1

Yulong Gao (ID:12155875)

Professor James
Philosophy 4
February 02, 2021
The debate between Socrates and Callicles and my point of view

People live in a world with endless desires. What is to live well and how to

live better is a question that has plagued people for a long time. In a debate between

Socrates and Callicles, they had a heated discussion about what a good life is.

Callicles believes that a good life should be to indulge one's desire to pursue what one

wants, and the more you get, the better one’s life will be. Socrates, however, held

different opinions on this. He likened people to a jar. Those who are unconstrained by

themselves, who are always chasing their desires and are not satisfied, are an empty

jar with no bottom. This kind of jar can never be filled, that is to say, this kind of

person will spend all of their life on the way of chasing happiness and will never be

content. He states that people should adapt to the surrounding environment and learn

to be content. Callicles refutes Socrates on this point, he believes that happiness is not

satisfaction but constant gain. Otherwise, the stone may be the happiest thing in the

world. Those who already be satisfied with their happiness or those who have jars that

are full already will not get any new happiness. Socrates continued to question

Callicles. If continuous having something is happiness, isn’t scratch an itch for one’s

whole life enjoyment, and isn’t it an enjoyment that you have been asked questions

like this to forever (Plato 68)?

After this, Socrates used two theories to support his view that people should

learn to be satisfied. One of the which is the mixed sensations argument which the

meaning of feeling enjoyment is different from the meaning of doing well and the

meaning of pain is not the same thing as doing badly. Another one is the equal

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 2

pleasures argument which being doing good is not the same thing as having a balance

between pleasure and pain.

Socrates opposes Callicles by using the mixed sensation argument which

states that doing well and doing badly cannot coexist at the same time, but the feeling

of pleasure and the feeling of pain can. The feeling of pleasure is not the same thing

as doing good, and the feeling of pain is not the same thing as doing badly. In the

debate between Socrates and Callicles, Callicles claimed that the meaning of pleasure

and the meaning of good are the same things. Knowledge and bravery are not the

same things, and both knowledge and bravery are not as same as good (Plato 69)

Callicles believes that pleasure and pain can not coexist at the same time in one

person. Whenever the pleasure comes, it will replace or chase away the pain. Socrates

asked Callicles a series of questions to prove that his view is untenable.

First, Socrates proposed that a person has an eye disease, which means he is

unhealthy (Plato 70). If this man is ill, and he is not healthy, which means if this man

is functioning badly, he is not doing well. These two cannot be mixed and coexist at

the same time.

When the ill man removes the disease from his eyes, he will not remove his

own eyes or health at the same time. This means that when one removes his pain, he

does not remove his own pleasure at the same time. But if Socrates can find that

people get rid of their pain and pleasure at the same time, then it can prove that pain

and happiness are mixed and exist at the same time. Callicles agreed with Socrates on

this (Plato 70).

Then, Socrates gave an example of a hungry man drinking water. He stated

that if a person is thirsty, then his pain the thirst, and his pleasure is drinking water.

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 3

Callicles agrees with this view. Socrates went on to state that a very thirsty and

painful person is drinking water, does not this mean that pain and happiness can

coexist at the same time? When a thirsty person drinks water, he is thirst and

quenching his thirst at the same time, that is, he has pain and pleasure at the same

time. And when this person stops drinking, he removes his pleasure and pain at the

same time (Plato 71).

At this point, by proving that doing well and doing badly cannot coexist and

pain and happiness can exist at the same time, Socrates has proved to Callicles that

pain and pleasure are different from good and bad. Pleasure can make up for pain,

they can coexist in one person at the same time, and they can disappear at the same

time by canceling each other out which the good and the bad cannot be done. So, they

are essentially different.

Socrates also opposes Callicles by using the theory of Equal pleasures

argument which indicates that having the balance between pleasure and pain is not the

same thing as been good. First of all, Socrates proposed that the reason why a person

is good is because of the good presence things in him (Plato 72). Just like intelligent

and brave people are good people and cowardly and stupid people are not good.

Callicles agree with this point. Socrates then asked Callicles whether he had ever seen

stupid people feel pleasure or pain and whether he had seen wise people feel pleasure

or pain. Callicles said that he should have seen them all. Socrates then asked Callicles

which one he thinks feels more suffer or pleasure? Callicles said that they don't think

there is a difference between the happiness and pain felt by the wise and stupid people

(Plato 73).

