the best possible outcome can be achieved by following universal moral rules.” Given my absolutist tendency, I see myself as being guided by universal moral values of ethics such as trustworthiness, respect, caring and fairness. Therefore, in an academic setting as a student, I see it is my responsibility to be a trustworthy student by completing my own work and giving credit where it is due.

In order Justice to be pure and absolute, there should be no other purposes or motives attached to its virtuous state. So, when Glaucon’s candid argument is conceptualized, it belittles the principle and the role of Justice, for the attack has some conceivable qualities of truth in human beings. It is true that our actions have some kind of consequences either good or bad, depending of the action. Glaucon hence suggests that justice holds no value itself; for example, one does not merely take medicines for the sake of taking it, rather it is taken for the outcome of it, which is healing. Or when one does good deeds the person might feel a sense of satisfaction, but not of the action alone, but of the result it produces, such as the compensation either here on earth or in the afterlife. Moreover, Glaucon proposes that injustice is superior to Justice; a man is just because his weakness forces him to, but if given the power, he will do wrong. To better illustrate and extend his credibility of his argument, he details the myth of the ring of Gyges, a shepherd boy who discovers a ring with invisibility powers, and not surprisingly uses it for evil purposes by murdering the King Candaules and taking his place: Yet another painful charge against Justice. Socrates, in his part, explains the flaws of these vibrant arguments. In order to understand better what is Justice in an individual, he magnifies it by forming an ideal city called Kallipolis, this city is governed by