Socrates And Martin Luther King Jr.

What makes a great leader? Two great leaders from this century were Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. Despite their difference in gender and race and didn 't have political experiences. Martin Luther King Jr. was an African-American, Baptist minister, who was born on January 15, 1968. He lead the civil rights movement. Eleanor Roosevelt, who was born on October 11, 1884, was an influential a First Lady. She was a great social reformer and she was a beyond educated well and came from her wealthy family as well. Both had successful leadership qualities: empathy, conceptualization, and ability to build community.

There were many circumstances in the life of Socrates and Marin Luther King which reveals their approach towards changing the world. They took several measures to improve the lives of people but the worst thing is that there end was not good. They both died in the hands of injustice. Socrates said that people should believe on their own caliber and follow the truth rather than following the majority. MLK on the other hand elaborates the topic of just and unjust law and how it is related to the unjust law. Their approaches were not similar but their intentions were same. Now the main question is ‘Is there any way we can response to those various instances of social injustice? What are unjust law and application of unjust law and how should we

By comparing himself to the Greek hero Achilles before the jury in Plato’s Apology, Socrates attempts to portray himself as a hero of equal merit to Achilles and others of similar standing. By selecting the greatest of the Classical Greeks to compare and contrast himself to in his argument, Socrates surreptitiously urges his audience to view him as being of the same caliber as Achilles. This not only authenticates Socrates’ claims, but also exhibits his disconnect from earlier forms of thought. Essentially, Socrates attempts to display himself in the same light as his predecessor Achilles through their shared aspiration to do what they deem to be right in addition to their

Leadership is the most important quality for the head of any nation, or any other political leader. To be a good leader, you must have many attributes that qualify you for such a huge responsibility. There are good crisis leaders who would fail in a period of "calm." What is clear, is that leadership is a complicated concept. We have consistently found that good leaders have passion and values, confidence yet humility, knowledge and realism; Having these attributes and the ability to use them and develop them in others is the foundation for reaching goals and being successful in a leadership position. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are two men who have influenced some of the most influential people in the world, as the two were writing to different audiences, it 's easy to see why their ideologies might clash or unite; Henry Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli both use an abundant amount of rhetorical strategies in both of their stories, including ethos, pathos, and logos; both of the stories also have their fair share of differences.

We are all pretty familiar with Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr., both being significant historical figures, fighting for different ideas. During the 1700s’, Jefferson was growing up in a rich white environment and privileged to the extent where he is later classified as an American founding father. A very different background compared to the majority of the colonies’ population at that time and two distinct relations shared between them. Unlike Jefferson, Dr. King was raised by a faithful family and a religious environment while being targeted in a discriminative and racist atmosphere, resembling the expected stereotypical lifestyle of an African American male during the 1900s’. Unlike many other African Americans, King achieved the near impossible in getting as far as an education; the pressure in even attending a segregated school was overwhelming for a lot of African American individuals. Since we looked at both very distinct lifestyles, we can probably guess how and where the motives behind Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence” and Dr. King’s I Have A Dream” came about. Comparison and contrast wise, what are the propositions Jefferson and King have for the topic of equality? Does Jefferson’s perspective on equality contradict or corroborate with Dr. Kings’? But when you really get down to it, do either ones’ perspective have similar traits to what kind of society we are living in or is it too irrational to justify?

Both men were also extremists. Socrates was a man who wanted to do what he believed he was instructed to do by God, while maintaining the idea that if his thoughts rubbed off on others, he was solely responsible. Socrates understood that his beliefs and values were capable of altering, and would alter, societal viewpoints. Just like MLKJ, Socrates understood that their perspective on society had repercussions, but they were so defined by their morals that it did not matter to them what the consequences would be. Martin Luther King Jr. identified himself as an extremist, but an extremist of love. He was an extremist “for the cause of justice” (296), and definitely went to the extreme to fight for it. Both men went through similar

Imagine the feeling of sitting in room isolated from the rest of the world, left alone with your thoughts and kept guarded away from freedom. What would one with their spare time? Would one contemplate escape? Would one sit alone with their thoughts and fixate on what has led to such a lonely end? Would one compose a letter to those who detained them? Perhaps these are the same thoughts that inspired the words of Socrates, in Plato’s Crito or the emotional words that were spewed on paper by Dr. Martin Luther King while detained in Birmingham Jail. The philosophy of Socrates and Dr. Martin Luther King are grounded in peace. Both philosophers are faced with conflict from the laws put in place by the society that they are in. The purpose of this essay is to compare how each philosopher discusses the concept of law. The fictional tales of Socrates was inspiration to the belated Dr. King as he strived to challenge the status quo set for society. Throughout Plato’s poems Socrates constantly stretched the mental capabilities of those who conversed, and at times even challenged him. Dr. King was not fearful of “Causing tension to the mind” of those around him. In particular Dr. King challenged his ideals of those who opposed his approach of nonviolent protesting. In “The letter from a Birmingham Jail” Dr. King response to a clergyman in form of a letter. This letter expresses the many obstacles put in front of Dr. King as he strives to create an equal society for African-American or

