Greatest Collected Works Apology Plato's Apology is the dynamic speech of Socrates given while he was defending himself on trial and to show everyone what was thought to be the 'real' Socrates. This Apology does not refer to the modern usage of the word today, which is; an recognition expressing regret and/or a pardon for an offense but simply means a formal justification or a defense. Which is the basis for the entire court trial and the book as well. The book is divided into three parts: The defense, the mitigation and the last words of rebuke. Apology is the trial and sentencing of Socrates which leads to him eventually being found guilty and being forced to drink poison for his crimes under normal circumstance he would drink the poison within twenty four hours of his sentencing however; since a scared ship was sailing around the island of Delos, so until the ship docked, Socrates was sent to prison. There are two strong charges brough up against Socrates. His accusers claim that he is a believer of false gods and of corrupting the youth. He is accused of teaching and preaching to others on not believeing in the gods everyone in the city believes and instead follow new ones. This is Socrates' statement on behalf of the false gods charge. "The demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I do not believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the nymphs or by any other mothers, of whom they are said to be the sons—what human being will ever believe that there are no gods if they are the sons of gods? You might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of horses and Asses. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you to make trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same men can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes." "Socrates is an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, who does not receive the gods whom the state receives, but introduces other new divinities."He makes his opening argument and statement as an orator and teacher normally would, by appealing to his audience and presenting valid points. "How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I was--so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by them, there was one, which quite amazed me; --I mean when they said that you should be upon your guard and not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of my eloquence. To say this, when they were certain to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and proved myself to be anything but a great speaker, did indeed appear to me most shameless--unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for is such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs!" Socrates is essentially creating and illustrating on just how many enemies he has gained while speaking to physicians, artisans and politicians and of the prejudice fueled atmosphere of the trial. In defense of the second accusation, Aristotle says that people wouldnt voluntarily do something to injure themselves and that if so, he would be harming himself in the process as well. He also made the statement that "KNOWLEDGE IS IGNORANCE" and that he was not a wise man at all. Here is how he defends his position on the other accusation."Now, is that a truth which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him; and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally, too--so you say, although neither I nor any other human being is ever likely to be convinced by you. But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally--no doubt I should; but you would have nothing to say to me and refused to teach me. And now you bring me up in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment."The overall atmosphere of this trial was one where Socrates was put on trial and tried to defend his position however, too many powerful and wealthy people bought the case and wanted Socrates to burn and he eventually did. Part of the closing statement in the defense, the tensions are high and one can feel the tension in the air."Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting any one whom I meet and saying to him after my manner: You, my friend,-- a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens,--are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all?" The final words of Socrates. "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows". Interesting-Profound Quotations from Apology Interesting-Profound Quotations from Crito Interesting-Profound Quotations from Euthyphro Interesting-Profound Quotations from Phædo Interesting-Profound Quotations from Republic "For the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being a pretence of knowing the unknown; and no one knows whether death, which men in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is not this ignorance of a disgraceful sort, the ignorance that is the conceit that a man knows what he does not know? And in this respect only I believe myself to differ from men in general, and may perhaps claim to be wiser than they are: --that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil". "Very good; and is not this true, Crito, of other things which we need not separately enumerate? In the matter of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world: and whom deserting we shall destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice; is there not such a principle?" "Their laughter, friend Euthyphro, is not a matter of much consequence. For a man may be thought wise; but the Athenians, I suspect, do not much trouble themselves about him until he begins to impart his wisdom to others, and then for some reason or other, perhaps, as you say, from jealousy, they are angry". "For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is ever pursuing death and dying; and if this is true, why, having had the desire of death all his life long, should he repine at the arrival of that which he has been always pursuing and desiring?" "And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting, and justice imparts harmony and friendship; is not that true". "A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or of a bad". "Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say,and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. Well, someone will say, "But the many can kill us." "I will endeavor to explain: we speak of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in what the difference lays?" ", I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible concern