Euthydemus Plato
Euthydemus is a dialogue that was written by Plato. It is a discussion that ridicules the logical misleading notion of the sophists. The Euthydemus describes a visit by Socrates and other youths to two brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus. The brothers were considered to be famous sophists. Sophists can be described to be a professional class of teachers who exhibit professional opposition. They have the ability to justify that the bad to appear as the good. There main aim is to argue even in false arguments for their own benefit. They are good in convincing others of what is not true to be considered to be true.
In the dialogue as narrated by the Socrates the two brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus were sophists. They would rebel to any person who would think to be talking the truth. A virtue can be described to mean conformity to a standard of right. It is something that if one possess is considered to be right. All virtues are of beneficial quality and can be measured as power of a thing. A virtue can be a manly strength or courage, a commendable quality or trait, the capacity to act or even chastity especially in a woman. From the dialogue it is evident that a virtue can be taught.
It is right for someone to learn a virtue than to consider it as something concrete inherited. Most of the virtues are not inborn to people but many people learn to have good habits in them. There are things that one must consider to be essential for living healthy and happy. From the dialogue, the happiness of a person is achieved through the possession of good things. These good things would include wealth, friends and other worldly things. In the conversation it is evident that above all good things, wisdom is the best virtue that one should possess.
Wisdom guides everything in ones life and for one to move on the right direction wisdom is the key. Another virtue that was discussed in the dialogue is knowledge. In the argument between the two brothers, one is able to understand that wisdom always goes hand in hand with knowledge. It is true to every one that the acquisition of knowledge is the start key of having wisdom. Those who acquire knowledge always try to learn new things each and everyday. How the Euthydemus deepens readers understanding of the psychological issues
In the dialogue of Euthydemus, a reader is able to understand that there are various things that always matter in life. Things like personality, virtue, the truth or reality. Personality is considered to be the character of oneself and a virtue is something right that a person has and can be learned. The truth or the reality is different from the two word explained above. The truth means that which is right or correct according to moral values. These are things considered to be positive and helpful in ones life. The acquisition of virtue has been put into consideration in this dialogue.
(Plato 2) Here it is evident that a virtue can be taught. A person can learn different good qualities from another person. People can also learn virtues in class from their teachers in class or even in the church. For example, in church people are usually taught to have good morals such as respect, faithfulness, patience and perseverance. The two brothers Euphydemus and Dionysodorus would fight with their bodies in Armour. The fight would lead to a situation that can be used in the courts for defending a case. People can learn different ways of dealing with issues using the wisdom gained from the two brothers.
One can use the law in the courts as a weapon when injured. In the dialogue of Euthydemus, it is believed that the teaching of virtue was the principal occupation for the two brothers. They argue that a virtue can be imparted quickly and better to people (Plato 4). From the discussion, the Socrates found it wrong to judge the two brothers barely by their fight. The brothers would fight in Armour so that people would be able to learn from their behavior. It is easy for an unvirtuous person to have interest in learning virtue. The dialogue makes one understand that, those who learn are wise.
It is difficult for an arrogant person to learn and one is considered to be a fool. For one to be wise one must always learn new things. Hence one can describe Learning as the acquisition of knowledge of that one learns. Knowing is having knowledge at the time but a person who does not know cannot be considered not having knowledge at the time. Hence acquiring knowledge is important for one to learn (Plato 8). The nature of truth in the dialogue In the dialogue, it is argued that above all good things, wisdom is the greatest and the best gift for happiness. All fortunate men are guided by wisdom for they act rightly and succeed.
The truth is that wealth is good but it does not guarantee one to be happy. Other things such as good health, power and respect in ones own land; beauty goods and other personal gifts make one happy. In addition, to be happy one needs justice, courage and temperance. In order to do the right thing people are directed by knowledge. It is true that knowledge also directs the right usage, regulation and practice of goods things (Plato 12-14). The reality is that it is wrong for a man to have or do many things without wisdom. It is better to have or do few things with wisdom which guides one to do things right.