Then, Socrates gave another example of brave men and cowards on the

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 4

battlefield. When the enemy on the battlefield flees, both the warrior and the coward

may feel pleasure. The brave will be pleased with the victory because they have

defeated the enemy, and the coward will be pleased with the enemy's retreat because

their life was saved. When enemies on the battlefield attack, warriors and cowards

will both feel fear, that is, they will feel pain, and cowards may feel more pain

because they are more afraid of the enemy. Callicles agrees with Socrates' view.

Based on the previous statements, which people who have good presence things are

good, and people who have bad presence things are bad, and the more presence things

they have, the better this person is (Plato 75).

Socrates concluded that since the weak and the brave have as much pleasure

and pain, that is, good and bad things, they are as good and bad as the opposite side.

Even in some cases, the coward will be better than the brave. Although cowards are

bad, they can get as much happiness as a warrior, which means that there is no direct

relationship between good and bad and happiness, and pain. And although they may

get the same amount of joy and pain, they feel at different levels. Warriors feel

happiness because they do the right thing, and cowards feel happiness because they do

happy things. So, the Warriors are better.

Overall, I support Socrates' views. His mixed sensations argument thought

logically through two steps to prove that Feeling pain or enjoyment and doing well or

bad is not the same thing. In the first step, he proved that doing well and doing badly

cannot happen at the same time, and in the second step, he proved that feeling

enjoyment and feeling pain can and often happen at the same time, and even they

often have a causal relationship. By pointing out the difference between the two, he

proved that they are not the same thing.

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 5

But some people think that Socrates's first premise is a little loose. They

believe that if they are based on an overall good or overall bad perspective, then doing

well and doing badly can also be understood as coexisting. For example, a person

took a final exam of philosophy. Some parts of his answer sheet were correct, but

some parts of the answer were wrong or not perfect, but overall the good part is better

than the bad part. So the overall test paper is well done.

But I do not agree with this question. I think everything can be judged whether

it is done well or badly, even from the overall perspective. The first premise is that

doing well and doing bad cannot cancel each other out. The second premise is that all

overall events that are difficult to judge whether they are good or bad are composed of

small events that can be judged. The third premise is that everything has its own

criteria for judgment.

In my opinion, there is no difference between the so-called overall doing well

and doing well. A whole thing may contain many small parts, some of which may be

done well, and some may not be done well. But these small things done well will not

offset the small bad things. Doing one thing right does not mean that another thing

done wrong does not exist. For example, each problem in the exam can be

distinguished between doing well and doing badly. If it is a science paper, then there

must be a true answer. The answer to this standard is doing well, and failure to do it is

doing badly. And if it is a liberal arts paper, for example, a social science essay, then

even if there is no perfect answer, there must be a scoring standard, such as whether

the answer contains the knowledge points in the class and whether it has its own

critical thinking, whether combined with life cases and so on.

There is nothing in life that does not have a relative standard of judgment. For

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 6

those who pass, there will be those who fail. If the drink is good, there will drink that

is tastes bad, and if the stars are bright, there will be no bright. When something has

an adjective, he has a relative standard of judgment.

At this time, good and bad are separated. As for who sets the standard, it

doesn't matter whether it will change, it's important to its existence. When there are

more small parts that are well done than the small parts that are not well done in a

whole thing, then this thing is doing well.

And Socrates' second statement, equal pleasures argument, is a beautiful

counterattack to Callicles' point of view by powerfully cutting off the connection

between being good or being bad and feeling pleasure or feeling pain. Although there

a point of view that Socrates premise, that warriors and cowards can get the same

amount of pleasure and pain, can be refuted, through a view that bravery is better only

when it gives one greater overall pleasure. That is to say, bravery may not bring

enough happiness to the brave compared to the weak, and the brave will not choose to

be brave.

But I think people should not do utilitarian things that only bring them benefits

but should do the right things. First of all, because the right things may bring longer-

term benefits to a person. For example, if a fighter chooses to escape, the fighter's

country will be destroyed, and his wife and children may also die. In addition, doing

the right thing itself can also make a person feel happy and improved, which is a kind

of spiritual happiness. When a person understands that doing the right thing will bring

a lot of happiness, he will also get happiness beyond imagination.

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
 7

Work Cited

Donald J. ZEYL. Plato Gorgias. Hackett Publishing Company. 1987. ISBN: 0-87220-

017-5

This study source was downloaded by 100000882116151 from CourseHero.com on 04-24-2024 02:46:44 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/83844431/Essaydocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)