or interest in the body, and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away and we shall be pure and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere; and this is surely the light of truth. For no impure thing is allowed to approach the pure." "the true lover of knowledge is always striving after being --that is his nature; he will not rest in the multiplicity of individuals which is an appearance only, but will go on --the keen edge will not be blunted, nor the force of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge of the true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred power in the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becoming incorporate with very being, having begotten mind and truth, he will have knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not till then, will he cease from his travail. " "Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? I wish, men of Athens that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? Or in flute playing, and not in flute- players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?". "For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant" "And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither does it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree?" "If you put the two arguments together-I mean this and the former one, in which we admitted that everything living is born of the dead. For if the soul existed before birth, and in coming to life and being born can be born only from death and dying, must she not after death continue to exist, since she has to be born again?" "And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul?" Crito The Crito involves a dialogue with Crito (Socrates' student) and Socrates himself while he is in prison awaiting the sacred ship to dock from the Island of Delos. Critos reassures Socrates that his friends will find a way to get him out,"Listen, then, Socrates, to us who have brought you up. Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you do as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong" but as always he appears calm, ready to lecture and sticks to his moral principles. Socrates says that: i) one must never do wrong, ii) it is wrong to disobey the state, and iii) one must never disobey the state. Even at the edge of death, Socrates stuck with his principles which is a very important move for his life and his teaching."Then I will proceed to the next step, which may be put in the form of a question: Ought a man to do what he admits to be right, or ought he to betray the right?" Socrates thinking on his predicament"But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions" It takes extremely strong convictions to not want to save ones life instead of tainting one's principles and moral values. In this day and age it seems odd/ uncanny to think a person would believe in something so strongly as to not think of living before a person's beliefs. Obviously there are people who still do this, but there is obviously a right and a wrong way to approach every situation. . Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Throughout the early works of Plato, we actually do not here from him at all, in the Phædo, Euthyphro, Crito and the Apology. Plato is meerly there as a note-taker and an observant. His opinions are not present and he simply reports the facts. After the death of Socrates he steps in the forefront and his voice is communicated and heard by all. In some of his later works, his influence by Socrates and by the many things he encountered flourishes in his life, his writings, and his aspirations. Euthyphro In the traditional documentation, dialogue style Plato recounts the events before Socrates was presented his law suit, and the discussion between Socrates and a man named Euthyphro. Socrates questions the nature of piety and pious, and hopes to use this new acquired knowledge against Meletus, the chief accuser of Socrates who is responsible for the accusations brought up against him. It brings together a deep discussion on the meaning of Pious and Piety as well."Good heavens, Euthyphro! And is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact, that, supposing the circumstances to be as you state them, you are not afraid lest you too may be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?" This conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates, does not really resolve anything. It presents at least five or six definitions and questions to the same question; which is the true philosophical style of Socrates. "Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?" these draw many interesting questions, ones which arent easily defined and arent so cut and dry. Socrates questions the meaning of pious and piety , do they mean as the gods interpret them? as society interprets them? or as the individual interprets them. In the case of Athens it bequeathed more along the lines on how society and the ruling class interpreted it and its pragmatic manipulation for the interpretation of the gods."Then piety, Euthyphro, is an art which gods and men have of doing business with one another?" Again, Socrates in his question-answer style asks the question."Piety, then, is pleasing to the gods, but not beneficial or dear to them?"Or could it possibly be something else, possibly another interpretation, maybe it is unclear? So another point and questiong is presented."Then we must begin again and ask, what is piety? That is an enquiry, which I shall never be weary of pursuing as far as in me lies; and I entreat you not to scorn me, but to apply your mind to the utmost, and tell me the truth. For, if any man knows, you are he; and therefore I must detain you, like Proteus, until you tell. If you had not certainly known the nature of piety and impiety, I am confident that you would never, on behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. You would not have run such a risk of doing wrong in the sight of the gods, and you would have had too much respect for the opinions of men. I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge". The overall conversation and the question on piety does not yield a substantial answer that truly answers the questions, however, its a good starting point for Socrates' argument in the Apology and during the trial about his charges, Meletus, and the nature of Athens and the Democracy in general. The overal tone we see in Socrates even after his sentence is handed down and he is imprisoned; is one of a calm, reserved