NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In the dialogue, Philebus, Socrates, one of the worlds most renowned ancient philosophers and a young man named Protarchus, analyze and compare two different scenarios. Is pleasure or understanding the good? The dialogue begins with Philebus presenting his argument for Protarchus to argue, however, about midway through the dialogue, the once wrangling dispute, becomes a collective search for the truth. The colloquy begins rather simply, with the underlying arguments being examined at face value and ends up with the analysis of some of philosophy's most profound metaphysical questions. Both parties make excellent arguments for their respective beliefs, but throughout the dialogue, its seems as if the conversation always ends up with Socrates extracting more concessions from Protarchus. This may perhaps prove that perhaps understanding, although requiring pleasure to function, is a greater force in making humans happy.
As mentioned, when this dialogue began, Protarchus and Socrates were engaged in a wrangling dispute over what it is that makes up the good. The initial point of agreement, on which was necessary to begin the argument, was that a certain herein (state or condition) of the soul is what makes the life of a person eu daimon (happy). Now, Philebus and Protarchus provide a solid argument for pleasure being just that herein of the soul. Philebus makes a strong point in suggesting that if a humans whole life was nothing more than the experience of pleasure, what more would he / she need? In other words, it is sufficient for a human being to live exclusively in the immediacy of their environment. He adds, understanding is not the good, since it is not necessary to make a person eu daimon.
Most people would probably claim that if they did have every pleasure available at their disposal constantly, their lives would be quite happy, with or without understanding. However, Socrates rebuttal argues that without thought and reflection it is impossible to process pleasure. In other words, if a person did live in immediate unity with stimuli from the outside environment, how could they know they are enjoying it without understanding? Part of what makes these pleasures so enjoyable is the ability to reflect upon them. Without understanding capabilities, these pleasures can not be recognized beyond the time in which they occur.
At this point, Socrates brings his argument to the table. Assume that you know everything in the past, present, and future, but are totally insensitive to pleasure and pain. Would this not make humans happy? According to Socrates, happiness comes from spending time meditating, just as the gods do. After all, to live the life of a hedonist is to assimilate man to animals, but to live according to Socrates plan is to aspire to be a god, which is quite a noble figure. Gods feel no pleasure or pain and they have no physiological constraints.
Apparently, Socrates would associate happiness with total and constant thought, with out any interrupting desires, urges, or even necessary, instinctual emotions. However, when a persons soul is withdrawn into itself in such a stoical manner, they tend to have no sense of individual well being. Furthermore, it is needless to say that this form of lifestyle is impossible. Human beings have to eat and sleep, as well as commit to many other disturbances of the sort.
Additionally, positive or negative, people need some kind of physical spark to fuel the thought process. The senses must detect something for the brain to consider. It should be clear that without an element of personal satisfaction, humans could not be truly happy. The senses are the gateways to understanding, for without them, life gives you nothing to think about. After examining these two scenarios, it should be clear that the good can not be identified with either pleasure or understanding. Therefore, the only option remaining is that the good must lye within the correct mixture of the two.
The two main problems that arise are, what exactly is the proper ratio of the two that belongs in the mixture and which forms of pleasure and understanding should be included? It is at this point in the Philebus that Socrates proposes the question of The One and the Many, or, how can many things be one, and one thing many? Meaning, how can all the different pleasures (many) be pleasure as an abstract universal (one), and that abstract universal (one) be pleasures as they appear in true and false, good and bad forms (many)? Protarchus, of course, believes that pleasure takes the form of one, as stated in the problem.
After all, when you can posit pleasure as being one in such a fashion, you prove the purity and potency of it. To admit to any variations in the experience of pleasure, in so far as the may be divided into more than one group, you display the weaknesses in the entity. Protarchus believes that all pleasures are one and the same in that they all give humans the same feeling of happiness. Alternatively, Socrates finds pleasure to be many, in so far as they can be categorized as true and false, good and bad.
The clearest of Socrates dividing factors for this part of the problem is that pleasures with out understanding are considered false, while pleasures that incorporate understanding are considered true. For example, acts of debauchery would clearly be classified as false pleasures, while the pleasure someone takes in saving someones life would be a true pleasure. Now, the appearance of this question of The One and the Many in Plato's Philebus is critical, since it will be used to determine both the true nature of pleasure and its driving force in making humans happy. For example, if Socrates does indeed prove that certain pleasures can be falsified, the implications upon Protarchus argument could be substantial. Just the mere presence of a deceiving force within such a classification will lower its value when time comes to determine the proper ratio of pleasure to understanding.
Socrates brilliant move to include the question in this dialogue is exactly what will strengthen his case to emphasize understanding, more so than pleasure, in the correct form of a mixed life. It should be clear by now that Protarchus part in this dialogue was simply to feed Socrates with the fuel he required to go on about Understanding, Pleasure, and The One and the Many. A brilliant move by Socrates, however, not the role Protarchus probably either intended for himself or even admitted to accepting. Protarchus points were never really argued, just either presented for Socrates to examine or used to lead Socrates to his next point. Socrates needed not the philosophies of Protarchus to solve the problem of The One and the Many; he probably had planned upon many of them going into the argument anyway. He was just exercising his own philosophical theories to prove that the things of the mind are superior to all the enjoyments of the senses (Collected Dialogues 1086), a seemingly abundant conclusion to every piece of the Philebus. 1.
Plato. Philebus. Plato: The Collected Dialogues. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: dialogue, pleasures, pleasure, socrates, good and bad
Research essay sample on Person Eu Daimon Making Humans Happy Pleasure
