Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod?
I think that Plato would want to censor Hesiod because they had different beliefs and didn't want conflict.
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Homer and Hesiod are guilty of misrepresenting the gods and heroes of their time.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is just and does only good. God doesn't not do unjustly/bad things.
4. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato
wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
My personal reflection was the same in the sence that they had different belifes, but Socates/Plato thought that Hesiod and Homer wrote untrue statments about god.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
3/21-Republic Assignment
1) What do you think is the best definition of justice? It can be one of the views expressed in The Republic, a modification of one or more of them, or something completely different.
I feel that all the definitions of justice tend to have a flaw in them, but I most agree with justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts. In the Republic, Socrates reveals the flaw of this definition by giving an example. Let’s say you barrowed a weapon from a friend. But, your friend just happened to be crazy, so you wouldn’t want to return the weapon (paying ones debts) because who knows what he would do with it. Another example is, what if you where held hostage and the only way you could be set free was if you told the person holding you hostage where someone dear to you was, such as your mother. You know were she is, but don't want to tell them because they'll go off and kill her, but at the same time you want to be let free. So what do you do? Lie. This way you are set free and your family member isn’t harmed.
I feel that all the definitions of justice tend to have a flaw in them, but I most agree with justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts. In the Republic, Socrates reveals the flaw of this definition by giving an example. Let’s say you barrowed a weapon from a friend. But, your friend just happened to be crazy, so you wouldn’t want to return the weapon (paying ones debts) because who knows what he would do with it. Another example is, what if you where held hostage and the only way you could be set free was if you told the person holding you hostage where someone dear to you was, such as your mother. You know were she is, but don't want to tell them because they'll go off and kill her, but at the same time you want to be let free. So what do you do? Lie. This way you are set free and your family member isn’t harmed.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
3/20-Republic Assignment
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
"Right/justice" all depends on who's saying it. My view on "right/justice" is being truthful and not harming anyone. Though I believe this is justice, I do believe are is a time to but unjust. The only time I feel you can be unjust is when someone is hurting you first and your harming them back in self defence. Also being untruthful if it were a matter of life or death. But, if no one was harming others or being untruthful in the first place there would be no use in being unjust. I know achieveing justice is a dificult thing, and almost impossible due to human error and mistakes, but if we all tried to achieve justice society would be better.
"Right/justice" all depends on who's saying it. My view on "right/justice" is being truthful and not harming anyone. Though I believe this is justice, I do believe are is a time to but unjust. The only time I feel you can be unjust is when someone is hurting you first and your harming them back in self defence. Also being untruthful if it were a matter of life or death. But, if no one was harming others or being untruthful in the first place there would be no use in being unjust. I know achieveing justice is a dificult thing, and almost impossible due to human error and mistakes, but if we all tried to achieve justice society would be better.
Monday, March 19, 2007
3/19-Republic Assignment
1) Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Socrates points out that most politicians and leaders make decisions based on their best interest, thus saying anything against their best interest is against the law. But, what if one of the strong gives out a wrong order by accident that ends up hurting them, it is against the law, but the leader gave that order so the people must obey it.
2) In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus main points: justice is the interest of the stronger party and that injustice is the interest and profit of oneself
Socrates main points: no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it and all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves
3) In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
There is a time and place for fighting. But, if nobody ever fought or harmed anyone there would be no need for fighting others. I feel that the only time to harm someone is in self-defense. If you are getting beat up are threatened, you would fight back to live right? But going around fighting people for no reason or stupid reasons is very unjust.
Socrates points out that most politicians and leaders make decisions based on their best interest, thus saying anything against their best interest is against the law. But, what if one of the strong gives out a wrong order by accident that ends up hurting them, it is against the law, but the leader gave that order so the people must obey it.
