Nate Gershon
Intro to Philosophy
Professor Skedzielewski Take a Stand Essay Plato and Nietzsche both are tremendous philosophers and writers in their own right, they both present claims and arguments on topics that some may disagree with. Their premises and conclusions on any topic can end up being viewed subjectively as understandable, probable, or debatable. After concluding each of their books, Plato’s Republic and Genealogy of Morals, claims on topics like the soul, justice, guilt, or origins of our conscience are on each side of the spectrum with Plato and Nietzsche. With this being said, if I had to take a stand with either philosopher, I would stand with Plato. Unlike Nietzsche and his genealogic approach, Plato’s claims …show more content…
This method, to me, is easier to understand. The Socratic method heavily involves dialogue, as shown in plenty of occasions in the Republic. With dialogue, the method also includes plenty of questioning back and forth among others for any, seeking after contradictions, and challenging others on their claims. Plato uses this style and it does not seem deliberate to the reader and when it comes to most claims made in the Republic, all possible premises are looked into thoroughly until they are shown to be valid and sound or not. I’d prefer this writing this style due to the minimal error there seems to be for whatever the claim may be. Challenging each other on their views with the Socratic method seems to me that it can ultimately end up changing views, due to how every possible stone is turned over. Also, in the Republic, Plato does not write for the purpose of predominately getting his point across on all claims mentioned. Plato writes for people to pursue and who pursue wisdom and virtue. To me, Plato makes the reading more appealing with this as well as how he does not make the main character, Socrates, seem the most holy and is never …show more content…
Ross and argue Plato, a democracy seems like the most logical form of government to be in as opposed to an Aristocracy, in my opinion. The idea of a philosopher-king in control and that being the best type of city come off as bias to me. Some of these philosophers may not be fit at all to rule, but end up doing it. There will still be resentment against the ruler and the people will all not be treated fairly. All of the reasons for the previous governments falling all make sense, but for the democracy to fall into a tyranny seems odd. A democracy appeals all those in the community fairly and equally. To have it fall from one or two small decisions doesn’t seem likely, if any problems occur in the democracy in the first
Intro to Philosophy
Professor Skedzielewski Take a Stand Essay Plato and Nietzsche both are tremendous philosophers and writers in their own right, they both present claims and arguments on topics that some may disagree with. Their premises and conclusions on any topic can end up being viewed subjectively as understandable, probable, or debatable. After concluding each of their books, Plato’s Republic and Genealogy of Morals, claims on topics like the soul, justice, guilt, or origins of our conscience are on each side of the spectrum with Plato and Nietzsche. With this being said, if I had to take a stand with either philosopher, I would stand with Plato. Unlike Nietzsche and his genealogic approach, Plato’s claims …show more content…
This method, to me, is easier to understand. The Socratic method heavily involves dialogue, as shown in plenty of occasions in the Republic. With dialogue, the method also includes plenty of questioning back and forth among others for any, seeking after contradictions, and challenging others on their claims. Plato uses this style and it does not seem deliberate to the reader and when it comes to most claims made in the Republic, all possible premises are looked into thoroughly until they are shown to be valid and sound or not. I’d prefer this writing this style due to the minimal error there seems to be for whatever the claim may be. Challenging each other on their views with the Socratic method seems to me that it can ultimately end up changing views, due to how every possible stone is turned over. Also, in the Republic, Plato does not write for the purpose of predominately getting his point across on all claims mentioned. Plato writes for people to pursue and who pursue wisdom and virtue. To me, Plato makes the reading more appealing with this as well as how he does not make the main character, Socrates, seem the most holy and is never …show more content…
Ross and argue Plato, a democracy seems like the most logical form of government to be in as opposed to an Aristocracy, in my opinion. The idea of a philosopher-king in control and that being the best type of city come off as bias to me. Some of these philosophers may not be fit at all to rule, but end up doing it. There will still be resentment against the ruler and the people will all not be treated fairly. All of the reasons for the previous governments falling all make sense, but for the democracy to fall into a tyranny seems odd. A democracy appeals all those in the community fairly and equally. To have it fall from one or two small decisions doesn’t seem likely, if any problems occur in the democracy in the first