==
ZOOM Recordings (these links will be archived in the right sidebar):
==Some questions* for you to ponder, and write about in your weekly essay if you wish. But you can write about anything in or prompted by our texts you'd like. This first week, your introduction can count as your weekly 3-point essay. I encourage you to formulate and respond to your own and your classmates' discussion questions, and not just mine.
You get 3 points for that weekly essay, and up to 2 more each week if you've posted two additional comments. Include a brief summary of all your online activity with each weekly essay (you can go back and edit those, if you've posted or commented or just had new thoughts you want to share late in the week.) Your weekly summary can look something like this:
- Tuesday: posted an essay called [Your title here]-3 points
- Wednesday: commented on Joe Blow's essay called [Whatever]-1 point
- Thursday: commented on Sue Who's essay called [Whatever]-1 point
- Thursday" commented on Bill Chill's essay called [Whatever]
Notice, you max out at 5 points each week... but additional comments look good and earn your professor's respect (which could come in handy, at grading time).
==
*Discussion Questions (DQs)
- Do you agree with Socrates' conception of what a successful conversation looks like (see LH p.2), or his definition of wisdom (p.3)?
- Do you think Plato was on the right track when he compared the human condition to that of cave-dwellers who are clueless about what's "outside"? (p.5)
- Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
- Have we become a nation more interested in "truthiness" than truth, in alternative "facts" and fake "realities"? (FL p.4)
- Are you with the 2/3 of Americans who believe in angels and demons (etc.)? (p.6)
- Do you agree with Martin Luther's "only prerequisite for being a good Christian"? (17)
- Do you enjoy encountering new (to you) ideas, philosophies, religions, traditions etc., and comparing them to your own? Do you find value in that? Do you think most people do? (HWT p.xiv)
- Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others? (xviii)
- Do you value reason and rationality, and generally the notion that we all have an obligation to base our ideas on defensible reasons? (xxiv)
- Are multi-cultural, multi-lingual persons and societies more creative and insightful? (xxxii)
This is fun, and quite plausible. https://t.co/a38RUYehXV— Nigel Warburton (@philosophybites) August 26, 2020
Don. I apologize if these get double posted. I posted them this afternoon and they did not appear to take. They are just some thoughts on a couple of discussion question.
ReplyDeletePlato might use a different example today.
While I understand the point that Plato was trying to make about people in a cave being chained to a wall and perceiving the dancing images of fire burning behind them as some form of demon and then one breaking free and exiting the cave and realizing what caused the shadows and returning to tell the others who only see what is right in front of them. I think if Plato were alive today with the knowledge we have, he might have chosen another example. Today children between ages three and four recognize themselves in mirrors and the source of shadows. I have little doubt that cave dwellers figured that out long ago, but any adult chained to a wall would know the source of shadows. Personally, I think today Plato would choose a political or religious figure who has so enthralled his/her followers that even when it is obvious to a reasonable person that they are being conned and fleeced, they continue to support him/her and dole out their money because they only want to see what is right in front of them.
Alternative facts and fake realities.
Andersen is spot on. All you need to do is to look at the current debacle related to the COVID-19 pandemic. You have people in the administration claiming that they have done a great job and that their early actions save hundred of thousands of lives and some people believing it and regurgitating the same claim. A woman who will represent the GOP as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oregon said that masks don’t protect you, and she doesn’t need to be a scientist or doctor to make that determination – “I’ve done tons of reading.” What did she read? Think about this, if she wins, she will be one of one hundred Senators voting on legislation that affects all Americans. And she believes the number of deaths is doctored – try telling that to people who have lost their love ones and were not even allowed to be with them in their final moments. She is not alone because she received enough votes to win her primary and her supporters knew her positions on these issues and you wonder why we lead the world in the number of COVID-19 cases and number of deaths.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/22/politijo-r cs/ae-perkins-qanon-oregon-senate-race/index.html
Plato would have a field-day, wouldn't he, spinning contemporary riffs on the benighted cave-dweller theme. Much as I love popping in to the Boulevard for Happy Hour, for instance, I never see the patrons at the bar staring at all those screens without thinking that we've created a techno-cave and are captivated by the flickering shadows of sporting events as if beholding some profound ultimate reality. For that matter, he might think all our computer screen-time with social media was cave-like. But Rebecca Goldstein imagined Plato visiting Silicon Valley and being mesmerized by our modern wizardry, in "Plato at the Googleplex."
