Understanding Socrates: The Good & Its Relation to Virtues - Essay Sample

What did Socrates mean when he talks about "the good"? Why does he think that everybody would naturally do what they think is good?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Socrates, good is the most significant thing to learn. It is a relation to it that values such as justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom draw any usefulness and benefits to all. The good is what gives truth to the things which are known and the power to understand the knower (Gerson). Using the analogy of sight, for sight, there is that which sees and that which is seen, both are important and distinct. Without light, that which sees cannot see, and that which is seen cannot be seen. Thus, good is represented the same way in that when the soul focuses on the illuminated, it attains truth and understanding, and yet when it focuses on obscurity, its beliefs are slowly unraveled and bereft of knowledge.

List and describe the four levels of knowledge, as discussed by Plato. Then discuss how he thinks that one can move from one level of expertise to the next.

Plato states that there exists for different stages of knowledge and knowledge development, including Imagining, Belief, Thinking, and Perfect Intelligence ("Allegory of the Cave"). Imagination is the lowest level seen as the depiction of appearances seen as true reality; the second level is confirmation of the former depictions, including deconstructing the former belief. Individuals at this point understand the cause of former belief. This understanding births the concept of thinking critically about the new revelations; everything becomes clear inclding the former beliefs, and the causes (Jost). This is followed by the highest level called Perfect intelligence form in which an individual achieve liberation and attempt to liberate/assist others; however, resistance is usually observed since everyone must follow the four levels, systematiclly.

Describe why the Stoics claim that it is faulty to base our happiness around Hope or Fear. How did they think one should see the future? What did they see as the Basis for happiness?

The felicity of life is to be free from mental uneasiness and without any anxious dependence on the future. For a person who is content with what they already have wants nothing more This means that whatever level of happiness they are yearning is within them, and within their reach, in most cases however, individuals tends to close their eyes and like people in darkness, they fall foul upon the very things they are searching without finding them (Henry and Frances).

Epicurus thought three things were necessary for a fulfilling life; time with Friends, Freedom from external obligations, and time to reflect for oneself. He felt that this gave people the ability to have a greater appreciation for the small pleasures in life. How did he implement these practices? Do you agree with his methods, and give the reasons why or why not?

Epicurious achieved this by living the most basic and economical way of life; Epicureans were satisfied with a small cup of light wine and the rest of their drink as water. He advised his followers not to invest in stock but rather hold them in common, for anyone who throws such in stocks shows a high level of distrust towards friends. This level of distrust means that they are not true friends (Annas). I agree with this principle of life, because finding pleasure in the most basic and economic things around oneself is the ultimate goal and assurance of life's satisfaction. To maintain friends, trust is the crucial factor, and nothing can level a show of trust other than the riskiest and most liquid assets surrendered and held together. Having highly liquid assets help to keep friends together and also reduces chances of one-party exiting (Annas).

Descartes not only doubted his senses, but also his mathematical knowledge? What hypothetical did he use to doubt what he thought was true in mathematics? At the end, what was the one thought he could not doubt?

The perception Descartes referred to as mathematical preposition into doubt as he disputed all the beliefs regarding common sense by assuming that every belief derived from views seems to rest on the presumption that the Cartesian problem of doubt regarding mathematics presents an instance of the issue of doubt regarding the existence of substance (Halil).

"I argue that the issue is not 'whether I am counting actual objects or empty images,' but 'whether I am counting what I count correctly.' Considering Descartes's early works, it is possible to see that for him, the proposition '2+3=5' and the argument 'I think, therefore I am,' were equally evident." (Halil)

At the end of it, it is only his existence that was beyond doubt, as shown in the statement, "The preposition 'I exist' is necessarily true each time I pronounce it or when I mentally conceive it." (O'Briant)

Hume said that he could not find a 'self' upon examination, but only a series of 'impressions'? Do you think he was right? Give reasons why or why not? What do you find when you look for yourself? What, if anything, was Hume missing?

Hume was right, the self is just an expression, or a belief one has of themselves through mirrors of memories, emotions spirituals, and social being (Morris and Charlotte). When I look at the mirror, I see a collection of expressions of what I think I am, including an expression of outline, beauty, memories, transient feelings, meaning it is just a lot of perception linked together to form an impression of who I think I am.

Give the difference between 'a priori' and ' a posteriori' truths; then describe what Kant meant by a 'synthetic a priori' statement. From there, describe what Kant thought the necessary categories of experience were based on these truths.

