Paper Example. The Pre-Socratic Method of Thinking

Mythology is generally stories, vast with incredibly superhuman characters. The purpose of myths varies depending on the background and reasoning. In the Greek context, myths are designed to ease the mind to some extent, to give answers to issues where no other answer can be found. Like the creation story, for example, with Gaia and Uranus. The subsequent castration of Uranus leading to the creation of the universe. Once philosophers came into play, the process of thinking changed. With mythology, there's a story; all the facts are laid out plain and simple. It explains the why, who, when, and where. It outlines the creation of time and space, the process of creating love and hate, war, and peace. The process of creating order and power. Everything is outlined. When philosophers came into the story, it becomes a state of questioning. Asking why or how creating different theories, challenging what we think we know, forcing a deeper train of thought. Mythology uses a supernatural aspect to answer the questions of the people; however, with philosophy, a more real, almost scientific element is introduced to answer the questions more believably and soundly. This is where pre-Socratic philosophy was introduced, Pre-Socratic philosophers tasked themselves with edging away from hard to believe creation stories and introduced more natural ways of thinking. Examples similar to this can still be seen today. Billions of people in the world believe in religion; different religions have different theories on the Creation story, Christians believe that God created the earth and everything in it however some people deemed 'Evolutionists' believe in as the title suggests, Evolution. Pre-Socratic evolutionists would be seen as modern-day evolutionists. As the Pre-Socratic method of thinking was more believable, people tended to side with that method. Philosophy tries to question what we know and create solutions to the questions that are so hard to answer; Pre-Socratic philosophy was one of the first examples of people edging away from religion and towards sound evidence. Hesiod's Theology proved the first answer to the creation of everything we know, and as it was one of the only answers, people chose to believe it, to see it as factual.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Sophists

The word Sophist was derived from Greek terms that meant wisdom (Sophia) and wise (Sophos). The terms were broadly used as they extended from the practical prudence and knowhow in the public affairs to the theoretical knowledge and poetic ability. During the second half of the B.C.E, the sophists were considered as itinerant professional intellectuals and facilitators or teachers who occupied the Greek cities and Athens. The sophists provided the young wealthy Greek individuals with an education that made them acquire fame and wealth while introducing antipathy in Athens and the Greek cities. Before reaching the fifth century, excellence or virtues were associated with the aristocratic warrior norms, such as physical strength and courage. After the fifth century, attributes were significantly understood among individuals concerning the ability to influence citizens in political set-ups through the use of rhetoric persuasions. The representative used the sophistic project were the Gorgians, Hippias, Protagoras, Thrasymachus, and Antiphon. Protagoras was a primary figure among the different types of sophists. Plato claims in Protagoras to teach on the appropriate management of people's affairs, ways of running an individuals' household, and the management of the States' affair. Also, Plato claimed that he could teach on a significant contribution to the affairs which might guide the city through action and language. The Protagoras, who were representatives of the Sophists, they presented a developmental account that led to human civilization. The goal of the Protagonists was to show the importance of good citizenship consisted of the self-restraint and justice as they are natural to individuals. Therefore, the Protagoras teachings led to the development of appropriate virtues as individuals moved from primitive behaviors to civilization, thus leading to foundations in human nature.

Consequently, the Sophists emphasized logos due to their educational programs. The Sophists focused on the role of humans in shaping their reality. Also, there exists a difficult philosophical issue between sophistry and philosophy. Plato, who was a Socrate, clearly clarified about Philosophia, and whatever he elaborated was understood about implicit and explicit contrast of Isocrates and sophists. In Plato's critique regarding the sophists about the language, or power of speech has led to the acquisition of knowledge from the two schools of thought. According to the sophists, Plato indicates that language is the knowledge acquired by philosophers or free individuals. Plato states that one's capacity to divide or to synthesize information according to a specific form is needed for the actual expertise of the logos. Also, Plato's argument includes the apprehension of higher-level beings than their speech or perception. Therefore, Plato states that the sophists tend to occupy the falsity realm, thus causing exploitation of the dialect through the production of phantasms of the true beings.

