Explain the Philosophy of The Crito by Plato in Western Philosophy Flashcards

Crito tries to persuade Socrates to flee because he has young children to raise, his friends would miss him and think ill of them for not helping him escape and because he’ll die if he doesn’t escape. Socrates is not persuaded by this. He believes his children will be better off in Athens than in exile with him, his friends shouldn’t worry about public opinion and that injustice is to be feared more than death. His main reason is that escaping is unjust and that it is never okay to act unjustly. His first argument is that escaping would harm the city and since the city is like a parent, escaping is like harming a parent. Expanding on this, Socrates explains that harming a parent is unjust, therefore escaping would be unjust and unjust actions will corrupt the soul. Escaping then will corrupt his soul because it is an unjust action. Socrates believes life is worthless with a corrupted body and that the soul is more important than the body, so life is worthless with a corrupted soul. This means the life of an escapee is worthless so it is better to die than escape. The soundness of this argument is questionable because for one a corrupted body is not worthless and as Jackman states in the lecture, if you replace escaping with coffee drinker, it implies that since coffee corrupts the body, the life of a coffee drinker is worthless and it is better to die than drink coffee. Plenty of people are living with disabilities and are not worthless or deserving to die. Also one could argue is it never just for a parent to wrongfully punish a child and killing a child for speaking their mind can be considered unjust.

- Hume argues that suicide should be free of guilt and blame and that it is sometimes permissable - It can only be inpermissable if it goes against ourselves, our neighbour or God - He argues that it doesn’t go against God since the rebuttle would assert that we should not be in control of the length of our lives (which is not supported by scripture according to Hume), but then that would mean we should not take medication (which we do) so then this is not disrespectful to God to end our lives - Hume is arguing that suicide is sometimes permissible, and therefore there are some situations when it will not hurt our neighbour such as when we are old and have nothing left to contribute and are more of a burden – or if we are captured by an enemy and would reveal information under torture - Hume says it is natural for us to be afraid of death, so if someone decides to kill themselves then it must be for a serious reason -> therefore if we are suffering so much that we want to kill ourselves then we are doing no disservice to ourself Hume's argument can be summarized as follows:

1. If Suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbour, orourselves.
2. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to God.
3. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to our neighbour.
4. Suicide isn't (always) a transgression of our duty to ourselves.
5. Therefore Suicide isn't (always) criminal.

- Now this argument is clearly valid (if 1-4 are true, then 5 has to be)

Both Schopenhauer and Hume are positive about suicide.They both also defend it against the church. Schopenhauer and Hume both believe that religion denies suicide because of the idea that God created us and therefore we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. Hume says that we are not going against God’s will, however, since there is no scripture that condemns suicide and also we use medicine to prolong our lives, so why should we not be able to shorten them? Schopenhauer does not believe that god exists at all. Schopenhauer and Hume also both agree that humans have a will to live, but Hume uses that to argue that human’s who commit suicide must have a very good reason, whereas Schpenhauer says that our will is what keeps the world running despite the suffering. Although Hume argues that suicide is sometimes permissible, Schopenhauer says that the way to avoid suffering in this world is for one to turn their back on it, but by commiting suicide they are more expressing their frustration for the world than rising above it. Unlike Hume, Schopenhauer also suggests that one might commit suicide out of curiosity about what will happen after death (or if there is an afterlife), however, he says this is a bad idea since once dead if our fate is to suffer then we have not improved anything and if there is no afterlife then we wont be alive to find out.I find Hume’s argument much more persuasive since he allows for a variety of circumstances and demonstrates that we

- existential dilemma - pragmatic solution - He says there are 5 ways to respond to things not having any point: - Live in ignorance o Whatever you decide is important to you, then focus on it and remain ignorant that in the end it is not important o Once you’ve hit the crisis point (the relization that life is meaningless) you cannot revert to ignorance, however - Pursuing pleasure o Live a debauched existence, which will push the worries of life away o Not a long term option, however, as eventually you will sobre up to the fact that none of this is getting you anywhere - Committing suicide o If life has no point then you might as well kill yourself - Living aimlessly o If life has n point then it doesn’t matter whether you live or die so you can just float around and live a pointless aimless life - Faith o Gloom comes from a naturalistic/materialistic view of the world o Faith is a way of getting around this view

- Sartre argues that there is no God so that means that humans just “showed up” without pre-determined human nature
- Since humans are not given pre-determined characteristics, every decision a person makes and action he or she performs
- That means that man creates his own nature
- Since we cannot make any excuses for our actions (or mistakes) it causes us to feel anguish, forlornness and despair as a result of the pressure we feel
- This responsibility means that each choice we make is a message that this is what is important to ourselves and what we think is important for all of humankind
- Since we have this power we should act according to what is actually important to us
- Although I found Sartre’s arguments interesting, I felt that he did not place enough emphasis on the persuasiveness of other people's actions. Sartre does allow that the situation we are in wiill impact how we act, but I feel as though aspects such as our upbringings and friendships and interaction with others will be more persuasive to our characters than he allows. Although Sartre would argue that it is our choice to be persuaded, I think that there should be allowances in his argument that account for variables such as age, education etc. For example, a young child is arguably easier to change than an adult, so then our upbringings must have an impact

