LA1190

ETHICS AND MODERN POLITICAL THEORY

FINAL ASSIGNMENT
ME17BTECH11047
SAHARITHA BALIVADA

1)
If there ever existed a conversation between Socrates and Plato on one side and Fredrich Nietzsche on
the other, then there would be a lot of things that would be counterstatements of each others’. Since
Plato, being Socrates’ pupil, many of Plato’s and Socrates’ thoughts and philosophies are similar and
agree with each other, whereas when juxtaposed with that of Fredrich’s would contradict a lot. ‘

One way to look at this pertains to their conversation on some of the major aspects of their
philosophies.

Socrates: Hey Plato!

Plato: Hello, Master Socrates. I am verwhelmed to see you after so long.
Nietzche: Hello folks! Hey Plato, He Socrates, how have you both been?
Socrates: I have been going through your philosophies and idea Fredrich, but I don’t agree with
some of those.
Plato: Yes Master, I too. Nietzche, can we discuss on a few of them?
Nietzche: We sure can!

For certain they would speak about their respective Ethical Considerations.
Socrates and Plato: We are concerned above all with how to live a good life and concluded it must
be based on a conviction of the immortal soul.
Nietzche: But unlike you, I am confronted by the sterility of modern rationalism, a world in which
God is dead, wherein intellectual integrity would lead to nihilism. I seek to balance modernist
rationalism with the passionate human will to life.
Socrates and Plato: Our conviction is in turn related to a faith that the highest reality is that of the
eternal forms, rather than earthly temporality. Hence the elevation of reason or rationality over
passions of earthly life.
Nietzche: From my perspective, moral and intellectual integrity required a human-centered
passionate embrace of life and bold assertion of human will.

Also while in conversation about ethical considerations would raise their Perspectives of the Soul.
Socrates and Plato: When it comes to soul, we have one and it is immortal and exists prior to the
body.
Socrates: I have made many arguments regarding this in several dialogues, Meno, Laws, Phaedo.
Nietzsche: In contrast, I do not believe in the idea of a soul as anything existing independent of the
body.
Plato: I really believe in the immortality of the soul, and it’s reincarnation through multiple lives on
earth.
Nietzsche: It seems to me to have to quickly accept or bought into a modern prejudice despite being
such an astute critic of modernity on so many other points.

There would also be an interesting conversation regarding the Attainment of Truth.

Socrates: In my opinion truth could be realized an attained by human beings.
Fredrich: Truth is non-existent and therefore no amount of epistemological contemplations would
be able to uncover them, that is when there is truth, how would they find it. I also praise Sophist for
this reason and mock the trio - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Then, there would be a heated discussion regarding the Revaluation of Values.

Fredrich: Don’t you think men should possess the will to life? That a man should live his life with
interest and vengeance instead of oscillating between what is right and wrong.
Fredrich: I disagree with Socrates that self-knowledge is a virtue.
Socrates: I would argue that honesty is a virtue and it brings happiness,
Fredrich: If so, honesty in itself carries no element of pleasure, instead deceitfulness should be
considered a virtue as it brings pleasure in an given case. Basically since morals are empty things it is
pretty easy for the philosopher to chase them away by mere words.

Then, there be a strong assertion regarding the Importance of Reason and Value of Philosophy.

Plato: These seem to be unqualified goods and the key to virtue and happiness, at least for a few
people. This is the argument in the Republic and some other dialogues.
Nietzsche: But according to me they are only qualified goods, good for some people in some
circumstances.
Socrates: Being a decadent, I argued in Twilight of the Idols, and the use of reason as a new agon
(contest, struggle) was an indication of decadence and the decline of Greek culture.

Their viewpoints on Rationality.

Plato: I contend that rationality must overcome the irrational
Nietszche: I sees the dominance of rationality as the key problem of modernism - that there needs to
be a balance between the forces of mind/order versus passion/chaos.
Nietszche: Socrates, I also feel that your opinion of rationalism as decadent because it is a method of
dialect and doubt rather than an affirmation of reality, human instinct or possibility.

It is also quite possible that they might question about each others’ Style.
Nietzsche is emphatic, always speaking in his own name, shouting from the rooftop invectives against
everyone and everything he despises often dripping with enraged, sophomoric and immature in my
opinion, indignation. Plato, in contrast, never speaks in his own name. He is not even mentioned as
present in most of the dialogues. Socrates appears to be his hero or spokesman, but never
unqualifiedly so, and not in all the dialogues. Socrates is challenged and refuted from time to time,
like in the Parminides as mentioned.

During their conversation they would also bring up the Existence of Metaphysics.
Plato: In my view, metaphysics is generally equated with my so-called theory of forms or ideas..
Socrates: I do believe that there is metaphysics and we can know something about it albeit it’s very
hard to say what exactly.
Nietzsche: I (dogmatically) deny it or at least that we can know anything about it if there is such a
thing. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of a hidden reality and sees the idea as pernicious for
how it removes us from experience.
There would also be a little mocking over each others’ Personalities.
In Nietzsche's ‘The Birth of Tragedy’, he compares Plato with the Greek figures from Apollonian or
Dionysian characters, drawing the conclusion that Plato did not have an as interesting life as either
those characters or as the writers. Even in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’: “I hope to be forgiven for
discovering that all moral philosophy hitherto has been tedious.” So indirectly Nietzsche does say that
Plato was boring, at least when he was doing moral philosophy. But so are all other moral
philosophers.

Finally, the whole imaginary conversation that Socrates and Plato would together have with Fredrich
will be full of contradictions, mockery, disagreements, arguments and a lot of heated discussions. One
predominant reason being that there is a different school of thought on each side and very little or
nothing in common to be able to arrive at supportive, similar conclusions.