Plato Assignment for 3/28

1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer (yesterday the question was about Hesiod)? You might want to think about Achilles as a "hero," and why or why not his personal characteristics are something that should be promoted, or not.

Because they want their religion to stay the way it is and be directed in the way they want it to. It seems like they don't want to base it off someone elses beliefs. Also, Homer promotes disobeying your leaders and lots of violence in society. This would definitely not be a good thing for them living in the cave.

2. Then read pp. 76-85 (Section b). Secondary or Literary Education)

3. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences:

a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?

Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are that of about people that disobey kings and the law. Also of ones that lie and describe the afterlife as a horrible, bad place.

b. What should poetry “teach” and why?

Poetry should teach about life and wisdom. It should be about good, fun ideas that will make you actually have to think about the poem to understand it. Poetry should teach you to be patient with text and to keep trying at it to understand the meaning of what you're reading. This would interest people and help them learn and practice valuable skills you need for advanced reading.

4. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?

I'd say that Plato would be right to censor Homer because I can understand that the gods are violent and aggresive in Homer. They wouldn't want their society thinking this about their beliefs. Also poems about bad things are alright to censor in my opinion. You wouldn't want your society thinking of the bad and not the good, it would bring their spirits down making them always in a bad mood. Everything around you affects how you act and what you think of and about.

Republic Assignment for 3/27

1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.

I think that Plato or anyone else would want to censor Hesiod because he would be leading them off track from what they want them to believe. They have already taught them a certain way and want them to keep believing in that way so they would be disapointed if the word was to get out that they were living a lie and everything they had been taught about their beliefs and the gods had been false.

2. Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)

3. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions

a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?

Misinterperating the history of the gods in their belief, when what they thought was wrong.

b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?

How god is the cause of all things that go well, nothing that doesn't go well and that god should be spoken about and be presented in their society.

4. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?

I think my prediction was mostly correct in the main perspective of that the reason why was because they didn't want to be doubting the beliefs they have been taught.

Prep for Seminar for 3/22

7) 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?

After going over it in class my opinion on it has changed, well, actually not really I have just heard of how to reword it so that you really never have to harm anyone, just maybe defend yourself in certain situations. I use to think it's right to harm someone if they are harming you on purpose or they won't stop harming you, but Beth has recently brought it to mind, that harming someone that's harming you or someone you care for could be considered defending yourself, your family, your country, etc. depending on the situation. I think this is a very good point and I will most definitely bring it up in the debate when this question is asked if no one else does. If someone is trying to hurt you, and you fight back, it isn't really fighting/harming it's mostly defending yourself. If you just let them hurt you and you don't do anything about it then you'd probably end up dead or in a lot of pain. If you fought back as bad as they did, and badly injure or kill them, then you'd be misunderstood and you'd be just as bad, if not, worse then the person that came at you in force. But if you simply defend youself to stay alive or save yourself from a lot of pain, then that would be the most intelligent thing you could do in that situation, in my opinion at least. I think Socrates would say it is never right to harm someone but accept that defending yourself is a pretty smart move. He'd say it is never right to harm your enemies, though if they try to harm you, then defending yourself would be, certainly, a decent answer to overcome the situation.

Republic Assignment for 3/21

Minimum one long paragraph

Prompt: 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?

Well, things that make you especially happy, maybe even just you alone, are against the law and don't appear justly to many other people. This is an example of ethics clouding your view and way of being happy. Justice can also help you be happy because with laws you feel more safe and secure. People won't be runnin' around killin' other people with the law because if they did they'd go to jail and I don't think anyone would like that (at least in our society). I think laws work well in our world because without laws there would be no justice and without justice our world would be chaotic and this would probably end human civilization as we know it. I think Socrates would agree with me and my point about how laws and justice is needed to run a civilization. It seems like he might say something about how there are laws that you can brake in some cases in case of emergency. (Modern Day Example): If someone was badly hurt and you were speeding on the freeway to get them to the hospital, then breaking that law at that time in that situation would probably be fine, as long as no one was hurt while you were speeding.

Republic Assignment for 3/20

Section One:

Short answers, questions 1 and 2 (at least 2-5 sentences or bullet points, maybe more, per question)

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?

Well, he says that it would be a stupid way of running a society. Also, that most governmental figure' will make laws and run an area with rules and laws in their best interest. They want to please themselves and the people and in doing so, the people are happy and obey the political leader.

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?

I could only find one main point from Thrasymachus which was 'Justice is the interest of the stronger party and that injustice is the interest and profit of oneself.' and I found two main points from Socrates which were 'No one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs.' and 'All wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others.'

Paragraph response, or more, question 3:

Note that we might revisit some of these questions in a Socratic Seminar or as an essay prompt. Consider your response here as a rough draft of initial ideas that could be developed in more detail.

3. You can choose from one of the following prompts to write one paragraph or longer:

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?

I don't think it is ever right to harm someone unless it is necessary. If you're country is at war with another, you aren't just going to stand there and wait for everyone to die you're going to need to fight in the war to escape defeat. However, you could talk your way out of it I suppose, like offer them natural resources that they need in exchange for peace, e.g. oil, gold, crops, etc. My view of justice is to harm somebody as a last resort. I think Socrates would agree with what I'm saying, how not to harm anyone unless they deserve it or it will save lives and other desperate reasons for doing so.

