Zeno also of Elea let his mind trap himself into thinking one could never get somewhere, because by going half-way there each time one would get closer but never arrive. Of course if one continually goes halfway, one will never get there; to get there one must go all the way. When interrogated by the tyrant, the only one he would implicate was the cursed tyrant himself. Zeno accused the bystanders of cowardice for not enduring what he was suffering.
I understand why he goes after people for holding what he considers to be untenable positions, particularly if they are teachers or otherwise influencers of others.
If practiced in the wrong way, that is. I believe he is wildly off the mark here and in puzzling through this, I came to a better understanding of why I disagree with Plato on this point.
Gorgias, for his part, does a terrible job defending himself. I found myself yelling at my text numerous times while reading. Socrates seems to be concerned here with a very specific problem and incorrectly generalizes from a specific type of case to a broader set of cases. If the rhetorician wins the public or individual will be poorer for it.
A common example used in the dialogue is that of the physician. We must imagine and Socrates says as much at one point that the physician is prescribing exercise, fish, nuts and dark greens and rest. But the example is not particularly nuanced and it conflates rhetoric with something else - fraud.
The problem is with the way rhetoric is employed, not with rhetoric itself.
The debate cannot be between two people that know. In the Platonic world, knowledge is singular and aligns with virtue. Two physicians would not have dissenting opinions and so would not disagree. People, whether in general or in most cases, desire what they perceive to be good rather than the actual good.
So the issue hinges on how you deal with ignorance: In other words, do you flatter or do you educate? Rhetoric convinces but leaves people ignorant. Let us assume in the example above that the individual in question is ignorant of the correct course for bodily health.
We must say that they were convinced by the arguments, reasons and evidence provided by the physician.
The implication that rhetoric is flattery, appealing to what the individual wants v. Rhetoric and education employ the same methods. What matters is the outcome, idea, action or object at stake. Whether it is true or good, or not.
In this case, it would be hard to say the rhetorician was acting immorally. If two people are acting in the same way towards two different ends, both believing they are right but only one is, we are less inclined to say that the one that is wrong lacks virtue.
He assumes that the rhetorician acts from a lack of knowledge and knows as much.Ancient Period The first philosophers in ancient Greece (c. B.C.E.) were cosmologists chiefly concerned with the origin and nature of the universe, so the meaning of death to humans was not a prominent issue in their grupobittia.com first of these thinkers was Thales, who described the universe as "full of gods," a view that seems to imply that .
Watch video · Born circa BC in Athens, Greece, Socrates's life is chronicled through only a few sources—the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon and the plays of Aristophanes. It was one of the rules which, above all others, made Doctor Franklin the most amiable of men in society, "never to contradict anybody." If he was urged to announce an opinion, he did it rather by asking questions, as if for information, or by suggesting doubts.
Plato: Phaedo The Phaedo is one of the most widely read dialogues written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It claims to recount the events and conversations that occurred on the day that Plato’s teacher, Socrates ( B.C.E.), was put to death by the state of Athens.
After the jury has convicted Socrates and sentenced him to death, he makes one of the most famous proclamations in the history of philosophy.
He tells the jury that he could never keep silent, because “the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings” (Apology 38a). The philosopher Socrates remains, as he was in his lifetime (– B.C.E.),  an enigma, an inscrutable individual who, despite having written nothing, is considered one of the handful of philosophers who forever changed how philosophy itself was to be conceived.
All our information about him is second-hand and most of it vigorously disputed, but his trial and death at the hands of the.