Socrates believed that the good, true, and justice were objective values that existed independently of individual opinions, and could be discovered through rational inquiry and dialogue. In contrast, the Sophists believed that these values were subjective and could vary from person to person, and they often used rhetoric and persuasion to argue their point of view, rather than seeking ultimate truth.
Socrates believed that absolute standards of the good, true, and just exist objectively and can be known through reason, while the Sophists believed that these concepts are relative and subject to individual interpretation. Socrates argued that there are universal truths that are not mere products of opinion or persuasion, unlike the Sophists who emphasized rhetoric and persuasion to sway opinions rather than seeking objective truth.
Socrates believed in absolute truth and objective morality, seeing them as universal and unchanging concepts. In contrast, the Sophists believed that truth and morality were subjective and relative to individuals or societies, leading to the belief that these concepts could be manipulated or changed to suit personal gain or persuasion. Socrates argued for the pursuit of knowledge and virtue as essential to understanding the good and the just, while the Sophists emphasized persuasion and the ability to argue different viewpoints regardless of their truthfulness.
The meaning of these things was not relative
Socrates and Thrasymachus disagreed on the nature of justice. Thrasymachus believed that justice is the advantage of the stronger, while Socrates argued that justice is inherently good and beneficial for all individuals. Their debate centered around whether justice is a form of power or a moral virtue that promotes the common good.
In Book I of The Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus try to define justice. Socrates argues that justice is inherently good and involves being virtuous and ethical, while Thrasymachus believes that justice is merely the interest of the stronger, advocating for self-interest and power dynamics in defining what is just.
Socrates believed that absolute standards of the good, true, and just exist objectively and can be known through reason, while the Sophists believed that these concepts are relative and subject to individual interpretation. Socrates argued that there are universal truths that are not mere products of opinion or persuasion, unlike the Sophists who emphasized rhetoric and persuasion to sway opinions rather than seeking objective truth.
Socrates believed in absolute truth and objective morality, seeing them as universal and unchanging concepts. In contrast, the Sophists believed that truth and morality were subjective and relative to individuals or societies, leading to the belief that these concepts could be manipulated or changed to suit personal gain or persuasion. Socrates argued for the pursuit of knowledge and virtue as essential to understanding the good and the just, while the Sophists emphasized persuasion and the ability to argue different viewpoints regardless of their truthfulness.
The meaning of these things was not relative
Socrates and Thrasymachus disagreed on the nature of justice. Thrasymachus believed that justice is the advantage of the stronger, while Socrates argued that justice is inherently good and beneficial for all individuals. Their debate centered around whether justice is a form of power or a moral virtue that promotes the common good.
In Book I of The Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus try to define justice. Socrates argues that justice is inherently good and involves being virtuous and ethical, while Thrasymachus believes that justice is merely the interest of the stronger, advocating for self-interest and power dynamics in defining what is just.
Not 100% sure here, but I think the goal of Socrates was to learn the truth whatever it may be, good or bad, while Sophistry was the art of winning an argument for a "truth" which was already in acceptance.
Socrates defines morality as the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, leading to the discovery of what is truly good and just. He believes that virtues such as wisdom, courage, and justice are essential components of living a moral life. He argues that an individual who understands what is good will naturally act in accordance with moral principles.
Yes, both Socrates and Plato believed in the importance of social responsibility. Socrates emphasized the pursuit of ethical behavior and justice in society through his philosophical teachings and dialogues, while Plato's Republic outlined the ideal society governed by wise philosopher-kings who promote the common good and justice. Both philosophers believed in the obligation of individuals to contribute positively to the well-being of their communities.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to disagree. I disagree with your hypothesis.
Socrates was a good person but a lot of people thought he was a bad person
Socrates said, "My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher."
Socrates believed that true citizenship involved cultivating one's moral and intellectual virtues to contribute positively to society. He thought that being a good citizen meant striving to understand and uphold justice, even if it meant challenging the status quo. In this way, Socrates saw the relationship between citizenship and humanity as being rooted in ethical responsibility and the pursuit of wisdom for the betterment of all.