Plato Arguments

Introduction:
- Thesis
- How are you going to reconstruct the text with respect to your thesis

First argument: (Might is right): Thrasymachus

- “Justice is the Advantage of the stronger,” Thrasymachus says.
- Survival of the fittest
- the idea that people who have power can do whatever they want
- what is Socrates response to that?

Second argument: (City argument): Thrasymachus

- Thrasymachus argument: Ruling group establish laws to their advantage and call it
“Justice”
- For example, a democracy sets down democratic law; A tyranny, tyrannic laws.
They then say that those laws are just for the ruled. Those who obey those laws are just,
while those who do not are punished for their unjust deeds.
- Socrates refutes: “for the stronger, and not of the stronger.”

Third argument: (Mistaken ruler argument): Socrates.
Rulers make mistakes.
But whatever the rulers set down must be done by those who are ruled, and this is just.
Socrates: then, according to your argument, it is just to do not only what is advantageous
for the stronger but also the opposite, what is disadvantageous.
Socrates: if rulers set down laws that are disadvantageous for themselves and the ruled
follow that, then justice would not be the advantage of the stronger.
Thrasymachus: It is what seems to the stronger to be the advantage of the stronger,
whether it is advantageous or not.
Precise sense Vs. common parlance
Rulers cannot do whatever they want. (because they make mistakes)

Fourth Argument (Ideal-doctor’s argument Money-Maker-Argument): Socrates

Induction
Premise 1: A doctor cares for the sick (the weaker)
Premise 2: A pilot cares for the passenger (the weaker)

----
Premise 3: A pharmacist cares for the sick.
Premise 4: Business he cares for the needs of his customer.

----
Conclusion: Each art cares for the advantage of the weaker

Deductive Argument

Premise 1: An art is only considered to be an art, if it enhances something that is bad.
Premise 2: A society gets enhanced by arts.
Premise 3: Weaker (not skilled people) benefit from a society that has arts.

Conclusion: That art is always for the advantage of the weaker.

cares for others;

Premise 1: An art is always for the advantage of somebody else.
the art cares of this deficiency, never for your own advantage)

- doctors and pilot’s examples. (it is the advantage of the weaker)


Conclusion: Ruler's always rule for the advantage of the weaker.


Fifth argument: (Sheep shepherd argument): Thrasymachus argument and Socrates response

Conclusion interpretation: What is Socrates idea of Justice?

Critique: What conclusion can you draw about justice based on your understanding. How would you criticize it? Is there something to amend? Are there implausibilities?

How to write an introduction

In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot be certain, at this moment, if we are dreaming or awake. In the paper that follows, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining the steps of his argument. Then, I will offer my own critique of his argument, by showing that we can in fact know if we are dreaming or awake.

edited version:

In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot be certain if we are dreaming or awake, since dreams can have the same vivacity as being awake . In the paper that follows, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining, firstly, his overall goal, namely a foundation of sciences, secondly how he criticizes our former foundations, and thirdly how from this unfolds a series of distrusts that ends with him questioning our state of being awake. Afterwards I will criticize Descartes for being to radical with his critique. Even though we are in a dream state this would be still our reality. In the end of my essay I will demonstrate an alternative to Descartes, namely a pragmatic philosophy that does not need an ultimate foundation but that focuses on the question of how we actually our lives.


State your overall goal: In the following paper, I will contest Descartes' assumption that states of being awake and states of dreaming are indistinguishable. In his Meditations, Renee Descartes argues that we cannot distinguish these states because both states have the same vivacity. In particular, I will show how Descartes comes to this conclusion, by explaining how he firstly attempts to find a foundation for sciences, how he secondly introduces his method of doubt, how thirdly criticizes our foundations of former knowledge, and how he finally arrives at this controversial claim. Then, I will offer my own critique of his argument, by showing that the question itself is rather theoretical than practical. My solution to the problem is therefore that we can derive a pragmatic sciences without an his extreme doubt. This we can assume that our reality is true for us.

Being and Time - Dasein

The ontic priority of the Question of Being

what is science for Heidegger?

Science occurs as a basis for knowledge. But is this true?

