mes and every-day life of men. This would seem as if the best and truest Philosophy were only a domestic or fireside philosophy, which conforms to all the ordinary ideas of men, and in which we see friends and faithful ones talk together of righteousness, and of what can be known on the earth, without having penetrated the depths of the heavens, or rather the depths of consciousness. But this last is exactly what Socrates, as these men themselves indicate, first ventured to do. And it was not incumbent on him to reflect upon all the speculations of past Philosophy, in order to be able to come down in practical philosophy to inward thought. This gives a general idea of ​​his principle. p> According to Plato's "Apology" Socrates 'behavior to others was not only just true, open without rudeness, and honorable, but also Socrates is an example of the most perfect Attic urbanity; because he moves in the freest possible relations, has a readiness for conversation which is always judicious, and, because it has an inward universality, at the same time always has the right living relationship to the individual, and bears upon the case on which it operates.
After all this, it could be said that Socrates can be considered not only as the ideal men, but also as the ideal philosopher. p align=center> Socrates ' virtue.
Virtues of Socrates are certainly to be looked at as his own, and as made habitual to him by his own will. To him virtue is perception. Aristotle criticizes (Magna Mor. I. 1) on the quality of virtue expounded by Socrates. He says: "Socrates made virtues into a science. But this is impossible, since, though all knowledge has some basis this basis only exists in thought. Consequently, he places all the virtues in the thinking side of the soul. Hence, it comes to pass that he does away with the feeling part of the soul, that is, the inclination and the habits. " Or Aristotle (Eth. Nicom. VI. 13), supplementing the one-sidedness of Socrates, says of him: "Socrates in one respect worked on right lines, but not in the other. For to call virtue scientific knowledge is untrue, but to say that it is not without scientific basis is right. Socrates made virtues into perceptions, but virtue exists with perception. "
Could be seen that Aristotle misses the side of subjective actuality in the determination of virtue in Socrates, which now called the heart. Understanding the reality of the good as universal morality, substantiality is wanting to the perception; but matter, regarding the inclination of the individual subjective will as this reality. This double want may also be considered as a want of content and of activity, in so far as to the universal development is wanting; and in the latter case, determining activity comes before us as negative only in reference to the universal. Socrates thus omits, in characterizing virtue. As to Aristotle himself, he thought that virtue is that, what makes people feel good. It means that the good perceived should be virtue, it must come to pass that the whole man, the heart and mind, should be identical with it, and this aspect of Being or of realization generally. p> Bibliography:
1) san.beck.org (was taken on the 3d of December)
2) istina.ru/philosofy (Was taken on the 4 th of December)
3) Bertrand Russell "the history of western civilization "(Russian edition, 2003, part I and part II ch XI XII XIII) p> 4) historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000019/st034.shtml (Was taken on the 3d of December)
5) filosofia.ronl.ru/1319_1.shtml (Was taken on the 3d of December)