2) In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus main points: justice is the interest of the stronger party and that injustice is the interest and profit of oneself
Socrates main points: no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it and all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves
3) In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
There is a time and place for fighting. But, if nobody ever fought or harmed anyone there would be no need for fighting others. I feel that the only time to harm someone is in self-defense. If you are getting beat up are threatened, you would fight back to live right? But going around fighting people for no reason or stupid reasons is very unjust.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friday 3/16 Class Work
1) Answer the questions below:
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
I’m not really sure, but if I had to pick I guess I would say it’s deriving from Simonedes.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonedes believes that justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies. Polemarchus did interpreted him correctly.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socates sees that a friend may not be good and an enemy might not be bad, it’s just what humans like and dislike. Though this may be the case it doesn’t stop someone from helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think Socates/Plato is trying to prove that the less experienced are more likely to give in on something that and the more experienced.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
Well, I didn’t see it much as an argument because all Socrates was doing wass saying Polemarchus was wrong. He just kind of persuaded Polemarchus into thinking he was wrong.
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
I’m not really sure, but if I had to pick I guess I would say it’s deriving from Simonedes.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonedes believes that justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies. Polemarchus did interpreted him correctly.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socates sees that a friend may not be good and an enemy might not be bad, it’s just what humans like and dislike. Though this may be the case it doesn’t stop someone from helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think Socates/Plato is trying to prove that the less experienced are more likely to give in on something that and the more experienced.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
Well, I didn’t see it much as an argument because all Socrates was doing wass saying Polemarchus was wrong. He just kind of persuaded Polemarchus into thinking he was wrong.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
3/16 Republic Assignment
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cephalus is the father of Polemarchus. They are friends of Socrates who he visits.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a business man
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was getting ready to go to the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus says that when you are old you have already been down the road that the young have not, you are wiser and more experienced. On the con side, you are closer to death and many older men are afraid, feel less appreciated and miss there better physical abilities from when they were young.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks justice is telling the truth and paying back your debts.
What is Socrates response?
He responses to him by giving him a situation where you have borrowed a weapon from a friend, but that friend just happens to mad/crazy. So you shouldn't return the weapon (paying back the debt) because who knows what they'd do with it. So basically Socrates was trying to prove that there are situations where you have to lie or not pay back debts.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger argument - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I must say, though I think that justice is being truthful and paying back debts I must agree with Socrates. Yes being truthful and paying back debts are right, but some cases you must lie or not pay back debts. Socrates example was great. Another example is if you where held hostage and the only way you could be set free was if you told the person where a dear family member was. You know, but don't want to tell them because they'll go off and kill them, but at the same time you want to be let free. So what do you do? Lie. There are just sometimes in life where you must do these things.
III. Try to give this a shot, if you can’t answer it that’s okay: What do you think Cephaus represents? What is particular or unique about his view of justice compared to the others you have discussed in class?
I'm not really sure.
Cephalus is the father of Polemarchus. They are friends of Socrates who he visits.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a business man
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was getting ready to go to the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus says that when you are old you have already been down the road that the young have not, you are wiser and more experienced. On the con side, you are closer to death and many older men are afraid, feel less appreciated and miss there better physical abilities from when they were young.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks justice is telling the truth and paying back your debts.
What is Socrates response?
He responses to him by giving him a situation where you have borrowed a weapon from a friend, but that friend just happens to mad/crazy. So you shouldn't return the weapon (paying back the debt) because who knows what they'd do with it. So basically Socrates was trying to prove that there are situations where you have to lie or not pay back debts.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger argument - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I must say, though I think that justice is being truthful and paying back debts I must agree with Socrates. Yes being truthful and paying back debts are right, but some cases you must lie or not pay back debts. Socrates example was great. Another example is if you where held hostage and the only way you could be set free was if you told the person where a dear family member was. You know, but don't want to tell them because they'll go off and kill them, but at the same time you want to be let free. So what do you do? Lie. There are just sometimes in life where you must do these things.
III. Try to give this a shot, if you can’t answer it that’s okay: What do you think Cephaus represents? What is particular or unique about his view of justice compared to the others you have discussed in class?