Science can be defined as the TOTALITY of true propositions

(Definition of propositions: Propositions are sentences that can be either true or false.)

What is the difference between totality and whole?

The totality is the sum of all parts, but it does not yet explain how all of these parts are working together, nor does it give us an idea of the whole.

Heidegger claims that this definition of science is not complete.

It seems sciences overlook the fact that they are made by humans and in this sense Heidegger points out that they have the Being of humans.

Human's being is defined as Da-Sein.

Heidegger makes a qualification that being scientific is not the only way of how Da-sein (that is humans that have being) is.

What is Da-sein?

"The ontic distinction of Da-sein lies in the fact that it is ontological." (Heidegger, 10)

What is ontic? Ontic is everything that is something. E.g. tables, chairs, clouds, thoughts, and so forth.

The ontic characteristic of Dasein is its ontology.

Well, what is ontology then?

An ontology describes a distinct understanding of all beings that occur in the world. For example, we could have objects of thoughts and objects of the physical order. Now, we can distinguish them further as animated objects and inanimate objects in the physical order and so forth. An ontology attempts to map all of the objects that we deal with.

Heidegger specifies in which way we are actually ontological. He says that most of the time we do not build ontologies and in this sense we are rather pre-ontological. This means that we have the potential to build an ontology but most of the time we do not engage in this activity.

What is existence?

Descries the way of how you relate to your life.

Being and Time - Analysis

First paragraph, central thought:

- The questions of metaphysics (beyond physics)

Metaphysics is related to questions of religion. In particular, which belief is rationally justified, and what makes a good belief.

- This question has been trivialized

Second paragraph, central thought:

- It talks about Being as the fundamental metaphysical question

Explanatory thought: The question of Being occurs to be appropriate for a metaphysical investigation. Simply asking for the beyond would be impossible, since we are finite creatures that cannot supersede their horizon of thinking. For this reason, we ask for the limits of our thinking. The known limit of our thinking is Being.

- Being: It is trivialized as the emptiest thought, the most general concept.

Third paragraph

- Our understanding is based on concept that were delivered to us through history
- The impact our thinking. Therefore, we have to clarify how they influence us.

1st prejudice:

Being is the most universal concept.

We have to keep in mind that this is a prejudice. This means there are contradictions that emerge if we say that being is in everything the same. (example of Being as the same substance in two different things attributes two properties to Being that are contradictory.)

The prejudice reduces Being to a being that is in everything. Being, however, is more.

2nd prejudice:

Being is undefinable because we cannot use the standard way of how we usually define. This means that we cannot use genus and specific difference. But this does not imply that we cannot talk about Being.

The reason why there is no definition of being and why there is a limit to Being is what Being is.

3rd prejudice

Being is self-evident

that means Being is in everything we do and everyone has an implicit understanding.

A closer examination, however, will reveal that the unclarity of Being is the fundamental concern of our lives.

arguments plato

Thrasymacus' argument

Premise 1: A just shepherd takes care of his sheep for the sheep’s well-being.

Premise 2: An unjust shepherd takes care of his sheep for his own advantage.

Conclusion: The just man directs the advantage to the weaker, and the unjust man takes the advantage for himself.

Premise 1: Shepherds care and fatten the flock.

Premise 2: Shepherds make more of a profit for themselves of a fat flock.

Conclusion: Therefore the art of a shepherd is for his own advantage.

Premise 1: Ruling is an art.

Premise 2: The ruler's art is to care for his people

Premise 3: The better the people the more the ruler benefits from caring for the people.

Conclusion: Therefore a ruler rules for his own benefit.

Socrates' counter argument

 Premise 1: The best doctor takes the best care of all of his patients.
Premise 2: The best shepherd takes care of his sheep without killing.
Conclusion: The best people of their art only care for their art.

Premise 1: Justice is an art
Premise 2: An art cannot be just if it is for personal gain.
Conclusion: Rulers cannot be just because they use power for their own purpose.

Premise 1: People who are good at an art take care of the weaker in a specific situation.
Premise 2: All arts have a reciprocation with benefit for the master.
Conclusion: The best of an art will receive a benefit while still providing an advantage to the weak.