and analytical manner. It is also strongly evident that he does not wish to forsake the principles which he was grown and taught himself under. It just goes to show ya the level of commitment this man had to himself and his moral-value system. Phædo The dialogue begins by Phædo retelling the story of who was there and how Socrates died in his prison cell after he drank the poison Hemlock. The conversations start when one of Socrates' friends named Simmias asked Socrates why isnt suicide considered the right thing to do. The conversation soon shifts to discuss Socrates' view on the soul and its overall immortality, and to support this he presents four arguments about form and soul, he makes very profound and interesting statements and uses examples to secure his position. "Would you not say that he is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body? He would like, as far as he can, to be quit of the body and turn to the soul. That is true. In matters of this sort philosophers, above all other men, may be observed in every sort of way to dissever the soul from the body." Socrates presents his argument and points about the soul and the body in this excerpt. "We have found, they will say, a path of speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the soul is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied, and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and also is liable to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after truth: and by filling us so full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies, and idols, and every sort of folly, prevents our ever having, as people say, so much as a thought." The notion that the soul is always active, always awake, always in pursuit of something is dominant in this claim. In this next excerpt he defines and categorizes the affects of the soul and the body and effectively separates the two from each other."Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation, and hinders us from seeing the truth: and all experience shows that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself must behold all things in themselves: then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom, not while we live, but after death, as the argument shows; for if while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow-either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death". The first argument used in support of Socrates is about the opposites of things, and their meanings.Then let us consider this question, not in relation to man only, but in relation to animals generally, and to plants, and to everything of which there is generation, and the proof will be easier. Are not all things, which have opposites, generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as good and evil, just and unjust-and there are innumerable other opposites which are generated out of opposites. And I want to show that this holds universally of all opposites; I mean to say, for example, that anything, which becomes greater, must become greater after being less".This draws a very interesting point, that existence requires two opposites. two things that are complement of each other that connect in a certain way. Obviously, the story of Adam and Eve is different. Yin and Yang, light and dark. they all make sense because only having one of those things would not define what it is that makes something an actual substance. Nothing would hold weight and equate to what something really could be if there wasnt something different or certain characteristics that set it apart and separate from other things. of course, there are many other things that are similar but in the case of the universe as a whole, two opposites are better than two identical objects. And through this, Socrates came to the analogy that "The inference is, that our souls are in the world below?" Socrates presents his second argumenton of recollection. He asks the question and defneds his answer by saying that knowledge is innate and learned from places we havent been and felt from parts of our souls that cant be explained. Socrates also asks about "the nature of this abstract essence" This essence, this abstraction refers to something out of the ordinary something which isnt of the normal nature of people, which is exactly what recollection is. Socrates discusses what it is in numerous ways and calls it recollection. "But if the knowledge which we acquired before birth was lost by us at birth, and afterwards by the use of the senses we recovered that which we previously knew, will not that which we call learning be a process of recovering our knowledge, and may not this be rightly termed recollection by us?" In the third argument, the nature and aspects of the soul are discussed in relation to the nature of opposites and also of the recollection, which was spoken of earlier in the work. In this excerpt he defines the very tangible nature of the soul and what it is. "The soul resembles the divine and the body the mortal-there can be no doubt of that, Socrates. Then reflect, Cebes: is not the conclusion of the whole matter this? -That the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable. Can this, my dear Cebes, be denied?" Another point is presented to support the claim about the soul and ponders on why the body needs the soul and vice-versa and how one can not live without the other.But the soul which has been polluted, and is impure at the time of her departure, and is the companion and servant of the body always, and is in love with and fascinated by the body and by the desires and pleasures of the body, until she is led to believe that the truth only exists in a bodily form, which a man may touch and see and taste and use for the purposes of his lusts-the soul, I mean, accustomed to hate and fear and avoid the intellectual principle, which to the bodily eye is dark and invisible, and can be attained only by philosophy-do you suppose that such a soul as this will depart pure and unalloyed?" again we see the traditional question answer style of discussion. Socrates says that the soul is drawn to the body so it can fulfull its 'lust' and further gain experience, he says that ghosts are souls that are forced to stay out of a body because of their evil nature in the body. The discussion shifts as everyone in the room grows silent and reflects on what was said, then Simmias presents a concern for socrates to debate on. In his statement he says,"For I suspect, Socrates, that the notion of the soul which we are all of