-Sartre dismisses the type of Humanism that focuses on the deeds of other individuals
- This type of places value on the accomplishments of other people, which he thinks is absurd since we take pride in being a part of humankind because of the achievements of people like Picasso or Plato, which are things that have nothing to do with us – we never accomplished any of these things
- He says there is an existentialist Humanism, however, that values the laws that are set by us, and not determined by God or nature etc. -> humanism in the sense that it is a human-created world
- His Humanism is secular
- I agree with Sartre’s example of the best type of Humanism since it is much more inclusive than the Humanism based on the accomplishments of others. His Humanism means that we all play a part in creating the world we live in (which he says can be a good or bad thing, depending on our outlook). If we only based the value in our live on the accomplishments of others who have contributed a great deal to the world then I think that we would be living vicariously through them instead of creating our own value.

Epicurus believes that we can create a happy life for ourselves by vanquishing anxiety and mental suffering by following his four maxims. Before a person can follow his maxims, however, they must be willing to pursue the knowledge of science which will allow a person to attain peace of mind since they will understand how the world works. The four maxims are: - “don’t fear God,”
o since the Gods do not care about us anyway so we should not fear them as they are not interested in what we are doing. - “don’t fear death”
o he provides both epistemic and pragmatic reasoning to support his claim. His epistemic reason is that death causes no suffering for the living since they haven’t experienced it yet and no suffering for the death since they no longer exist therefore cannot experience anything.. His pragmatic reason is that even if death is a bad thing, we only cause more pain for ourselves by letting it stress us out.
- “the good is easy to get”
o which says that our natural desires for food and shelter are easy to obtain and that if we limit our desires to a type of Stoic outlook then we will be much happier since we will not be stressed out by going after luxuries.
- “the bad is easy to endure”
o dictates that if our desires are moderate enough then the only pain we will encounter is physical pain. This sort of pain is either really short lived or mild in nature, which makes it easy to endure.

Schopenhauer believes that suffering is everywhere and inescapable on earth. He asserts that the basis of human existence is suffering since we are in a constant cycle of pain that is the result of striving for our desires that, even if obtained, only provide a fleeting sense of pleasure that soon dissipates into boredom (which is a form of suffering as well). The vapid nature of our desires can only satisfy us for a short time, and then the cycle will begin again as another desire arises. Furthermore, Schopenhauer says that we worry about not only natural needs, but also our “ambitions” such as what our peers think of us. In our plans to attain our wants and garner status we create worry about the future and past which creates anxiety and an immense amount of pressure since we constantly are afraid of death since out lives are so short.

To achieve the transcendental life that Schopenhauer says will provide the most happiness one must abstain from giving into the wants of his or her Will, and instead and lead a life of contemplation. This can be achieved by relying on “intellect and knowledge,” which to Schopenhauer does not mean an individual who is immersed academic work, but rather one who realizes that life is “fleeting” and “that nothing can possibly happen over which is worth his while to spend emotion”.The abandonment of participation in the world means that he or she “examines and considers [the world]” rather than “play a part in it”.

Epicurus and Schopenhaur seem to agree that humans need and pursue their natural needs (food, shelter etc) and that aspiring to attain luxuries (costly food, status and popularity) will ultimately cause more anxiety. Schopenhauer seems to think, however, that the bad is much harder to endure than Epicurus. Episcurus asserts that we can withstand suffering since it only lasts a short while, but Schopenhauer says we must detach ourselves from the world to be happy. In many ways the two philosophers agree that happiness comes from not going after luxuries and living a life that pursues knowledge. I would argue that Epicurus’ philosophy is much more sustainable than Schopenhauer’s because he does not advocate such an extreme departure from life, but rather a more Stoic approach which I believe is much more sustainable. In detaching yourself from the world you might avoid pain, but you will also miss out on pleasure. Schopenhauer would argue that our desires are an “illusion” since they never produce permanent happiness. I suggest, however, that even if the satisfaction achieved is temporary, it is better to embrace the pleasure that you worked for, and use it to offset any pain in your life. Schopenhauer argues that by not indulging in a desire you are destroying it, but in reality the only action that makes a desire go away is fulfilling it. Therefore, ignoring your desires just means that you are in denial of your suffering.