Premise1: Shepherd's art surely cares for nothing but for providing the best that it has been set over.
Premise 2: Rulers demand wages to balance it out because what they are getting is for the benefit of others.
Conclusion: No art or kind of rule provides for its own benefit.

Premise 1: People do not do the art on free will, but demand wages as compensation.

Premise 2: wages are not attached to the art itself. A true shepherd is a shepherd also if he does not get compensation.

Premise 3: The wage-earners art does not furnish anything, while other arts have a direct intent that is not the wages but that what it is supposed to achieve.

Conclusion: Therefore no art or kind of rule provides for its own benefit, but for the advantage of the weaker

Premise 4: Ruling is an art

Concusion: Ruling is for the advantage of the weaker.

Premise 5: Ruling is establishing a form of justice.

Conclusion: Therefore justice is for the weaker.



A later argument

Premise 1: Rulers rule from necessity.

Premise 2: Rules must maintain rules for their own benefit, since otherwise everything would be chaos

Conclusion: Without rulers there would be chaos and thus no art could be established. This would also deny the art of money making.

Example for an Essay

The following is a good example of an essay that a student wrote. You find my comments in the text. I hope it helps you to identify my criteria for evaluating a text more clearly.

It occurs that our current ideas of punishment may be related to a system of morality that is not based on justice, but that is rooted in a corrupt feeling of resentment. Nietzsche investigates through his essay, “On the Genealogy of Morality,” this question with regard to slaves’ morality, which may be the historical root of our possibly corrupted conception of justice and punishment.

[This is a first introduction to the introduction. It summarizes the main problem and its relation to Nietzsche. The specific form of the essay will be represented in the next paragraph]

To reconstruct this, I will, first, demonstrate how Nietzsche introduces slaves’ and masters’ morality. He defines these two mindsets through analysis of the priests and by providing the metaphor of the lamb and the bird of prey. [you, the other students, might have different points that you present as essential] Second, I will reconstruct Nietzsche’s relation of punishment to slaves’ and masters’ morality. Third, from Nietzsche’s work, we will analyze the place of punishment in our society and how it is that it might contradict our ideas on justice. Finally, this leads to my proposed alternative solution of gradually weaning our society off the idea of resentment based punishment, but rather towards reasonable compensation. The compensation would provide service to the individual who the crime was committed against.  [In the introduction, the author formulates a problem and relates it to the reconstruction of Nietzsche, then the author summarizes all the steps that are undertaken in the following essay. It is specific enough, but not too specific] 

In the first essay Nietzsche analyzes the development of the two moral codes of masters’ morality and slaves’ morality. The master mindset is accredited to conquerors; these people are characterized by assuming their power and authority as superior and are naturally “good.” The slave mindset is attached to poverty as well as resentment of those who rule over them. The slaves are labeled as “bad” by the masters (Nietzsche 3-4), which does not include a moral evaluation. With regard to this natural state, Nietzsche explains the emergence of slaves’ morality and its recent success. [Please note that the author makes concrete references to the original text of Nietzsche. S/he actually reconstructs what the original text says and it does not only take my words from class.]

In order to demonstrate this, Nietzsche connects slaves’ morality to the priests, saying that they dangerously reversed the roles, building resentment. Nietzsche refers to this change as “more dangerous, not just because of medicaments and healing arts, but pride, revenge, acumen…resentment” (Nietzsche 7). These priests denounced the masters’ power, calling it sinful. This means they apply a moral term and thus introduce the idea of evil. They then titled self-denial and living a life in poverty as the new good. This mindset focuses on the evils of everyone else, thus motivates the domination of these evil individuals who are the masters. Therefore, the priests reverse the labels of good and bad in a way that enhances resentment. The bad becomes the new good, and the good becomes evil. [This all summarizes the revaluation of values very well and makes direct reference to paragraph 7. You will need such concrete references and reconstructions]

Nietzsche uses the metaphor of a bird of prey and a lamb to further explain this phenomenon. Nietzsche says that if the lambs could talk they would say that “These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like a lamb is good, isn’t he?” (Nietzsche 13). Since the lambs do not refrain from killing, however, Nietzsche says that these judgments are meaningless as the lambs cannot kill because they have no other option. Thus, Nietzsche says that it is wrong for the masters not to show their strength as such and just as absurd to call the slaves noble for not showing strength that they do not have.  Consequently, this shows that the priests are not actually noble for they do not have the ability to be real masters, and since they do not have this capability to be strong, they cannot be truly noble. This reconstruction is maybe not necessary. Slaves’ morality can be explained briefly. It is on the limit of saying too much. Still it is a very good reconstruction though.

