Laches a Philosophical Counterexample Is

Laches A philosophical counterexample is an example that serves to support an argument against a principle definition or statement. In Laches192d, D2 is given as a sort of endurance of the soul. D2 is amended with Socrates' argument that courage is an admirable trait, and foolish endurance is not admirable, therefore courage is not endurance. Laches provides D3 by stating that courage is wise endurance.

Socrates' argument that courage is not wise endurance is supported by several counterexamples, such as a man who shows endurance in spending his money wisely and a soldier who shows endurance based on his knowledge that reinforcements are coming and his position in the battlefield is superior to his enemy's position. My personal and original counterexample to D3 is the battered wife who shows endurance in staying with her abusive and violent husband.

This woman is displaying endurance by remaining in her marriage, but it is not wise endurance because she continues to be physically injured and may end up being killed during one of her husband's beatings. This counterexample supports the following argument: A. Endurance is not wise. B. Wisdom is not necessary for courage. C. Wise endurance does not define courage. In 193a, Socrates' counterexample involves two soldiers in opposing armies.

One soldier endures in war because he has the knowledge that other soldiers will help him, that the army fighting against him is smaller and weaker, and that his position is favorable. The other soldier endures in the exact same war even though his position is weak and he has little hope of support from other soldiers. This counterexample supports the argument that a. Courage is a noble quality. B. The superior soldier's endurance is not noble. C. Therefore endurance is not courage.

The distinction between fact and value is that fact is merely a collection of data, while data is an abstraction that has no meaning without reference to a specific context. It is information that serves no purpose because it lacks a meaningful relationship to anything else. Value provide a context for and gives meaning to fact. For example, a fact is that a secretary earns $12 per hour working at a bank.

The value given to this fact is that a secretary earning $12 per hour working at a bank needs to work forty hours per week to earn $480 per week. Knowledge of fact is descriptive and knowledge of value is prescriptive. The counterexample of the two soldiers fails because the soldier of the inferior position is operating with knowledge of fact and knowledge of value, while the soldier of the superior position is operating only with knowledge of fact.

The inferior soldier knows that he is likely to die, but he will endure in the war and fight anyway. His knowledge of fact is that he is likely to die; his knowledge of value is that he can increase his odds of survival with endurance in fighting. The superior soldier knows that he is likely to win and will endure because of this likelihood. His knowledge of fact supersedes any need for knowledge of value. Despite this discrepancy, both soldiers show endurance.

But the discrepancy itself disproves the counterexample because the variable does not allow for a consistent comparison. Whether or not the inferior soldier is foolish or wise would determine the validity of the two soldiers counterexample. My counterexample of the battered wife demonstrates an argumentative failure based on the knowledge of fact and the knowledge of value. The battered wife who stays with the abusive husband is showing endurance, not based on knowledge of fact, but despite knowledge of fact.

She knows that she is likely to die if she does not leave her violent husband (knowledge of fact). Yet she endures the relationship and endures his beatings. This does not show any knowledge of value and defies reason based on knowledge of fact, thereby showing a.