Socrates Philosophical Teachings And Corruption Philosophy Essay

Socrates Philosophical Teachings And Corruption Philosophy Essay In works of Ancient Greek thinkers many great problems which and direct today development of psychological ideas are opened. In their explanations of genesis and soul structure three directions on which there was a search of those big spheres independent of the individual just like which it was treated microspace individual human soul are found out. The son of the sculptor and the midwife, Socrates, having got the general for Athenians of that time education, became the philosopher discussing problems of the theory of knowledge, ethics, a policy, pedagogics with any person, who agreed to his questions in any place in the street, on the market area, at any time. Socrates, unlike sophists, did not take money for philosophising, and among his listeners there were people of the most various property status, formation, political convictions, an ideological and moral warehouse. The sense of activity of Socrates (it has received the name dialectics a finding of true by means of conversation) consisted in, that with the help of definitely picked up questions to help the interlocutor to find the true answer (so-called Ñ Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒ Ã‚ ºÃƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒ Ã‚ ¸Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ãƒ Ã‚ µÃƒâ€˜Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã‚ ºÃƒ Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ Ã‚ ¹ a method) and by that at its message from uncertain representations to logically clear knowledge of di scussed subjects. To discussion the extensive circle of everyday concepts about justice was exposed, to injustice, good, beauty, courage etc. Socrates considered as the debt to accept active participation in a public life of Athens. Thus he far not always agreed with opinion of the majority in national meeting and in a jury that demanded considerable courage, especially in board thirty tyrants. Not the consent with the majority Socrates considered the as result, that he always aspired to observance of laws and justice of which the majority of people not always cares. He has been accused that does not honour gods and corrupts youth, and is sentenced to death by 361 voice from 500 judges. Socrates has courageously accepted a sentence, having drunk poison and having rejected plans of the pupils about runaway as rescue. Socrates did not write down the reasonings, considering, that only the live conversation leads to the necessary result to education of the person. Therefore it is difficult to reconstruct completely its sights about which we know from three basic sources of comedies by Aristophan, memories of Xenophont and Platons compositions. All these authors underline, what exactly Socrates considered for the first time soul first of all as a source of morals of the person, instead of as a source of activity of a body (as it was accepted in theories Geraclit and Democrit). Socrates said that soul the mental quality of the individual peculiar to it as a reasonable being, operating according to moral ideals. Such approach to soul could not start with thought on its materiality that is why simultaneously with occurrence of a sight at communication of soul with morals there is also a new sight at it which has been developed by Socratess pupil Platon later. Speaking about morals, Socrates connected it with behaviour of the person. The morals are the blessing realized in acts of people. However to estimate this or that act as moral, it is necessary to know preliminary, that such blessing. Therefore Socrates connected morals with reason, considering, that virtue consists in knowledge of good and in operation according to this knowledge. For example, that person who knows how it is necessary to behave in danger is brave, and arrives according to the knowledge. Therefore first of all it is necessary to train people, to show them a difference between good and bad, and then already to estimate them on conducting. Learning a difference between good and harm, the person starts to learn and itself. Thus, Socrates comes to the major position of the sights connected with carrying over of the centre of research interests from the surrounding validity on, the person. Socratess motto said: Learn yourself. By yourself Socrates understood Under knowledge not the reference inside to own experiences and consciousness conditions (the concept about consciousness was not isolated by then yet), and the analysis of acts and relations to them, moral estimations and norms of human behaviour in various vital situations. It conducted to new understanding of essence of soul. If sophists have accepted for a starting point the relation of the person not to the nature, and to other people for Socrates the relation of the person to as to the carrier of intellectual and moral qualities becomes the major. Subsequently even said, that Socrates was the pioneer of psychotherapy, trying by means of a word to bare that is hidden behind external displays of work of mind. Anyway, in his methodics the ideas which have played in many centuries a key role in psychological researches of thinking were concealed. First, thought work was put in dependence on a problem creating an obstacle for its habitual current. Such problem was the system of questions which Socrates brought down on the interlocutor, clearing up that its intellectual activity. Secondly, this activity initially had character of dialogue. Both signs: the orientation of thought created by a problem, and dialogics, assuming, that knowledge initially socially as roots in dialogue of subjects, steels in the XX-th century the main reference points of experimental psychology of thinking. About this philosopher who has become for all centuries by an ideal of unselfishness, honesty, independence of thought, we know according to his pupils. He never wrote nothing and considered itself not as the teacher of wisdom, and the person who is clearing up in others aspiration to true. After Socrates, in which centre of interests there was mainly a cerebration (its products and values) the individual subject, the concept about a soul was filled with the new subject maintenance. It made absolutely special essence which the physical nature does not know. The Socratess dialogic-dialectic method assumes freedom of the person and is based on democratic idea that the person is a being responsible, capable to learn true and to make the decision on own fear and risk. By means of test by irony Socrates exposed superficial claims for