I know this is long..
I had to read these 2, but have a bunch of questions before writing a response to them..
This is based on Plato, The Apology
Obviously you know that Socrates was put on trial and killed by his contemporaries in Athens because he would not back down from his position. But what exactly was that position, and how was he accused? I'm confused, please help
I understand that The Apology is the speech Socrates gives in his defense against charges that he is "corrupting the youth of Athens." What does he exactly see as his own duty toward his city?
To me, Nietzsche is one of the most interesting figures in recent philosophy. He has written and said some things that are very hard to hear. For instance (and I am giving you a very abbreviated explanation of his Genealogy of Morals), he claims that the invention of morality is more or less a tool of the weak to make the strong feel guilty for preying on them. Is that correct?
That aside, he raises interesting questions about how we can find a moral ground in a world in which God is dead. As a atheist, Nietzsche does not allow the concept of God to enter into his philosophical view. He also does not see traditional reason as able to give a sufficient ground for morality. So where might a ground of morality be found?
Those were my questions..
This is what the professor is asking:
Does he find morality in the "will to power" of a "noble" soul? Read this selection to find out more about what he means when he uses each term. Pay attention to the way he uses natural processes (Darwinian survival of the fittest?) as a way to talk about human morality. Be aware of how he talks about the "master mentality" and the "slave mentality."
I'm not sure what he means by natural processes..
Your help would be appreciated. Thanks
Socrates, for all the good he did, managed to ruffle not a few feathers. That is, if we are to believe the constructed story that The Apology sets up for him. To be honest, there's always been significant historical and literary debate in the modern era over whether or not the circumstances of Socrates as given in this work are accurate (that is to say, actually happened in the exact way described).
Certainly it's historical plausible, which means it COULD have happened; but it is not altogether known that it did in fact happen. In fact, one of the most common points discussed as a means of arguing historical dubiousness is the fact that we are only given the circumstances and parameters necessary to hear Socrates' own diatribe. In ancient times, it is certainly true that this was often the case for discourse, whether in terms of philosophy, politics, religion, or any other public matter: set up a story so that what you want to say can be heard, not so that you record a perfectly verifiable historical event.
Anyway, if we are to take the story's bookends as true, it is logical to infer that Socrates held a position very common in Athens: ...
This solution includes background and explanation of various facets of Socrates, Plato, and Nietzsche's philosophies are touched upon in some detail.