Ethics is a reflection on human conduct that is directed toward solving problems both individually (for example, how I can achieve happiness, or how I should live to be over my constituent animality) and social (how to achieve peaceful cohabitation and tolerance). Platonic Ethics, which contains details of Socratic thought and will be further expanded, corrected and conceptualized by Aristotle, is eudemonistic, since it is geared to achieving the highest good of man, that is, to your happiness. The highest good is the development of personality, your soul, so that they acquire the status must be found and, therefore, be happy.
At the beginning of Plato's dialogue Philebus, two speakers are arranged in two opposing positions: Protarco argues that the essence of good is pleasure, while Socrates believes that is wisdom. Soon, however, both admitted that life coded into one of those states, and The power to the fullest, life itself would not be human existence of which do not take part, experience, memory, knowledge, would be as empty as the other to reject the bodily pleasures. A good life for man, they conclude, should contain both intellectual pleasures as those involving body to satisfy a desire, whenever sparingly.
In the first competition is supposed imperative of the exact science of timeless objects, ie, geometry. The geometry describes the truest knowledge as possible about the most remarkable fact. But as in the world of our experience we find no more than a crude approximation these timeless objects, you must attend a second type of knowledge that describes, assuming, always, that it is an inferior knowledge, a knowledge in this manner would, for example, provided by music or poetry. Of bodily pleasures, for its part, accepted only those who report health and goodness to those who experience, and despise those who generate malice or insanity. It looks, well, an affinity between knowledge, of wisdom, and the satisfaction of desire can provide, trying to find a fair and accurate mixing.
happiness is only achieved thus far finding or ratio between a wise life and a joyful life. And it is essential to the practice of virtue, equivalent in this context to look both God and man possible. Platonic ethics comprises four fundamental virtues that derive from the analysis of psychic parties presented the human (rational, irascible and concupiscible). Thus, the soul corresponds concupiscible moderation, temperance smart, because anyone who shows mild in the pursuit of virtue will work in a good and beneficial, so that temperance and wisdom are not completely mixed. Second, the irascible soul relates to him a capacity for sacrifice, a fortitude in adversity, own courage of those who go into battle, not away from the front row despite being exposed to danger. These two virtues are unified in the present or generated by the rational part of soul of prudence, which is truly good for man and the ways to achieve it. In turn, the three virtues above are added and integrated into a fourth, more important, producing the perfect harmony of the soul is justice. On the four Platonic virtues tour moral life of men, as they cover the identification of good practice (wisdom), its effective implementation social (justice), the courage to achieve it or defend it from attacks and threats (strength) and moderation required under which we can control and not confuse the right to excess bodily pleasure (Temperance). Plato
always believed that no one would choose evil knowingly. I thought that if someone acted or chose to do something bad was because they imagined that, in fact, what he did was good, but in fact was the opposite, if one is carried away by the evil is because, he argued Plato, knew the true good, or because the passion temporarily hands, dazed for a while until it recognizes himself, which seemed apparent good real good. This, however, does not exonerate the individual from moral responsibility because it would author of a serious offense, to allow the passion to dominate over reason.
Polemarchus, she says Plato in The Republic, had applied his theory that it was convenient, and just do right by those things coming if they were good, but with enemies, if they were bad, there was no remorse towards them and had to act with malice. Plato rejected this maxim (probably very popular in his day, but also in the current ...) that should be good with bad friends and family with our enemies, Plato argues that doing evil can never be good , and can never provide a good or happiness. In mouth Socrates, Plato says that damage to the agent is to make bad worse, Socrates concludes that if you follow the guidelines proposed by Polemarchus, the outcome of their way of "doing good" and promote justice is "doing worse man unjust, "but, obviously, a similar action is only appropriate for a violent man, and not the one who is seen as reasonable and virtuous.
0 comments:
Post a Comment