The Christian Vanguard

The following was a paper I turned in for class. There are footnotes, but they don't copy over for whatever reason.  Socrates argues that the soul has three parts, the appetite, the spirit, and reason. “Part” refers to a faculty that moves us to act. Since there are movements of the human soul that desire contradictory things, the origins of those desires must therefore be distinct. He argues for this by first putting forth the principle of noncontradiction when he says a thing cannot want or do contradictory things. If the soul wanted to do something contradictory, like to drink and not to drink, then we would be dealing with something else other than a whole unified soul. We would be dealing with some part of the soul instead. In further establishing this approach, Socrates deals with some possible counter examples, such as a moving man or a spinning top. In the case of a man who may move his arms and legs, this is dealt with by distinguishing the parts of the man which move...

The following is an essay I wrote on Meno's Paradox.  Meno raises a problem concerning whether inquiries or a search for knowledge is, in principle, possible. Meno objects, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is?...If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know?” Socrates takes the word “it” here to refer to the form, or a standard, particularly the standard of virtue, although Socrates applies the problem to the search of any standard whatsoever. It isn’t certain that limiting the problem to the search for standards is what Meno had in mind, as Socrates first calls the argument a kind of debaters trick. Nonetheless, Socrates narrows the argument to just the search of standards when he says, “He cannot search for what he knows-since he knows it, there is no need to search-nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for.” For example, suppose you didn’t know how to use the metri...

The following is a paper I wrote for class. To avoid plagiarism, I won't be putting up the prompt, just my findings. Euthyphro In trying to defend his scandalous actions to Socrates, Euthyphro argues that his actions are pious, which implies some knowledge of what the nature of piety is. At first, Euthyphro gives a rough definition as being that which the gods love, but soon refines it to be that which all the gods love. Socrates then asks, “Is the pious being loved by all the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” Socrates goes on to flesh out what the thrust of his argument is, giving analogous examples such as being carried and being seen. What those examples are supposed to show is that when we try to define the nature of a thing, we have to be able to explain it in such a way that it wouldn’t be dependent on anything else. Some of the examples he gives are being led and being carried. The point of these examples is that one gives r...