pansophy and infallibility, subverting all imaginary, pseudo-serious and any false authorities. The Socratess irony is search true and positive, an appeal to originally serious and considerable, to their constant test. Socratess irony results from love to wisdom and is directed on excitation of this love as to the higher value. Socrates believed, that the reason is poured on all Universe, that the human reason makes only insignificant share of the general reason. As proof of life of the higher Reason Socrates referred on the order in the Universe, to conformity of human sense organs to natural phenomena: eyes are created for sight, ears for hearing and so on, and so on. Unlike sophists, Socrates did not show the superiority over associates; he aspired to learn to distinguish them under a mask of pansophy ignorance. He considered training of the person thinking, ability to find the main task of the life in itself (himself) the deep spiritual beginning. By his own words, he has been put to the Athenian people as a gadfly to a horse that that did not forget to think of the soul. The method, which Socrates has selected for the decision of this uneasy problem, the irony releasing the person from self-confidence, from noncritical acceptance of anothers opinion. In the beginning Socrates as though models initial opposition: admits own ignorance and gives the chance to the interlocutor to affirm as the belief. Then by means of smart questions brings the interlocutor to opposite representation that that has seen Socrates spiritual superiority and own ignorance. The irony purpose not destruction of moral principles; on the contrary, as a result of the ironical relation to all external, to prejudiced opinions the person develops the general representation about that spiritual beginning which lays in each person. The way of independent opening of true person Socrates named maietics (literally birth art). Maietics is  «soul childbirth, instead of bodies », it is a way of true births on which there is a person by means of the teacher. The philosophy should become the doctrine how the person to live, the philosophy develops the general concept about things, finds out a uniform basis existing which for human reason appears the blessing the prime target. The uniform basis of a human life does not exist in a separation from spiritual efforts of the person, it not the indifferent natural beginning. Only when Uniform becomes the purpose of the person, it will be presented in the form of concept, it will make his happiness. Such rapprochement of knowledge and morals has caused many objections of thinkers of the subsequent epoch. However Socrates ethical rationalism, not clear to the modern person, was rather pertinent during an epoch of destruction of the patriarchal communal relationship, traditional religion. The person of the sociality which has not got stronger yet without the aid of sophists remained in loneliness, became the captive of the passions, began to be afraid of himself. As it is shown in  «Criton », motives of refusal of runaway follow from Socrates ethical doctrine and are reduced to that  «the unfair act is angrily and a shame for making it, and besides in all cases » (Platon. Criton.49 b). Therefore, contrary to public opinion,  «it is not necessary neither to answer injustice with injustice, nor to do to somebody harms even if it would be necessary to suffer from someone » (In the same place. 49 à Ã‚ °-Ñ ). Especially it is impossible to make injustice concerning domestic laws for only thanking it there is a state, thanking it Socrates was born from a legal marriage, has received education ordered by them and became the citizen of Athens which have allocated with its every possible blessings. Being the citizen, he was obliged to support, instead of to undermine laws of the fatherland. As against the father and mother, and the it is more against the state and its laws is inadmissible to make violence even if you test from the m injustice, including such not deserved penalty, as condemnation on death. The first of the specified arguments is reduced to that the runaway Socrates wishes to ruin laws and the state for they cannot exist if the decisions which have been taken out by court, at will of private persons are not carried out, cancelled and become void (Criton. 50 à Ã‚ °-Ñ ). Socrates considers possible to challenge this argument, having referred that  «the state has arrived with us has unfairly and incorrectly solved business » (In the same place. 50). Criton catches at this objection as it is meant, that Socrates has the right to arrive unfairly concerning the state which has arrived unfairly in relation to it. Therefore default of an unfair sentence of court by Socrates will lead to death not of the state and its laws, and only to cancellation of a wrong sentence. However Criton forgets, that earlier he has agreed with Socrates ethical principle, that (contrary to opinion of the majority expressing a traditional ethical standard) it is not necessary to arrive u nfairly even if with you have arrived so, and it is not necessary to answer with harm (49 b-d). Instead of specifying to Criton in this contradiction, Socrates (become to the place of Criton in dialogue with Laws) results possible counter objection of Laws: Laws agreed with citizens of the policy (city-state) not that they, citizens, will submit and execute only those judgements which are represented to them fair but only that separate persons should carry out all and any judgements which have been taken out by the State (50). The second argument says that Socrates is in relation to the State and Laws in the same dependence as the slave before the owner and as the child before the parents their relations are unequal, therefore Socrates should obey to the court decision (50 d-51). The state has found fair to sentence Socrates to a death penalty. Hence, Socrates attempt will escape the life unfair act. Further, in considered argument the analogy between parents and the child, and also between the mister and the slave is spent, however in other places of dialogue about children is spoken as about timid and inconsistent silly little chaps (46 with, 49 b), and about slaves as about contemptible beings (52 d; see also 53). Following this analogy, it is possible to prove, that if Socrates, contrary to will of the State, will make runaway from prison, he will assimilate to the child or the slave; But as Socrates does not want it, he will not make runaway, will not break the obligations to the State which generat ed and has brought up him. However all sense of analyzed argument just in that also consists what