Moreover, the Socratic position indicates that power which does not know the good cannot be termed as genuinely useful. The Socratic paradox, which states that excellence is knowledge, is elaborated by the statement "without knowing the value to obtain the external goods or expertise cannot be termed as harmful or having no value." Also, Plato criticizes the sophists' overestimation of the power of language by indicating the sophists minimizes their thinking to a specific type of making. Therefore, through the assertion of the omnipotence of a persons' language, the Sophist tends to pay inadequate attention to the natural phenomena of one's knowledge. Due to this reason, Plato's differentiation between sophistry and philosophy falls under the substantive metaphysical approach, since people knowledge according to Plato is internally ethical. Socrates also differentiate the Sophist from the philosopher through the excellence portrayed by the philosopher's soul. Therefore, Socrates appears as an embodiment of ethical issues, but the love of different forms plays a vital role in the philosophers' attributes.

Rousseau's Forth Walk

Rousseau is a vital figure in philosophy due to his contribution to moral and political psychology and the influence he has on the future thinkers. The view of Rousseau was negative since he saw other philosophers as post-hoc rationalizers who were based on self-interest. Rousseau's work is dominated by finding ways of trying to preserve human freedom in a state where individuals are dependent on others for the satisfaction of their wants and needs. In the current world, individuals are deriving their sense of self from the other peoples' opinions, an aspect which Rousseau views as corrosive to the freedom and destructive to people's authenticity. Rousseau explores different ways of protecting and achieving freedom among humans, such as the political route, which aims at constructing the political institutions which allow the citizens to co-exist in society freely.

Consequently, Rousseau tends to defend lying on behalf of other persons but condemns it on an individual. Also, Rousseau states that authority and freedom are developed on the legitimate laws that are founded on the general will of people. Whenever a person obeys the law, they tend to obey themselves as members of a given political society. For Rousseau to participate in the general will and vote to base on an individual's sense of justice, one has to become conscious of their self-interest and that of the republic. Also, he tends to assume that individuals are willing to take their ethical standpoints and focus on the common good as they try to reach their decisions. Since the citizens might be deceived or wrong, their primary goal is justice as they follow the interest of others. Also, people who breach these laws act against the people's interest in the political society and the instituted States. Therefore, Rousseau states that individuals who are forced to follow and abide by the law are like forcing them to become free.

Additionally, Rousseau uses the word republic as an indication of the society which is governed by the law or the will of people. According to Rousseau, civil law signifies the general intention, which has to be followed by citizens. Thus, government institutions tend to be an act of public will and not a contract. Also, civil law is determined by the highest number of votes from the magistrates who represent the citizens. Since the minority opposes the general will voted by the majority, they have to accept the proposed act hence not defying to submit to the will without going against the rules of that contract. Rousseau stated that the general will tends to become the will of minority and majority. Whenever the minority feels they cannot approve the law passed by the majority, then the opposition might mistakenly have proposed a will that was similar to the general will. Therefore, the general will is neither unjust nor self-centered as it focuses on the common good of the people. Also, in a country, the social contract requires an unconditional or total surrender by every person of their rights to obtain the freedom of their citizenship. The State does not require any sovereign authority to promote the legal rights and civil liberty of their subjects since their interests are similar to the ones possessed by the citizens. Therefore, Rousseau's statements might be criticized due to their arbitrary and extreme nature. For example, Rousseau states that dictatorship can be used to restore public order in case there is a public emergency. He continues to indicate that censorship is essential in preserving morality and when preventing social values corruption. Rousseau advocated for the development of civil religion where every individual could obey, in case they might not want to become expelled from the country due to non-compliance. Therefore, Rousseau indicates that the public religion can be tolerant of other faiths whose values and norms cannot contradict with the responsibilities provided to citizens.