us inclined to entertain, would also be yours, and that you too would conceive the body to be strung up, and held together, by the elements of hot and cold, wet and dry, and the like, and that the soul is the harmony or due proportionate admixture of them. And, if this is true, the inference clearly is that when the strings of the body are unduly loosened or overstrained through disorder or other injury, then the soul, though most divine, like other harmonies of music or of the works of art, of course perishes at once, although the material remains of the body may last for a considerable time, until they are either decayed or burnt. Now if anyone maintained that the soul, being the harmony of the elements of the body, first perishes in that which is called death, how shall we answer him?"Ceres and Simmias generally accept the valid points that Socrates has presented however are still stuck on believeing whether or not that the soul is alive and continues to grow and live even after the body perishes, They claim that the evidence is too few and basically that what Socrates presents is a good theory or notion however can not truly be provided with facts or support to hold up its validity with others. The conversation and discussion contained in the Phædo are drawn to a close as Ceres finishes his take on the argument. He says that he believed now in the presence of the soul but does not believe in its survival after the death of a person; and with that, the book is closed. The Republic The Republic, which is comprised of ten books, starts on the conversation and discussion with Thrasymachus, a sophist, based on the value and beliefs of moral objective justice in regards to man, sophists do not believe in this notion and thus an argument ensues. Plato first defines what the truth is, justice in relation to the foundation of the tripartite soul. Plato also introduces the form of the good and also presents reasons for why its necessary to be good and just. Plato, again, is the notetaker of Socrates' discussion. While returning from a festival with one of Plato's brothers, Socrates runs into some friends and they all head over to the house of Polemarchus. Socrates strikes up a conversation with Polemarchus' father Chepalus, and discusses with him what his take on his acquisition of his wealth was, of which, leads into the discussion on justice. "What do you consider to be the greatest blessing which you have reaped from your wealth? One, he said, of which I could not expect easily to convince others. For let me tell you, Socrates, that when a man thinks himself to be near death, fears and cares enter into his mind which he never had before; the tales of a world below and the punishment which is exacted there of deeds done here were once a laughing matter to him, but now he is tormented with the thought that they may be true: either from the weakness of age, or because he is now drawing nearer to that other place, he has a clearer view of these things; suspicions and alarms crowd thickly upon him, and he begins to reflect and consider what wrongs he has done to others. And when he finds that the sum of his transgressions is great he will many a time like a child start up in his sleep for fear, and he is filled with dark forebodings. But to him who is conscious of no sin, sweet hope, as Pindar charmingly says, is the kind nurse of his age:Hope, he says, cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice and holiness and is the nurse of his age and the companion of his journey; --hope which is mightiest to sway the restless soul of man". Then Socrates makes the statement that paying for ones debts and justice are two separate things. The overall atmosphere is of a joking matter and everyone is having a good time, and the discussion again continues on with explaining, defining and classifying justice. The conversation progesses until they all reach a common consensus. If, Socrates, we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the preceding instances, then justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies".Thyrasymachus presents his side of the sophist story and works hard to dissuade the audience's opinion in accepting Socrate's theory. He is being impatient, rude, and overall obnoxious to prove himself in front of some friends to prove an egotistical point."I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honour to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy". The discussion touches on a wide array of topics and presents Thrasymachus' view as justice being the dominance of the stronger. Socrates presents many many scenarios and examples to back his claim but breaks little ground with him. "And about knowledge and ignorance in general; see whether you think that any man who has knowledge ever would wish to have the choice of saying or doing more than another man who has knowledge. Would he not rather say or do the same as his like in the same case?".The long and drawn out discussion, as pointed out by Socrates, concludes nothing really. Thrasymachus' aggressive approach and demeanor slowly calm down due to the length and type of argument that was taking place. You could feel how run down and tired he was and filled a sense that Socrates was going to argue his point until his vocal cords stopped working."The weak points of justice and of the hearts of men in power and strength.so have I gone from one subject to another without having discovered what I sought at first, the nature of justice. I left that enquiry and turned away to consider whether justice is virtue and wisdom or evil and folly; and when there arose a further question about the comparative advantages of justice and injustice, I could not refrain from passing on to that. And the result of the whole discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy". The Basis for Socrate's argument based on the involvement of justice and the Tripartite soul lies in the 4 virtues; which are: Courage, Temperance, Wisdom and Justice. Here is how Socrates defines the aspect of courage."I mean that courage is a kind of salvation. Salvation of what?, Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and of what nature, which the law implants through education; and I mean by the words 'under all circumstances' to intimate that in pleasure or in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves, and does not lose this opinion. Shall I give you an illustration?Socrates proposes this notion to Thrasymachus, it takes him a while to understand then Socrates moves on