Throughout history, across time and space, there have been many thinkers whose teachings and ideas have inspired significant changes in the world around them. From Socrates and Sir Isaac Newton to Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, certain individuals throughout history have had both the brainpower and the motivation to essentially change the future, using their new ideas and beliefs to shape the world's next generations into individuals who were, and continue to be, more informed than the last. Who could imagine modern life without the knowledge that these individuals provided us? As with all worldly change, many of these thinkers' views and methods were challenged, but in never backing down, many of these teachings, and certainly the names of the individuals behind them, have stood the test of time, as seen in viewing two of history's most noted thinkers, Immanuel Kant and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Socrates and Machiavelli are both very influential philosophers and two of the great minds of their time. However, both of these men had their own separate ideas that did not completely agree with one another. Machiavelli was born into a Renaissance time period of fragmented politics, lots of bloodshed, and angry citizens while Socrates grew up in a time of political adjustment and instability in Athens. Machiavelli constructed The Prince as a political pamphlet to his friend Lorenzo de ' Medici on how a prince would successfully rule his land or kingdom most effectively. This guide consisted of ideas that involved cheating and lying to keep people happy and asserting dominance over others. The Greek philosopher Socrates, on the other

Separated by more than 8500 kilometers but only 52 years, two seminal thinkers have shaped the moral philosophy of their respective cultures. While Western ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Plato’s Republic, Eastern ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Confucius’s Analects. David Haberman describes the Republic as ‘one of the most influential books of all time’ (86). And Bryan Van Norden compares (with considerable fervor) the Analects to ‘the combined influence of Jesus and Socrates’ (3).

The twentieth century was a time of new perspectives and challenging authority. Many individuals began experimenting and innovating in an attempt to change the status quo. Two famous individuals of the time period were the physicist Albert Einstein and the activist Mahatma Gandhi. At first glance, the highly logical scientist Albert Einstein and the spiritual, political activist Mahatma Gandhi do not appear to have a great deal in common, but a deeper study of their personal lives and accomplishments reveal the two are far more similar than they are different. Einstein and Gandhi were both creative individuals who revolutionized their respective domains, display the influence of childhood and the child-like mind, and could charm the masses despite difficulties in maintaining close relationships.

Can absurd logic be used as a tool to scrutinize western philosophical texts without missing the point? Using absurd logic, I will demonstrate how two western philosophers differ in relation to the absurd. My case study will examine Socrates and David Hume. It will be demonstrated that Socrates’ actions in Plato’s Phaedo and Apology constitute philosophical suicide by finding sanctuary, giving hope, and appealing to a god. Alternatively, Hume’s actions/claims in the Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Of Miracles conform with Camus’ absurd logic because of his constant skepticism and denial of an escape. My aim is to demonstrate that although Socrates’ actions are deemed as philosophical suicide and Hume’s actions comply with absurd logic, one is still able to comprehend the philosophical issues that both these philosophers raise, while still doing a close reading of the texts through an absurd paradigm.

Throughout history, great minds have used situational platforms like trials to advance their ideas to large audiences. Socrates and Louis Riel are no exception to this and used their respected trials as a means of conveying a final political statement. This is evident in both Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates and Hans V. Hansen’s Reil’s Defense: Perspectives on his Speeches. Both men’s speeches can be seen as weak examples of forensic rhetoric and strong examples of political rhetoric due to the fact that Socrates and Riel both believed in a divine mission and cause much larger than themselves. It is clear that neither man set out to win their trial, and I argue that both Socrates and Riel's speeches were intended to politically inspire as they both saw themselves as martyrs for a greater cause.

Numerous thoughts and behaviors of people are influenced noticeably or invisibly by our society and culture. Compare Westerners with Easterners, plenty of ideas they share are in common. Whereas, the special identities which come from their own culture changed them differently. Along with the development of human culture, great ancient thinkers and philosophers contributed their life to influence people’s beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors from generation to generation. Socrates from a Western country and Confucius from an Eastern country were considered the famous philosophers in their times. They both educated people with their thoughts, got involved in politics, and pursued virtue in their life,

Some of the most famous people of the ancient world were philosophers. These certain individuals became more well-known than many war heroes and kings because of the ways in which they thought about, and perceived the world. Historians along with other people became fascinated with their ideas. This resulted in their ideas becoming the foundation for the ways in the world thinks today. Some of these people include Plato, and Augustine of Hippo. These men thought about the ways of the world unlike any others had before them. They were not satisfied with the knowledge that world gave them, and so they continued to ask questions and dig deeper until they were able to find an answer. These two men both lived in times where the people around them were very confused. This lead to both of them being very influential in their separate times.