This leads into punishment. For the masters, a natural right is felt among them to take violence and punishment against the slaves. Nietzsche explains that “throughout the greater part of human history punishment was not imposed because one held the wrong doer responsible for his deed, thus not on the presupposition that only the guilty one should be punished; rather, as parents still punish their children, from anger at some harm or injury, vented on the one who caused it” (Nietzsche 4). The quote is a bit too long In simple words [this phrasing embeds the quote into the essay of the student], masters perform punishment because of the pleasure they receive from the enjoyment of violation and because they do have power. The masters have no feelings of revenge toward those who commit infractions against the morals of masters, as they do not punish because one might deserve it. Rather, the punishment is linked to enjoyment.

Also, punishment is not considered necessary for master. Nietzsche says that “such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine “love of one’s enemies” is possible – supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies” (Nietzsche 10). Accordingly, for Nietzsche, punishment is not considered a matter of morals for the masters, but rather one of enjoyment that is not necessary for the masters.

Justifications for punishment do not come from the masters, but instead came from the morality of the slave. This is contrasting well how punishment is used in different ways. As previously stated, slave morality is linked to resentment or ressentiment. Since slaves’ morality is linked to this concept, it means that our morality is based upon resentment. Those who possess slave morality are without an outlet for their misery. They do not have power like the masters and, therefore, are forced to experience their weaknesses repeatedly, thus resentment builds. Eventually, the slaves become a whole new level of restless, and they unleash their built-up resentment onto the masters. The slave revolt, propelled by ‘ressentiment’, alters punishment into something that is used to promote evilness (Nietzsche 11). This is very well summarized. Again it is reconstructing the text.

            Now that we have defined slaves’ and masters’ morality in terms of punishment, I may provide my own alternative solution to punishment; I suggest that we gradually replace punishment with compensation for the victim. I understand that compensation may turn into a form of slaves’ morality, so I also propose a system in which to keep the criminal from becoming a slave to the victim. (This part here is unclear and needs to be reconstructed beforehand. Why can the idea of compensation be infected by slaves’ morality?) This compensation would not consist of vengeance, but rather of service to provide for the thing that has been taken from the victim. For example, if a criminal stole a car, the criminal would have to work in order to pay back the victim for the price of the car. Or, if a criminal physically hurts another person, the criminal would be expected to work to pay for the medical bills and loss of pay from being unable to work. This sounds easy in theory, but there are many other aspects in which it may become complicated. There must also be a point established at which the wrongdoer can no longer be a part of society, this would be after it is clear they are a threat to the wellbeing of society. If the criminal is unable to fully repay the victim, there must be a certain time established for which the criminal must devote their paychecks the victim to avoid them becoming slaves to their mistakes. Changing the entire basis of the way society views and believes that criminals and victims should be treated is not an easy thing to do. I see this as an excellent suggestion, but I also understand how difficult it would be to change the mindsets of so many people who are stuck wanting revenge. For this reason, it must take place gradually. The arguments are well developed. However, you need some argument why the compensation and revenge issues might be related to slaves’ morality.

            In conclusion, Nietzsche investigates through his essay, “On the Genealogy of Morality,” how slave morality could be the root of our conception of justice and punishments. Nietzsche defines slaves’ and masters’ morality through an analysis of the priests as well as by providing the metaphor of the lamb and the bird of prey. Then, Nietzsche relates the philosophy of punishment to slave and masters’ moralities, saying our system is based on resentment not justice. Through these contradictions in our punishment system, I propose alternative solution of working towards reasonable compensation rather than revenge based punishment.