For my paper, I want to examine how Plato uses images as a teaching tool. I think that the Republic and many of the other dialogues can be seen as an outline for how a teacher and student should interact. I think that this interaction includes the teacher learning something, which in Socrates case is the reaffirmation of the idea that he knows nothing. My thesis is that Socrates tries to advance out of the use of images, but realizes the limited depth of his knowledge on these subjects so he repeatedly has to revert back to using images.

Response to Corruption of the electorate: I think that Plato/Socrates use the city of words as a tool to show the problems tat can arise within government. I think they show they show some interesting patterns of human behavior by reducing the state to a wise ruler. This gets rid of the majority, which often clouds the workings of the state.

Response to Knowledge and Truth: I think the way that Socrates is saying that you need different lenses to see the truth in different areas. If we are thinking about truth as the form of something then different "things have different truths. The one problem I have with this is that it makes the nature of existing relativistic because no one can know all of the conditions that everyone has ever lived in.

One question Plato seems to be asking throughout the republic is how can we build a city that functions well because everyone is doing what they are meant to be doing. This question has basically been at the core of political philosophy since then. Plato seems to think the answer to this question is people need direction and I do agree with him to some extent. My problem is how limiting the Socrate's city of words an be at times (limits on music art etc.). Is it possible to have a more free society that still directs people to what they are most suited for?

One thing I have really been interested in while reading Plato is how much should we look at the context someone is writing in to examine their ideas? Does it take away from the writings themselves if we examine the writer too much? I personally wish that I knew more about the history of Athens because I think it would help us to understand the way they speak better. Furthermore, it would help to understand more about the social hierarchy of ancient Athens.

Hi everyone, before I begin I would like to apologize for not posting last night.

Plato's Republic, thus far, I think has shown how taking Socrates all of the time could be extremely dangerous. Socrates, while he does pursue arguments to uncomfortable places, has said some fairly terrible things in the Republic. Though I do not want to think these are the ideas that Plato is truly promoting, I find it hard to believe that they are not because of how well thought out this all seems. Though Socrates says that they are only being a theoretical city, could he be hoping that sometime in the future a city like this could actually exist? It seems to me that Plato is far too smart to have thought the world would remain a static place forever. Even as we have discussed in class, technology, such as ships was advancing in Athens and maybe he thought that advances in technology of warfare and transportation would make a city like his possible. I probably did not explain this too well so please destroy everything I just said.

Response to Thrasymachus and Axiomatic Assumptons: I think that Socrates did not go straight to the "distasteful core o f Thrasymachus'" argument because he is trying to make it relatable to the rest of the group, who have not spent as much time thinking about these things as he has. I think this is one of the most impressive things about Socrates as portrayed by Plato because it shows that he is a multi dimensional and not just an abstract thinker. 

Response to Beginning the Republic: I think that the structure of the dialogue may have something to do with character development in the sense that it is showing how "long" it can take to change peoples opinions on an issue. I as of yet have no proof for this, but I'll do my best to find it and if not, oh well. 

So far one of the most interesting characters in Plato's Dialogues, in my opinion is Cephalus. In class, the idea was put forward that Socrates was trying to politely get rid of Cephalus in his conversation. I do not think that this is the case for two reasons. The first is that Socrates seems to repeat some of the things he said later on in the dialogue. The second, and more important reason, is that I cannot see Socrates trying to get rid of anyone no matter how old or annoying they are. Socrates is seeking wisdom and has so far been willing to talk to anyone to try to find it. Even if Cephalus is very set in his opinions, some of them could be right and for that reason I do not think Socrates was trying to get rid of Cephalus at the beginning of the Republic.