I'm not really sure.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
3/15 Similie of the Cave Reading Questions
Compare and contrast what Socrates says in “The Simile of the Cave” with Fahrenheit 451. How are characters like Mildred similar to characters in “Simile of the Cave”?
The Fahrenheit society is exactly what Socates is talking about. They are the prisoners who believe that shadows are real. They believe every word their government tells them. These people such as Mildred also don't object their way of living. If they felt there was something else out there, a truth they would ask questions, wonder about things, but instead the just sit in front of their parlors watching the "family". Books in the Fahrenheit society are like the outside world in The Republic, they open up your way of thinking and keep you informed. And the other governments in Fahrenheit 451 that the main society's government is at war with are the people fighting for power. These are some of the things that are similiar.
The Fahrenheit society is exactly what Socates is talking about. They are the prisoners who believe that shadows are real. They believe every word their government tells them. These people such as Mildred also don't object their way of living. If they felt there was something else out there, a truth they would ask questions, wonder about things, but instead the just sit in front of their parlors watching the "family". Books in the Fahrenheit society are like the outside world in The Republic, they open up your way of thinking and keep you informed. And the other governments in Fahrenheit 451 that the main society's government is at war with are the people fighting for power. These are some of the things that are similiar.
3/14 - Personal Reflection (Plato)
Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?
Well, I used to think that a parakeet was a type of weasle. I don't know why I thought that, I just sounds like thats what it would be. Anyways a parakeet was somehow metioned in a conversation I was having with my friends. They said it was a bird and I was confused..."A parakeet is a bird? I always that it was a weasle type animal." In result I felt really dumb because I thought a parakeet was something else, but in the end I look back at it and laugh.
Well, I used to think that a parakeet was a type of weasle. I don't know why I thought that, I just sounds like thats what it would be. Anyways a parakeet was somehow metioned in a conversation I was having with my friends. They said it was a bird and I was confused..."A parakeet is a bird? I always that it was a weasle type animal." In result I felt really dumb because I thought a parakeet was something else, but in the end I look back at it and laugh.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
3/1-Personal Reflection
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences (or related to that, your inablity to forgive). You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
When I was in fifth grade I worked very hard at playing the violin in so I could be the best violinist in the class. I achieved my goal and bragged a lot about it to my family and friends. When the year was almost over I had applied to S.D.S.C.P.A (San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts). Normally you would have to audition to get in but I was “so good” that I got a recommendation, was automatically accepted in and got a spot in the orchestra. I would brag and brag and brag about how I didn’t have to audition because I was better than everyone else. So, when sixth grade began I went to my orchestra class expecting to be better than everyone else and still be number one. I was very wrong. I learned that I had to be humble and not brag because I wasn’t the best anymore. Granted I was competing against much older and experienced kids.
My pride was similar to Achilles because it sort of clouded my judgment and made me see myself as higher than other people. But in the end it led to my downfall because I was not number one anymore. In Achilles case he saw others lower than him and didn’t think he could be defeated, but eventually he was.
When I was in fifth grade I worked very hard at playing the violin in so I could be the best violinist in the class. I achieved my goal and bragged a lot about it to my family and friends. When the year was almost over I had applied to S.D.S.C.P.A (San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts). Normally you would have to audition to get in but I was “so good” that I got a recommendation, was automatically accepted in and got a spot in the orchestra. I would brag and brag and brag about how I didn’t have to audition because I was better than everyone else. So, when sixth grade began I went to my orchestra class expecting to be better than everyone else and still be number one. I was very wrong. I learned that I had to be humble and not brag because I wasn’t the best anymore. Granted I was competing against much older and experienced kids.
My pride was similar to Achilles because it sort of clouded my judgment and made me see myself as higher than other people. But in the end it led to my downfall because I was not number one anymore. In Achilles case he saw others lower than him and didn’t think he could be defeated, but eventually he was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
