Plato’s account The Apology, Socrates

As reported in Plato’s account The Apology, Socrates famously claimed at his trial that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” In this course, you have had the opportunity to examine your own life and reality through the thoughts of the ancient Greek philosophers. The purpose of this Touchstone assignment is for you (1) to engage with the philosophical ideas presented in this course and (2) to reflect on how these philosophical ideas have impacted your own life. Part I: Philosophical Thinking In the first part of the Touchstone, you will be distinguishing between the three primary branches of philosophy. Consider the three following questions: What is knowledge? What is reality made of? What is the good life and how ought I to live it? These are the basic questions that were considered in different forms by the major figures in ancient Greek philosophy. But they are also critical questions for our own lives today, whether we are philosophers or not. Part I of this assignment should be approximately 1-2 pages (300-600 words) and cover each of the following steps: First, you should define philosophy and then distinguish and define each of the three main branches of philosophy covered in this class. Then, identify which of the above questions is associated with each branch of philosophy. You should illustrate the differences between the three branches of philosophy using examples from the course. For example, explain how Socrates would answer the question “What is knowledge?” or how Epictetus would answer the question “What is the good life?” You will use information and examples from the Sophia tutorials to support your response. When citing material from a tutorial, please include the name of the lesson and use the following format: In-text citation: (Aristotle’s Highest Good, n.d.) or (The Footnotes to Plato, n.d.). Part II: Reflection For the second part of the Touchstone, now that you’ve distinguished between the three main branches of philosophy, you will focus on one of those three questions from Part I and use that as a starting point and guide for your personal philosophical reflection. The purpose of Part II is for you to reflect on the philosophical mindset and some of the ideas presente‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍d in this course and apply them to your own life. This reflection is more open-ended than Part I, but should include reflections on the following questions: What does it mean to think philosophically? How can thinking philosophically help me in my own life? What impact do the ideas of the ancient Greek philosophers have on my own views and opinions? Then, based on these reflections, you should give your own answer to whichever of the three questions from Part I you chose to focus on, using cited examples from the course to support your answer. (“What is knowledge?”; “What is reality?”; “What is the good life?”) Part II of this assignment should be approximately 1-2 pages (300-600 words). You should write at least one paragraph for each of the three prompts listed above. In answering these reflection questions, you are free to draw from your own experiences as well as bringing in the ideas of different ancient Greek philosophers. Please note: Some philosophers will be more suited for particular questions than others. For example, Epictetus has a lot to say about “What is the good life and how ought I to live it?” while not saying much about knowledge or reality. Plato and Aristotle wrote a great deal about all three questions. B. Completion Guidelines Refer to the checklist below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines. Part I: Philosophical Thinking ? Have you defined philosophy and the three main branches of philosophy? ? Have you identified which branch of philosophy each of the three basic philosophical questions (“What is knowledge?”; “What is reality?”; “What is the good life?”) corresponds to? ? Have you used cited examples from the course to illustrate the differences between the three branches of philosophy? Part II: Reflection ? Have you selected one of the three basic philosophical questions from Part I to focus on? ? Have you reflected on what philosophical thinking means to you? ? Have you reflected on how the ideas of the ancient Greek philosophers can impact your own views and opinions? ? Have you given your own answer to whichever of the three questions from Part I you chose to focus on in Part II, and provided cited examples from the course to support your answer? Conventions ? Have you checked your essay for grammatical and mechanical errors? ? Have you used spell check or another method to check spelling? ? Have you cited examples from the course using the in-text citation instructions?

Sample Solution

Knowledge is a set of facts and information acquired through experience or education, while reality is made up of the physical world around us that can be experienced through our senses.

Sample Solution

Knowledge is a set of facts and information acquired through experience or education, while reality is made up of the physical world around us that can be experienced through our senses.

This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as huma

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

Plato’s account The Apology, Socrates

Sample Solution

Sample Solution

This question has been answered.

Our Benefits

Our Services

Free Features