Central Theme of Platos Apology - Research Paper Example

Plato, Apology. The central theme of Plato’s Apology is the epistemological debate over the vera of Socrates own belief. At the centre of his argument lies the idea that he cannot know if his own beliefs are true. This argument begins when Socrates describes his visit to a man said to be wiser than himself. Socrates however does not consider the man to be wise, precisely because he believes himself to be so. He comments that ‘although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor  think that I know. In this latter particular then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.’ Socrates’ argument is therefore that knowledge is not about believing that one knows something, but instead about knowing that one, in fact, cannot know. Socrates is driven to those said to be wise, because he wants to consider the word of God. On this quest, Socrates finds that ‘I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better.’ Socrates will then go on to explain this apparent paradox. His argument is based around the idea that believing one has knowledge cheats one out of actually having knowledge. The only true posit of knowledge, in Socrates’ argument is God himself. So, following Socrates’ argument, God himself knows that his wisdom means nothing, which is precisely what makes him so wise. Socrates returns to the argument over knowledge later in the Apology at which point he discusses fear of death. He argues that this, rather than making a man wiser, fearing death shows a pretence of wisdom, because death is unknown and an unknown thing cannot be known and therefore feared. Man does not know if death is a terrible thing or not and it is therefore illogical to fear it. Following on from this logic, Socrates cannot know if his beliefs are true, because wisdom dictates that no knowledge is regarded as certain. Socrates’ discussion of knowledge in the Apology is an interesting one, since it centres on the idea that nothing can be truly known. It subverts the common view that a lot of knowledge is synonymous with wisdom and replaces it with the idea that wisdom is the having the openness of mind to understand that any amount of knowledge is never a lot. Plato, Republic. In the Republic, Plato reports Socrates’ notions on ethics, connected with idea of justice. These ideas are related to the debate over epistemology in the Apology since they rely on a similar debate over subjectivity. However, this time subjectivity is rejected. In the Apology, Socrates argues that knowledge can never be known. In an opposing argument in the Republic Socrates (though Plato) argues that ethics and justice are not subjective and so do not depend on the point of view of whoever is outlining them at the time. This is in opposition to Glaucon who maintains that power influences ethics and they are therefore subjective, not objective. Socrates however maintains that ethics are objective. Glaucon makes the statement that ‘justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger’ which supports the subjectivity of justice. He elaborates on this point when he explains that ‘different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects.’ However, Socrates maintains his argument of objectivity by stating that in Glaucon’s argument, justice is merely citizens obeying the rules of their government; simply an obedience to the stronger by the weaker. However, rulers could makes mistakes about what is in their best interests and so ‘justice’, if the citizens obey the rules, could even actually work against the powerful. This shows the fundamental flaw in Glaucon’s definition. In place of this, Socrates argues that man’s understanding of justice is certainly limited, but justice itself is part of a higher existence, which man cannot fully comprehend but which nevertheless exists and which man has the capability to imagine. We live in subjectivity, but we try to understand the objectivity of concepts which are beyond us as human beings, such as justice. The argument which Plate puts forward for objectivism against subjectivism is a debate which still occurs in philosophical thought to this day. The idea of concepts which man cannot humanly attain seems true to a certain extent, since man is indeed inclined to make errors. However, dividing man from objective truth seems a little artificial, since it relies on a god-like argument (i.e. a higher truth) which seem a little hollow. Aristotle, Ethics. In his ethics Aristotle deals with many themes, such as happiness and psychology. However the central argument centres around ethics and specifically around Aristotle’s so-called ‘doctrine of the mean.’ Aristotle associates the ‘mean’ with virtue, since it is the middle ground between excess and defect, which are vices. Virtue is therefore to be found in the mean, a kind of middle way between too much and too little. He comments that ‘virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us.’ Not all emotions can be reduced to a mean and therefore there are many which are not virtuous. The examples he gives include spite, shamelessness and envy. This is because they are all examples of excess or defect, and so do not represent a mean, which is virtuous. Aristotle then moves on to give specific examples of this mean. He comments that ‘with regards to giving and taking of money the mean is liberality, the excess and the defect prodigality and meanness.’ This is a concrete example of what Aristotle intends by ‘mean’. Liberality is therefore virtuous in this case. Aristotle then works through a series of actions, emotions and states in order to define the mean in each case. However he is keen to point out that sometimes the mean lies slightly closer to the defect and sometimes closer to the excess so that ‘we must incline sometimes towards the excess, sometimes towards the deficiency; for so shall we most easily hit the mean and what is right’. This definition of virtue and the way that Aristotle quantifies ethics in this way is, therefore, quite different from Plato / Socrate’s approach in the Republic. The argument seems more tangible, since it is does not separate man from a greater understanding, but rather gives man the possibility to find virtue through balance. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things. The key development in Lucretius’ philosophy lies in his theory of metaphysics. Although he goes on to develop arguments about ethics based on this idea, this essay will only look at the essential ideas behind his metaphysics. In his poem, Lucretius builds up a theory based around atoms. He therefore uses the building blocks to explain how the world is put together, rather than basing his ideas purely on divine creation. Lucretius draws on the work of Epicurus when developing his ideas on metaphysics. Lucretius argues that matter is eternal and so change is based on atoms which reform. This is a strikingly modern concept of the world, given that a modern understanding, although far more complex in its execution, is based on that exact same system of indestructible building blocks which merely form different bonds but which are never destroyed. Atoms, for Lucretius, perform the role that genes perform today. He states that ‘Indeed, and were there not /For each its procreant atoms, could things have / Each its unalterable mother old?’ Atoms are what allow a new tree to grow in the same form as an old tree, because there are essential tree atoms which make this so. In this way, Lucretius’ ideas on metaphysics are at variance with modern ideas. However, they show a very rational process of reasoning based on the world around them, rather than having recourse to Gods to explain the nature of things. Anselm and Aquinas Anselm and Aquinas take classical thought and apply it to Christian needs. They therefore make arguments in order to prove the existence of God. Aquinas bases his arguments on five key points. The first is movement. Movement exists in the world and so for something to move, something else must move it. As this argument could go on infinitely, Aquinas argues that God must be the first originator of the movement. Given that movement is indeed a complex thing to explain, this argument seems reasonable given the science of the day. His second idea is that everything has a cause which is external to itself. Everything is born of something but again this argument is infinite. There must have been an initial creator who caused the first thing to come into existence, which then began the chain of bringing other things into existence. Again, God is a convenient answer to this chicken and egg question. The third argument is an expansion of argument two to consider the cosmos. Aquinas argues that time is infinite (perhaps a flaw in his argument) and so at one time the physical make-up of the earth did not exist. Since nothing can be born of nothing, there must have been something to bring the earth into existence and that something was God. Indeed, this argument is still used by creationists today to prove the existence of God. Aquinas’ fourth argument is that there are different levels of qualities. Someone can be very good, for example, or not very good at all. However, in order to measure goodness there must be something to compare it to. Aquinas argues that man therefore compares himself with the ultimate goodness, which is God. This argument strongly opposes the idea that man has an innate sense of good and bad. Aquinas’ final argument is that all things have goals. This suggests intelligent design, which again is the basis of arguments in favor of the existence of God today. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that denying the existence of God is fundamentally illogical. This is known as the ontological argument. If man can imagine God, then God must be the greatest thing that man can imagine. If God existed only in the imagination, he would not be the greatest thing man could imagine because there would be another thing that existed both in the imagination and in reality, which would be the greatest thing, and would therefore be God. Thus, God exists in reality as well as in the imagination. This argument only works if the premise that God can be defined as the greatest thing which man can imagine is accepted. Descartes, Meditations In the Meditations, Descartes attempt first to explore epistemology, seeking to understand what can and cannot be know. This then evolves into a discussion of metaphysics. However, this essay will limit its discussion to the discussion of knowledge in Descartes. His ideas on knowledge are stimulated from the position of doubt. In this way, Descartes was able to question philosophical positions based on sensation, which can be faulty and replace it with certainties. The most basic concept which cannot be placed into doubt, Descartes concludes, is the man exists. Descartes then proceeds to prove the existence of God, central to his argument, in order to provide a basis which is free of doubt on which to build his metaphysical argument. Descartes argument for this existence of God is closely related to that of Anselm, in that it is also ontological. God’s existence can be proved, argues Descartes, by the very fact that man has an idea of God. The nature of things is established by exploring the concept of their existence and so God must also exist because a concept of him exists in the human mind. How could an idea of something which did not exist occur in the human mind? Quite simply, it couldn’t and therefore God exists. It is from this basis of no doubt that Descartes can then move forward with his metaphysics. Read More