Galileo vs. Plato: The Debate to Achieve Neutrality
Whether it is democracy, electing officers, or asking the audience on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, people tend to trust masses. A possible reasoning behind this presumption is: if the majority people think something, then it is probably true or best. While some authors, historians, philosophers, and other such experts agreed with such though, others have attempted to come up with a different solution in finding what is best for society. In Republic by Plato, Socrates attempts to achieve neutrality. Similarly, Galileo intends to reach this same neutrality in The Sidereal Messenger. Galileo’s approach of arriving at truths regarding the natural world and humanity is more effective at achieving …show more content…
Socrates introduces the Guardian, Auxiliary, and Systemic class in addition to Justice. In this Socrates finally offers his own definition of justice. He discusses justice in two forms: justice in the city and justice in the individual. Justice in the city is whatever is best for the city in the form of class harmony (Plato 119-121). Earlier in Republic Socrates introduces the idea of specialization, where each person performs a single craft because then every single task can be done with proficiently (47-48). Socrates identifies what is best for the city is each person doing his/her own job to one’s fullest potential (Plato 121). Meanwhile, Socrates identifies justice in the individual as harmony amongst the three different parts of the soul: rational, ruling, and courageous parts (Plato 132). Each of these parts works in soul in the same way that justice is ruled in the city (Plato 132). While Plato’s method of attempting to reduce bias is selective in whom it may appeal to, Galileo exhibits a more practical approach. Galileo’s attempt to achieve neutrality is through observation. The idea surrounding his approach is that any person, including but not limited to Galileo, can look through the same equipment to get the same
Whether it is democracy, electing officers, or asking the audience on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, people tend to trust masses. A possible reasoning behind this presumption is: if the majority people think something, then it is probably true or best. While some authors, historians, philosophers, and other such experts agreed with such though, others have attempted to come up with a different solution in finding what is best for society. In Republic by Plato, Socrates attempts to achieve neutrality. Similarly, Galileo intends to reach this same neutrality in The Sidereal Messenger. Galileo’s approach of arriving at truths regarding the natural world and humanity is more effective at achieving …show more content…
Socrates introduces the Guardian, Auxiliary, and Systemic class in addition to Justice. In this Socrates finally offers his own definition of justice. He discusses justice in two forms: justice in the city and justice in the individual. Justice in the city is whatever is best for the city in the form of class harmony (Plato 119-121). Earlier in Republic Socrates introduces the idea of specialization, where each person performs a single craft because then every single task can be done with proficiently (47-48). Socrates identifies what is best for the city is each person doing his/her own job to one’s fullest potential (Plato 121). Meanwhile, Socrates identifies justice in the individual as harmony amongst the three different parts of the soul: rational, ruling, and courageous parts (Plato 132). Each of these parts works in soul in the same way that justice is ruled in the city (Plato 132). While Plato’s method of attempting to reduce bias is selective in whom it may appeal to, Galileo exhibits a more practical approach. Galileo’s attempt to achieve neutrality is through observation. The idea surrounding his approach is that any person, including but not limited to Galileo, can look through the same equipment to get the same