Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Socrates offers four arguments for the soul's immortality: The Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite.
Plato relies, further, on the view that the soul is a mind in order to explain how its motions are possible: Plato combines the view that the soul is a self-mover with the view that the soul is a mind in order to explain how the soul can move things in the first place (e.g., how it can move the body to which it is attached in life). [10]
The Charmides (/ ˈ k ɑːr m ɪ d iː z /; Ancient Greek: Χαρμίδης) is a dialogue of Plato, in which Socrates engages a handsome and popular boy named Charmides in a conversation about the meaning of sophrosyne, a Greek word usually translated into English as "temperance," "self-control," or "restraint."
Socrates gently berates the rhapsode for being Protean, which after all, is exactly what a rhapsode is: a man who is convincingly capable of being different people on stage. Through his character Socrates, Plato argues that "Ion’s talent as an interpreter cannot be an art, a definable body of knowledge or an ordered system of skills," but ...
If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file. Short title Socrates: The Apology and Crito of Plato
Plato's theory of the soul, which was inspired variously by the teachings of Socrates, considered the psyche (Ancient Greek: ψῡχή, romanized: psūkhḗ) to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. Plato considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of a person's being.
The Second Alcibiades or Alcibiades II (Greek: Ἀλκιβιάδης βʹ) is a dialogue traditionally ascribed to Plato.In it, Socrates attempts to persuade Alcibiades that it is unsafe for him to pray to the gods if he does not know whether what he prays for is actually good or bad for him.
In The Republic (509d–510a), Socrates describes the divided line to Glaucon this way: . Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, [1] and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible, and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of clearness ...