If one has many things without wisdom, the misfortunes encountered are many. Hence it is true to conclude that without wisdom one can lead a miserable life. Everything that is cocnsidered to be good should be guided by knowledge. A person with knowledge is perceived to be in the guidance of wisdom and prudence. Ignorance leads to greater evil than the good brought by knowledge (Plato 15-18). It is true to say that everyone desires good things in this world. This is because good things bring happiness. Where happiness is gained through the right use of the things that one has in possession.
The possession of wisdom is important since it is does not come to a man spontaneously it has to be taught. Wisdom helps people to be happy hence every human being should acknowledge the love of having wisdom (Plato 20). There was the argument about things that make sense whether they are alive or dead. There is belief that every thing that makes sense is alive. This includes even words themselves are considered to be alive (Plato 31). According to Euthydemus and Dionysodoros, when one is speaking, the words are alive since and they would refute with everyone without considering the truth.
The distinction between what appears to be real or true raised in the meno Strauss (67) argues that, the truth in this dialogue is, the Socrates was always supporting the two brothers against their critics. From the dialogue it is true that the Socrates and the sophists were not real enemies. It is true that the two brothers undermine the connection between the conversation and the truth. The Euthydemus tries to make a separation between wisdom and particularities of time and place. The brothers exemplify a verbal manipulation of other people rather than following the truth for the sake of power.
The two brothers claim to be wise in all subjects and were able to refute with every decision that was made by others. According to the two brothers it is true that one cannot learn what he or she already knows (David 6-7). In this dialogue wisdom is considered to be good fortune. This is because it is those who are wise in any undertaking that do well or prosper in it. Hence in the real sense, one only needs wisdom in order to prosper in everything. For one to be happy one should possess good things, use them in the right way. For example, it is true that a person who has the knowledge of playing flute will do best at playing it.
According to Strauss 273d wisdom in his dialogue is seen to be an extraordinary knowledge to acquire. It confers a kind of supremacy and hence it is impossible to be achieved by any individual. The dialogue stresses that, it is better for one to be poor than rich, weak than strong, cowardly than courageous than to lack wisdom. There is a difference between sophists and Socrates. These two argue differently and philosophy can be compared to dying (Strauss 78). This is because a philosopher must outdo his particular excitement and perception rooted in his bodily life in order to know without prejudice or hindrance.
It is true that the soul can achieve wisdom only if it is separate from the body. (Strauss 79) According to the two brothers there is nothing like false opinion. In the real sense everyone makes mistakes and hence the need of a teacher of virtue. The Socrates argues that having wisdom or the knowledge that benefits human beings usually lie in mixture of making and utilize. For example, to explain those who make speech are required to be able to use the speeches. The two brothers are pursuing wisdom in this dialogue. This is evident in the arguments that have been put forward.
From this argument one can say everyone knows something hence one cannot be considered as not having knowledge. The Euthydemus refutes the Socrates by telling them that there is something that they do not know. This is because they must possess the art for which one was searching (Strauss 293a-303b). The dialogue narrated by the Socrates about Euphydemus clearly explains the ambiguity and obsolete of the ideas expressed by the Socratic philosophy. They are trivial and obsolete and people are not willing to fall into the fallacies expressed here. They consist of errors and illusions that cannot be liable in the reality.
Conclusion The two brothers Euthydemus and Dionysodorus discussed in the dialogue were great sophists. These brothers would not agree to the truth as long as they would achieve power. The dialogue is accompanied by a series of misunderstandings between the Socrates and the sophists. They are seen to have different views regarding different issues. From the dialogue one is able to derive the better meaning and the difference between thought and sense. It is important for a person to distinguish between the universal and individual. They argue that a virtue is something that can be taught.
Their principal work was to impart virtue to people. Works cited Hamilton, P. Edwin, Euthydemus. Forgotten books, 2008, 1-62 Strauss Leo, “On the Enthymemes,” Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 67. The phrase comes from Thrasymachus in the Republic, 337a4-5. Retrieved March 23 2009, from http://www. allacademic. com//meta/ David Corey explains how the brothers’ identification of their eristic with “virtue” has some (although limited) plausibility, given the history of the word, “Brother Sophists: Euthydemus and Dionysodorus,” unpublished manuscript, 6-7.
Sample Essay of Custom-Writing