According to Kant, a priori of knowledge is that which is independent of an experience, or that which sense experience. A posteriori truth is that which is based or derived from experience; gained only after sense experience has already happened/occurred. Synthetic a priori is a preposition whose bases are not logically connected to the subject; it is independent of experience (Adam). A proposition such as, "Some bodies are heavy" is synthetic because the idea of weight is not contained in that of bodies. A statement like "All male are husbands" is a priori since the idea of a male is contained in that of a husband. Similarly, a statement like, "It is raining outside now" is posteriori since the idea of raining in contained in that of being rained on.

Nietzsche claimed that most moral systems focused on 'slave morality,' whereas he wanted people to use the Will-to-Power to reach the 'master morality.' What did he see as the difference between these two systems? Do you think he was right in doing so?

Master molarity is based on sentiment and originates in the strong, while the slave molarity is based on re-sentiment, devaluing that which master values and which develop from the weak (Nietzsche). He was right in doing so, and yes, people should adopt the master molarity, which revolves around pride and power, to achieve the ultimate independence.

Albert Camus thought life was 'Absurd.' What did he mean by that? How did it influence his idea that one should seek the 'most experience,' not the most valuable experience?

This preposition life is absurd is based on the fact that there exists substantial conflict between what individuals want from nature; Order and what they find in nature; Entropy (Camus). One should seek one who is most experience because they understand the multifaceted precept of nature; that, nature is not what we want from it, rather, it is what it can offer to us, unlike the one who has the most valuable experience, since they only understand nature from a single point of view, hence, prone to frustrations, when nature act against their singular valuable experience.

Give Jean-Paul Satre's quote about the life that we are in. Do you feel this freedom is a cause for anxiety or celebration? How does one use this freedom to act in 'Good Faith' according to Sartre?

"Life begins on the other side of despair." Freedom should be both a cause for anxiety and, at the same time, a celebration. At one point, with freedom, individuals can make choices about their lives without constraints, however, this introduces the complexity that the same limitlessness might expose the same individuals or others to dangers.

According to Satre, the idea of bad faith is the habit that individuals have of deceiving themselves into the thought that they lack the freedom to make independent choices for fear of the potential consequences ("Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith"). To free oneself from being a victim of these circumstances and act in good faith, one should realize that they are not who they are told they are, but who their conscious dictates they are, meaning, being-in-itself, rather than being-for-itself.

What you thought Philosophy meant before you started the class, and what you think Philosophy means now.

I perceived philosophy as an exciting yet complex way of defining the meaning of life, nature, and a way of understanding the power of human brains. My perception was not very far from the reality of philosophy, only that now, instead of being exciting and complicated, I find philosophy as an intriguing way of thinking about everything from society, the self, universe, and the globe. It is the basis of everything known to humans as knowledge, reality, and our very own existence.

What subject most interested you in this course? Why?

Metaphysics is the subject I am more interested in, in philosophy. This is because, besides being the first branch of philosophy, it will help me understand and peruse the true nature of human existence. In me, it will establish the basis from which individuals perceive everything, thus making me understand the actual meaning of our existence. Thus, the knowledge in metaphysics will form the foundation of other branches of philosophy and how I can apply the humanistic view and perception for our lives. If an individual is asked about their philosophy in life, especially regarding the actual nature of everything, their response will be a reflection of their thought processes, belief and their perception towards self, others, nature and the supernaturals. This would also be an indication of any action they will take when faced with decisions related to morality, ethics, health, work, relationships, among other aspects of daily lives. This means that they are speaking of their 'philosophy of metaphysics' as the driving force of their lives. Metaphysics is thus the foundation of all the branches of philosophy, and that is what interests me most-the nature of everything.

Did anything you learned in this course affect the way you think about things? If so, how? If not, then how did it allow you to compare your views to others?

Yes, philosophy changed the way I think about almost everything. This is because, at first, I gained insights regarding the fact that a substantial number of assumptions built around my view of the world are as a result of my upbringing and culture. Through reflective thinking, and introspection, I can make a philosophical argument on anything I am exposed to, and the wealth of insight in me will help me determine what these are assumptions are, and decide whether I should consider all or some of them or not; in short, instead of an information absorber, I am now a filter, of what is important and what s not.

After learning and making advances in areas such as logic, philosophy of science, math, among others, the assumptions which provide the basis to address the real problems are unavoidable and, at the same time, a matter of choice. Upon achieving the level of realization, I can understand that I can only judge other...