Plato Assignment for 3/16: Section 1

1) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
Well, that's kind of a difficult decision considering he look up to both. But I'd have to say it derived from Simonedes.

2) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonedes said that Justice is to hurt your enemies and help your friends and I think Polemarchus interpreted him correctly.

3) 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?
Socrates thinks that a friend isn't always good so you shouldn't always help them and an enemie is always evil so you shouldn't always hurt them. Plus you should never hurt your enemies unless they have dont something to hurt you or anything else that's bad that's worth hurting or killing over. I think this is a good definition of justice because it is focuses on emotion and feelings.

4) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
be wanting to cause a quarrel between son and father or show that the unexperienced will usually change their mind more than the experienced.

5) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
I don't think Socrates isn't really argueing, it seems as if he is just trying to say that Polemarchus is wrong, he doesn't want to argue over it. Socrates shot down all the logic behind Polemarchus's arguement which took away all of my belief in it. I'm completely convinced in Socrates "arguement" and all the facts behind it, and I 100% doubt Polemarchus's arguement.

Republic Assignment for 3/16

Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cephalus is an old man that lives by the sea. It seems that he cares nothing of money.
Polemarchus is Cephalus's son and is friends with Socrates.

What is the profession of Cephalus?
It doesn't seem as if he has a profession because he is an old man and I think without a job?

What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He sacrificed someone at the party for a goddess.

According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
You don't care for sex and money any more and you should fix all the messed up things you've done in your life.

What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
Cephalus believes that you should always tell the truth and repay all your debts that you owe.

What is Socrates response?
That it is not always good to tell the truth and to give back things you have borrowed.

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 arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I agree with Socrates because I think he has the stronger arguement and just overall is the solution that applies the most to ethics and whats best for their society. The lawmakers should be people that were raised in the cave like the prisoners so that they can relate and understand what it's like for the prisoners and what they are going through. Then, if they want, they can go out into the light and gain knowledge so that they are wiser and more intelligent. Cephaus has the bad side to this arguement because letting people that weren't raised in the cave be the lawmakers is a bad idea I think, even if they are smarter and know more about life outside the cave. The point is that they are living in the cave and not out in the light so why should they need to know lots about the outside, the point is that it would be better for the lawmakers to know more about the cave then the outdoors.

Similie of the Cave Reading Questions for 3/15

1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?

Glaucon says that if the people in the cave were to be let loose, that they wouldn't be able to handle it. They wouldn't believe that what they were seeing all their lives in the cave was a lie. They would need to be driven out of the cave by force if they wanted to let them go.

2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?

They believe that everything they need is in the cave and that there's no reason to leave. They believe anything that is showed to them through shadows.

3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don’t let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside “the intelligible region” and associates it with “the divine.”
What is special about “the intelligible region” and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e) ?

The intelligible region controls all of truth and intelligence.

4. What is wrong with having uneducated people run society? What is wrong with having intellectuals (i.e. well-educated people) run society (p. 323 section 519c)?
It would be bad of course because the uneducated people would be making crappy laws and runnin the society with strange and non-educational rules. Anyone who knows anything about anything would know not to put someone with no education in a high class in society.

5. On pp. 323 – 324 (section 519 section d – section 520) Socrates tells Glaucon what the “job” of a lawmaker is. What is the job of a lawmaker and how is a lawmaker supposed to influence the best minds?

I don't think I got the full packet because mine is missing those pages, but if I had to guess I'd say a lawmakers job is to make the shadow puppets? =

Personal Reflection for 3/14

1) 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, a long, long time ago I was told that there was such thing as Santa and that he brought presents and filled stockings and everything. I was told this by my parents and now that look back at it I laugh but at the time I was told this I was really dissapointed and mad at my parents for lieing to me. My parents told me this when I was about ten because my next door neighbor was telling us a little bit about Santa and how he's not real, but my parents wanted me to hear it from them first, that's how it happened. I use to see Christmas as something more special, and it is still special, but it took away from the whole tradition and special occation. I'm glad they told me but I was so angry to see the holiday's story fade away.

Personal Reflection for 3/2

At the moment I can't recall any times where my pride has gotten in the way. However...I do know that sometimes I'll get in fights with my parents or friends on small or large things that'll have to do with me or the person I'm arguing with knowing they're right and that there is no way in the world that I or they are wrong. I/they won't even listen to the other persons side of the story and won't accept that I/they are wrong because most of the time in these situations you know for sure you are right but the other person won't accept a no for an answer. These arguments seem to relate to pride because you're not listening to logic but rather thinking all about you and that you are correct without basing it on anything else that could be simple evidence that both people know but will not listen to it and only determine that your right through pride.

Iliad Assignment for 3/2

Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.

Patroclus began fighting the Trojans with Achille's armor and weapon, with seemingly high pride. Then, Hector rides up on his chariot and leaps off to attack Patroclus. Patroclus then finds men looting Cebriones' body, and fiercely rushes over and kills 27 men. Apollo came down to Patroclus and knocked his helmet off. When he was injured, he came back to the Archaean camp and Hector was waiting for him. He then stabbed Patroclus with a spear that went straight through him.

Predict what will happen next...

I think that Patroclus will rise from the dead! Well, at this point in the book I'm not really sure what might happen next but to kill a character thats in the book a fair ammount is a tad bit strange, I think something might happen to Patroclus.