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.