to be the unequal child or the slave not too badly that Socrates opposed such state of affairs: he should aspire to accept the restrictions following from its position. All it, are noticed by G.Young, is a stretch, if not obvious inconsistency which forces to think of, whether the second argument is so convincing, to what he it is represented at first sight (Young. P. 18). The third argument, concerning the agreement concluded between Socrates and Laws (50), consists that any of the Athenian citizens, knowing a decision-making and business management order in the State, nevertheless does not leave Athens, thereby silently submitting to laws and executing all commands from the State. In  «Criton » we read:  « Who remains, knowing as we judge in our courts and we run in the State other business, we can already assert, that he has in practice agreed to carry out that we (Laws. F. à Ã… ¡) We order; and if he does not obey, we say, that he three times as much breaks justice: that does not obey us Having agreed to us to obey Also does not try to overpersuade us when we do something badly, and though we offer, instead of roughly we order to execute our decisions and we give it on a choice one of two either to overpersuade us, or to execute, he does not do neither that, nor another  »(51 e-52 and; see also 51 b-Ñ ). Attracts attention, that execution of laws is dycon as the obligation (agreement) to carry out the laws, taken on itself the citizen of the state, assumes, that: 1) the citizen has the right to challenge justice of the accepted decisions, possibility to overpersuade the state and to explain, in what justice (In the same place consists. 51 with, 52); 2) acceptance by the citizen on itself of obligations excludes compulsion (###) or a deceit (###) from the state (52; 3) agreement undertaking does not connect the citizen with the state for ever, but gives to each citizen the right to take away the property, to lodge outside of fatherland at own discretion (51 d-e). It is easy to notice, that on conditions of the agreement the state or laws do not guarantee and hardly can guarantee, that they will make in relation to the citizen only the blessing and to do with him only fairly. The only thing, that they promise, is to give to the citizen possibility to overpersuade them, i.e. To listen to arguments of the citizen which he will wish to state, concerning a prospective inaccuracy and injustice taken out by them (laws) of decisions. Strictly speaking, chances of possibility to overpersuade them are represented illusory. After all in practice to convince to (overpersuade) it is necessary the fellow citizens in which person exist and laws function. There is a question and on legitimacy of carrying out of distinction between citizens of the state and laws as the last, wishing to keep the advantage and to save itself from infringements, say, that in case of wrong decisions the citizen will be offended  «not by us, Laws, and people » (54 b). The know n contradiction is observed also between the second argument according to which the citizen obliged by the birth and education to the state, is something like the property or the state slave, and the third argument considerably limiting the rights of the citizen if and not obliging it to voluntary slavery. (The third argument forcing, according to Young, the citizen to voluntary slavery, we consider insufficiently proved, as, however, and its some other statements on which we here will not stop.) anyway, Laws recognize, as we already saw, à Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ µÃƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒ Ã‚ ²Ãƒ Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒ Ã‚ ¿Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒ Ã‚ ²Ãƒ Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒâ€˜Ã‚ Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€˜Ã…’ the citizen before the state (50). Not only in Apologia, but also in  «Criton » Socrates adheres to the point of view, that a life without philosophy and philosophising is not a life. Therefore in Apologia he is said, that, preferring to obey supreme more, than to people, the death is faster than signs, than will refuse philosophy. In Criton, refusing flight, Socrates refers to this argument not because he has decided to obey people more, than to the god, and for that simple reason, that flight (besides would serve as the indirect demonstration of its fault) did not promise it philosophising possibility on foreign land. [5] here that Laws speak to Socrates:  « If you will go to one of the nearest cities, to Thebes or Megara, after all both these cities cope good laws, that will come there, Socrates, the enemy of their state order: all those to whom of roads their city, on you will be mown, including you by the blighter of laws, and you will strengthen glory as if they have correctly solved your business for y our judges And can be, you are intended to avoid the arranged well states and decent people? But whether in that case it is necessary to you to live? Or you will wish to approach with such people and will not feel ashamed with them to talk? But what to talk about, Socrates? About the same, about what here again what is more expensive to people of all virtue and justice, customs and laws? Really your way it would be worthy Socrates? And after all it would be necessary to think of it  »(Criton. 53 b-d). To Socrates who was teaching, that the main question of a life is a question on good and harm and that the person at all situations can and should choose good, possibility, and on a personal example has been given, to prove practicability of to what he teaches. On court the choice was coming before him: to stop philosophising and to keep a life or on pain of death to continue the activity. For Socrates refusal of the mission was equivalent to refusal of a life, its sense. He has chosen death. For such integral and fair natures as Socrates, other alternative was not. Gegel specified in it still. Gegels point of view was divided by T.Gompertsem (p. 83) and other scientists. It finds supporters and now. Having put cultural wealth in the forefront, Socrates considered their creation by an overall objective of a human life. And as, according to Socrates, the spiritual blessings are not transferred in a ready kind from one person to another, but reveal and got in search, in research itself and others, in  «to care of a soul » so far as refusal of such search is equivalent to refusal of a life. According to Socrates, dialogue and a dialectic (question-answer) method of definition of concepts are necessary conditions of joint search of true.