Camus believes that suicide is the only true philosophical problem because it is the only phil question that people are willing to die over. He says that he sees people dying for their beliefs, and even killing others for not following the beliefs they hold. Our beliefs give us meaning to our lives and are what we allow to govern us. If we come to realize that there is no point to life, however, and that our existence is absurd, then it could be argued that the natural progression is to end our lives since living includes varrying degrees of suffering. Furthermore, the finitude of our lives makes living pointless since we will eventually die and everything we have done will be gone. The question of suicide is the most fundementally personal question.Camus does not advocate suicide despite his belief that are lives are ultimately pointless. He instead suggests that we hold our lives in contempt so that we can rise above the absurdity of them. This contempt means to live aimlessly and not care about what we do because of the finitude of our lives. I find Camus’ argument to be flawed since there is no attempt to justify his assertion that suicide is the only philisopical problem that peple are willing to die over. He blindly states this without any comparison to other questions such as “is there an afterlife” which I find more important considering his arguments. Suppose we follow Camus’ example and live in contempt and then die to find out there is an afterlife and our existence there will be determined by our lives on earth. If this possibility came to fruitation then suicide would have to be questioned for a whole other reason.

· Socrates is stating that the things we view as evils such as death, disease and poverty are not actually evils and that the only thing that can harm us are things that damage our soul such as injustice.· He believes that driving someone into exile, depriving him of his civil rights and even killing someone will not cause him harm. Socrates believes that the body is not as important as the soul therefore only acting unjustly can we harm ourselves. · Socrates also believes we cannot be harmed in death because either we are unconscious of all senses and feelings or there is an afterlife that he believes will be pleasant. He doesn’t consider the unjust people in this argument who may find the afterlife unpleasant.· In contrast to Socrates, Aristotle believes a man can be harmed in life if there are bad circumstances.· He believes if we are unlucky, we will not have a good life no matter how good we are.· Aristotle also believes we need some external things to live a good life.· External things on their own will not be enough to have a good life though, you still need virtue. You can be virtuous and not happy but you cannot be happy without being virtuous.· I find Aristotle’s more persuasive because we need external goods to be happy but I also agree with Socrates that you cannot be harmed in the afterlife.

Alienated from:species beingother peopleact of productionproduct of work

Live in ignorancePursue PleasureCommit suicideLive aimlesslyFaith

DespairAnguishForlornness

· Epictetus believes that unhappy feelings don’t come from an object or person but from our attitudes towards it. How we value something determines how we feel if it is taken away. Stoics believe we should remove aversion from all things that are cannot control, viewing family as unimportant since there is no control over whether they live or die.· Epictetus explains this as “if kiss your child or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies”· If you get attached to your wife and children ,they may die and you’ll be disappointed. You won’t be free if you attach yourselves to people.· Epictetus believes we will be better off if we do not desire anything we cannot control. There are three principles for this. The first principle is desire: We believe our friends and family make us happy but if they die we will be devastated. Loving our family is a bad idea. The second principle is action, we should detach ourselves from our family. The third principle is assent where we realize family and friends are not important for our happiness.· Epictetus believes we cannot necessarily live like this but he believes we need to try.

· Socrates first reason for not fearing death is personal to him. Socrates believes that his oracle warns him against any action that has bad consequences and in this case, his oracle did not warm him against defending himself as he did so death cannot be bad for him.· The second reason for not fearing death is that it is either an endless sleep or involves an afterlife. There is no reason to fear an afterlife or endless sleep.· Socrates is making the assumption that because we feel nothing in an endless sleep and because it is not unpleasant, then it cannot be bad.· Socrates is also assuming that an afterlife is pleasant although it may not be for those who were ‘unjust’· Epicurus has two types of reasoning, epistemic which relate to truth or falsity of a belief in question and pragmatic, which relate to the effects that belief in question has upon its believers. He believes death is not a bad thing and whether it is or not, we shouldn’t be thinking about it.· Death is inevitable therefore we make ourselves anxious about it and cannot be happy. Since it cannot be avoided, it is pointless to fear it. “-death is nothing to us makes the morality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immorality-”· Death does not cause us harm while we are alive or when we are dead “whatever causes no annoyance when it is present, causes only a groundless pain in the expectation- when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not”· We should only fear what causes us to suffer. Death does not cause suffering for the living nor the dead therefore we shouldn’t fear death.

Marx found labour alienated in non-communist societies (especially capitalist ones) for the following reasons: 1. Workers are alienated from the product of work. 1. the product being created is owned by someone else 2. the harder the worker works the less valuable they are and the more valuable the owner is 2. Workers are alienated from the act of production. 1. workers do not work to satisfy a need, but rather needs external from the product 2. it has become an instrumental rather than an intrinsic good. 3. labour is forced – our human life is spent to fulfill animal needs 4. if some luck befalls us we would quit our jobs like the plague 5. we are free in other activities such as eating, procreating etc – but are like slave at work, which is why increased wages would not help the worker feel significant 3. Workers are alienated from their "species being". 1. we are distinguished from animals because we freely choose our activities -> animals innately carry out activities 2. if we are alienated from the act of production, then we are alienated from our own nature 3. essence becomes mere means for existence 4. Workers are alienated from other people 1. if you are alienated from humanity, then you are alienated from those around you 2. human nature is just serving animal instincts We should look for a job that the activity you are doing is intrinsically good – something that is meaningful for us.