Plato and Nietzshe's Philosophical Views

Only philosophers be capable, afterward a long period of training, of acting as the guardians of the country (i.e. community) because unaccompanied they know the good and, thus, act in consent with the good. In his entirelyegory of the cave, Plato provides a description of the facades that often block out the real legality of a concept such as the "good". As difficult as it is to gain an unobstructed view of the good, that goal, according to Plato, re confronts the goal of the philosopher and is the overriding vision that equates to philosophy. As he explains in The republic:

But, whether true or false, my cerebration is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears run short of all, and is seen solitary(prenominal) with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal pen of all things beautiful and right, p atomic number 18nt of combust and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, both in public or private life moldiness have his eye fixed (Plato, 1987, 517c).

Thus, for Plato, the pursuit of intuition and the break down of philosophy is a moral pursuit and piece of tail only be defined correctly when the definition includes, the pursuit of shrewd good.

For Nietzsche, the definition of philosophy is something completely different, and is in fact the diametral of Plato's viewpoint. The valuations

of good and evil, right and wrong, and different concepts historically included by traditional philosophers from Socrates and Plato on to the present in definitions of philosophy were completely rejected by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche characterizes the philosopher as a free spirit not bound by any moral constraints. A free spirit can only have an esoteric point of view. Therefore, philosophy is the sheer(a) pursuit of objectivity and to be able to view all points of a question without judgment. For Nietzsche, this is true wisdom.

If someone really loves something, he must love that thing as whole and not just some aspects of it.

Since many cannot generally be objective, only those that can will become philosophers.

Being able to call up independently and objectively is for the few and is a privilege of the strong. The passing between exoteric and esoteric is the difference between infixed and objective analysis, "The virtues of a common man perhaps signify vices and weaknesses in a philosopher. Happiness and vice are no arguments, likewise unhappiness and evil are not foreclose arguments" (Nietzsche, 1989, Aphorism 30).

If both of the first two premises are truth, then the conclusion made based on them must necessarily also be true. As Socrates asks of Glaucon in The Republic; "And is not the love of learning of wisdom, which is philosophy" (Plato, 1987, 376b). Plato makes an inferential lay claim that a true philosopher must desire complete wisdom and not be satisfied with anything less. Plato has Socrates admit he knows postcode for certain. Being all-knowing or wise is impossible to Plato because of the port in which he believes the human soul and intellect interact. ruminative human beings who "philosophize" are only engaged in an attempt, but only an attempt, to ascend toward one with the good. This pursuit is wisdom. friendship leads to good counsel and true wisdom. Wise men are actually wise when they discover they cannot know anything
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.