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.

Responses to other blogs:
Beginning Republic: From what I've read of the Republic so far, it seems to me that the length of the Republic may be due to Plato wanting to be able to compare different ages and temperaments in arguments.

Homer and Mimetic Value Systems: In response to your last question, I think that common texts can be dangerous, especially when evaluation of one's mental attributes is based of memorization and "correct" knowledge of that text. This might be a bad analogy, but this question made me think of how Chinese civil service examinations under the Qing dynasty became basically useless because of the strict focus on Confucian texts.

Religion and Virtue

Often religion is thought to a way to get people to lead virtuous lives. Clearly in the case of religious extremists this is not the case. On the other hand there are a fair number of individuals who have done a number of admirable things in the name of religion. This alone leads me to believe that virtue is an individual tendency and that no one group the formula to being virtuous. But, is it possible that religion could help to steer people in the direction of virtue? If so, are some religions more likely to guide someone towards a virtuous life than others. 

Socrates would be upset with me for asking this without defining virtue, but whatever I'll live. 

I'm apparently the most technologically illiterate person and still can't get this comment thing down so once again replying like this.

Response to The Choice not Taken: I think this would be an interesting way to find holes in people's systems of thinking. It seems like what they avoid would be what could be most damaging to their argument.

Response to Crito and the Social Contract: Though I was originally skeptical that Socrates death could be interpreted as civil disobedience, I am starting to be won over the idea because as I read more it seems to fit the character of Socrates the best.

Freedom and Democracy

Plato's description of the individual's obligation to Athens may strike the modern reader as somewhat odd. I myself was astonished by Socrates' almost complete submission to the State throughout his persecution in Athens. Often in the modern world when we think of Democracy we think of freedom being associated with it, but in one of Socrates' arguments, the individual seems to have very little freedom as the State is the ultimate being and the entity to which every person ultimately owes their lives as payment for the good which the State has brought them. This is vastly different from modern democracies where people oppose the government every step of the way, no matter how "final" the decision is and believe they are justified in doing so to ensure that the government gives them fair treatment. I believe that the reason for this is that politics was more majoritarian in Athens than it is today. Most modern democracies have institutionalized methods for regional and minority interests to ensure that these interests do not get run over by more powerful groups. Plato hints at the dangers of majorities in his conversation on the opinion of the masses in his dialogue. While there is some wisdom in the majority it is an imprecise wisdom that must be tempered by small groups that have specific interests.

Since for some strange reason I cannot figure out how to comment on other people's posts, I'm going to do it here.

In response to the Role of Protesting: I truly do not think socrates is protesting anything. He seems to be basically ok with how Athens is run. Him remaining true to his principles is him trying to die with honor though he no longer feels that he has a role to play in Athens because of the generations of slander that have been brought against him. I do think that Plato definitely played this whole situation up a little bit for dramatic effect.

 

In response to Force, Rhetoric, and the Apology: I think that rhetoric is one of socrates most important tools because it is the easiest way to get people to question their own positions. My favorite example so far is when he basically gets Euthyphro to prove himself wrong by making Euthyphro state that the gods often disagree. 

Defining Terrorism

In class, we talked whether things needed to be defined in absolute terms or just recognized on a case by case example to know the truth about them. An interesting depiction of how this plays out in today's world is global efforts to combat terrorism. While many countries clearly define terrorism in their domestic statues, there is no working international definition of terrorism. Thus people in different countries view different things as terrorism. This has had drastic effects on the modern world. The greatest effect of this is the fact that international powers cannot get on the same page about terrorism, which is necessary as terrorists are not known to abide by international borders. In this area, at least, a consensus is needed on what the essence of terrorism, not just what acts qualify as terrorism. There are plenty of ways that a want to be dictator could frame legitimate resistance to their rule as terrorism and use that to justify oppression of these groups in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, a clear definition of terrorism would help to put pressure on groups that fall in the category of terrorist but are not recognized as such for various reasons. 

Euthyphro

Plato's youthful dreams of becoming a playwright are evident right off the bat in his dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro. Euthyphro, to me at least, appears to be the epitome of a tragic hero. The way that Euthyphro speaks about the gods and himself, which is particularly clear in section 5a, shows that he thinks himself above other people. Euthyphro reminds me of Narcissus, spurning those who love him (i.e. his family), in order to uphold a principal that he thought was right. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Euthyphro was in the wrong here, but ancient Greeks might have thought otherwise. While Athens was a "democracy" it was an extremely hierarchical place prone to political mayhem. In the violent and competitive world of Ancient Greece it as difficult to trust anyone outside of your family thus making betrayals in a family the most horrible an ancient greek could imagine. Athens was also extremely patriarchal , which made it so that the father was the center of the famaily and all power in the family radiated from him. Destroying this family center was an viewed as sinful (to use christian terminology) by the Greeks. The concept is further ingrained in Greek myth in the story of Oedipus, who kills his father then has a series of unfortunate events. As is seen in the stories of Narcissus and Oedipus, the actions that Euthyphro is taking could lead him down a dangerous path. The elements of literature that Plato adds to his writing makes it entertaining and helps him take a deeper look at the human condition.