towards temperance, of which he says has a certain nature and symphony all its own, one which is more so than courage."Temperance, I replied, is the ordering or controlling of certain pleasures and desires; this is curiously enough implied in the saying of 'a man being his own master' and other traces of the same notion may be found in language. No doubt, he said. There is something ridiculous in the expression 'master of himself'; for the master is also the servant and the servant the master; and in all these modes of speaking the same person is denoted. Certainly. The meaning is, I believe, that in the human soul there is a better and also a worse principle; and when the better has the worse under control, then a man is said to be master of himself; and this is a term of praise: but when, owing to evil education or association, the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse --in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled."What is demonstrated here is the distinction between courage and temperance. Courage is the knowledge of what to fear and temperance is the strength to control and limit desires, evils and vices that which we all live with. Such is why, courage falls before temperance because if a person does not understand how to survive, what to run from. Then they will never truly know what to stand up to and thats something that all peoples, creatures and entities on this planet acquire through environment and relationships with each other and ourselves. The aspect of wisdom is merely touched on while justice is debated, discussed and reviewed and it draws interesting conclusions and pushes notions that most people would more than likely overlook."But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others, --he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three principles within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals --when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance." While Socrates' wraps up his final points he discusses on what it is to be good and presents reasons on why to conduct ones' behavior in this way."For he, Adeimantus, whose mind is fixed upon true being, has surely no time to look down upon the affairs of earth, or to be filled with malice and envy, contending against men; his eye is ever directed towards things fixed and immutable, which he sees neither injuring nor injured by one another, but all in order moving according to reason; these he imitates, and to these he will, as far as he can, conform himself. Can a man help imitating that with which he holds reverential converse? "Socrates describes the type of actions and activities of a person who fails to value and understand the principles unto which Socrates believes are the foundation of the soul and the principles of living. and he asked the question that if he is all of these things, should/are others be angry with him or accept it. a very interesting proposition indeed. In this next quote, we are again given a taste of the ideal "true" work and path of the human being."You are aware, I replied, that quick intelligence, memory, sagacity, cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow together, and that persons who possess them and are at the same time high-spirited and magnanimous are not so constituted by nature as to live orderly and in a peaceful and settled manner; they are driven any way by their impulses, and all solid principle goes out of them. "What is implied and later made concrete is the notion that good and knowledge are one in the same, that a person in search of one is truly practicing the other."Further, do we not see that many are willing to do or to have or to seem to be what is just and honourable without the reality; but no one is satisfied with the appearance of good --the reality is what they seek; in the case of the good, appearance is despised by every one. Very true, he said. Of this then, which every soul of man pursues and makes the end of all his actions, having a presentiment that there is such an end, and yet hesitating because neither knowing the nature nor having the same assurance of this as of other things, and therefore losing whatever good there is in other things, --of a principle such and so great as this ought the best men in our State, to whom everything is entrusted, to be in the darkness of ignorance? "The appearance of good is the visual representation of the mindset of the person, of their level of achievement in regards to intellect, and in being human. The definition of good lies in the practice and beliefs of the four principles. Goodness is essentially the act of becoming free in ones own mind, of seeking out what others fail to see, as well as learning and following the moral heart for intellectual and not substantial satisfaction. In this life, we value, honor and cherish those that look past material and think not on themselves but unselfishly and unrelentlessly look into the purity of the heart and the clarity of the soul to help and offer service to others without thoughts on payment or compensation. That is the goodness in people; the willingness to explore one's own mind while still holding their hearts and heads high as they do the "good" work that satisfies the soul and warms the heart. To do good work is to put a person one step person in being a human being. The life we leave and lead is treacherous and every second of it is a test of some kind, but when one practices good, knowledge will follow and with knowledge around, the same tests don't hold as much weight as before. experience, wisdom, justice, honor, respect. humanity."Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowing to the knower is what I would have you term the idea of good, and this you will deem to be the cause of science, and of truth in so far as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge; beautiful too, as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming this other nature as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previous instance, light and sight may be truly said to be like the sun, and yet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truth may be deemed to be like the good, but not the good; the good has a place of honour yet higher. " Aristotle Link | Plato Link | Karl Marx Link | Home Link Aristotle-Extensive | Plato-Extensive | Marx-Extensive | Home-Extensive Philosophical Source | Plato information | Aristotle information | Karl Marx Information 2004, Clark Tarrell [an error occurred while processing this directive]