12

he has struck. There is a difference in this motif drawn by the authors in terms of spiritual portrait. In Halide Edip, the wolf motif shows itself together with the dream motif and becomes the main hero, while in Aytmatov's work, the wolves become the main heroine without the dream motif. Considering that the motif is the smallest element of storytelling and that it is indivisible and indivisible, it would be appropriate to come to the following conclusion: When the wolf motif is removed from the works in question, the works become empty and nothing remains of them.

Is that why you're interested in genetic engineering? To dissolve the races of nations, Mr. Lee?

I think genetic engineering is the profession of the future.

Does software engineering have a chance? We live in the digital age.

-Software doesn't make me laugh, teacher. Stories that the person used to laugh at before suddenly gain a frightening power. Here, the understanding of the other world, III. It is the same as the one rejected in the Book, but the closing myth at the end of Book X offers us the true image in this regard. (The analytic evaluators of which we have spoken have also noticed this and judged that Books I and X were written at the same time; but their very understanding can be presented as proof that they have misunderstood Plato's art, for without all those previous stages, the afterlife that comes to us at the end. His myth would be irrelevant, to remain naked, to turn into a fable.) While Socrates was speaking with Thrasymachus, he raises the question of whether the gods are just as well, and says that the just one should be the friend of the gods, upon the hesitant agreement of the other with this thought; and at the end, making a clear reference to this initial place, he proves that the just, the righteous are the friends of the gods. This means that the first part is insufficient, with the explanations made at the end, Socrates also makes up for the lack in the beginning. In Book I, which serves as an introduction, all the topics that will be discussed in the future are briefly mentioned, and these planes are explained and emphasized one by one as the text progresses. We mentioned Kephalos; Cephalos also prepares us for other thematic planes. He sees the root cause of happiness and unhappiness in the character of man, thus not only paving the way for an answer to Gluacon's request to investigate the essence of the just and its effect on the soul, but also points out that the character of the city citizen, as nature offers to man, should be decisive in the choice of this citizen; This is a fundamental principle of choice for the construction of the state.

He is also the one who spoke of the tyrant Eros, the greatest tyrant of the races; Thus, it reflects a theme of fundamental importance in terms of Plato's philosophy to our ears for the first time. Eros appears three times; the nurturer, the educator's measured love for the nobility of the soul and the beauty of the body, as a blissful, insatiable desire for the knowledge of truth and truth, but at the same time, if we go back to the starting point, the most terrible passion of the senses, as the demagogue of the soul, can only be seen in what is the essence and duty of the soul. Eros is defined with all its magnificence and magnificence. Again, one of the views that have developed and gained integrity in the text is related to money. For Kephalos, money is a means of living justly, but here is a limited, incomplete view of money that moves the world, what money really means becomes clear as the dialogue develops; money is presented as one of the major causes of state collapse (IV, VIII, IX). Plato introduces Polemarchus into dialogues and brings up another important theme: the art of literature. As didactic writers, Homer and Hesiod became life-guiding guides in Greece; interpretation and understanding of literature was of utmost importance in this respect, the Sophists attached extraordinary importance to this issue. In this context, the subject of literature, as a problematic area that needs to be emphasized, goes beyond the reference in Book I and goes beyond II., III. and extends to Book X. Thrasymachus makes a more important contribution to the text than Glaucon's. Because by defining the right (law) as the advantage of the strong, he touched on a very important and crucial problem in its time. This problematic, too, deserves a much broader discussion than in Book I. Plato brings a counter thesis to take this determination deeper and refute it: It is essential that state guards be educated so that justice, right, law, and the strong are not tools; because only in this case power (power) will be the supporter of a clean service to the whole (state/society). We see that we owe the image of the monster of injustice to Thrasymachus in the text, and it is only in Book X that we get the chance to recognize this monstrous, superior human type as an unhappy person. Just like in Eros, we arrive at the refutation of this determination from the negative assessment, and from there to the positive level. For Socratic thoughts, it is also true that the claims made at the beginning are finally proven.