DeleteYou're right, it's scary to see so many delusional fantasists succeeding in our politics now. It's nothing new, if Andersen's right, but it's never been worse.
Don i think we are looking at the world through the same lens!Plato made a very valid point because we are always looking at the world through one perspective and we fail to notice the world around us!Being cave dwellers limits heavily and does not allow us to expand our knowledge to its max. In addition with all the new technology it ties us even more!
DeleteDon, something you said really stuck to me. When you talked about religous figures who had, in a sense, brainwashed their followers into supporting them even though someone looking at the situation from the outside would clearly see through the facade created by those in power. This might seem a little off topic, but it reminded me of something the Catholic Church did during the Middle Ages. The church exploited people by selling them indulgences. In this instance, the Church would be the light source or the flame or sun or whatever you want to call it, and it(the church) is using its power to show the common people- those chained to the wall in Plato's ananlogy- exactly what it wants them to see. Just like those chained to the wall, the followers of the church had no way of knowing if what was happening was what was originally intended. As I'm sure we all know, the church exploited the people who it sold the indulgences to, promising they would get to heaven if they paid the church. In this instance, the church is telling the people exactly what they want to hear, much like how those in the cave believe what they see from the shadows. You might be asking how this ties in to your post, but I promise that in a way it does. You bring up the Covid pandemic, and what Plato would choose as his focus in today's world rather than a cave. Well, my mind took me to the Middle Ages, and what Plato would think of their way of living. Much like in our lifetime, where everyone is so enthralled in their phones and what the latest news update is, in the Middle Ages the focus was on the Church as opposed to the news or cellular devices. The people lived for their religion, and the church used this knowledge for its own gain. Although Plato does not say that those chained to the wall are being used or mislead to the benefit or another party, I think the analogy is close enough that we may call it an accurate one. I believe that if we looked at any given time in history, we could find some instances where Plato's ideas could be applied. If I have a flaw in my logic or something seems unclear in my reasoning please say so, the connection came to me off the top of my head and I was curious where my train of thought would lead.
DeleteI think Platao was on to something when he stated that,"humans are cave dwellers."No matter how much we think we know about the world it still remains vast and untouched.No matter how much knowledge we gain, the amount of untouched territory remains an endless pit.The more we discover the more we piovit, the more walls we end up in.It is as if we are opening one door and having another door after it forever.
ReplyDeletemulti-cultural/multi-lingual:
I believe multi-cultural/multi-lingual are very unique people in the sense they get the best of both worlds.What i mean is they get to experience two or more cultures and traditions at once they are not limited to one way of thinking.From personal experience i noticed that they are more open minded and are willing to try new things. While a person that was limited to only one culture is usually more conservative and scared of others that are not like him/her. multi-cultural, multi-lingual people are also known to be more interesting because of the skills or talents they grew up experiencing. They also solve issues through different perspectives because they were taught through different methods.
Ammar, Thank you for your post. I couldn't agree with you more. The fear of the "other" or the "not us" seems to be ingrained in human psychology. To actively try to learn another language or about another culture can be so beneficial in helping one broaden one's perspective. I hope that during the semester that you will share your own experiences. I know that I have been trying to learn another language, but if you do not have someone to practice with on a daily basis, it is a challenge and if you stop using it, you lose it. And learning another culture you almost need to be immersed in it. I know when I traveled to France a few years ago, I had been forewarned that French people would be rude to Americans, but I didn't find that the case, but although I did not speak French, I learn some basic courtesy phrases and with few exceptions everyone was very nice and willing to help me, but I was the one who benefited from the trip.
Deletesection 012
DeleteI think I do agree with Plato's thoughts on the cave, if I was born, raised, and aged in the cave, I would obviously be more inclined to believe that the cave was reality. If I'm living an adequate life, no real harm, at least to my knowledge, being done to me, I would probably have no issues with it. Thinking on it now, the book "The Giver" seems like a more fleshed out version of this analogy, because that entire story was that everyone had the sheets over their eyes, lived the lives they were assigned, be it with families, jobs, loved ones, kids, so on and so forth, essentially "inside" the cave and there is this one person, the giver, who starts to experience the truth of the "outside" and starts to reject the inside. So I think, that when people look for the truth and seek wisdom, what Plato labeled as philosophers, and when they find it contradicts the ideas of the "inside" or in other words what they've been shown, they start to question that and move more towards the "outside" or in other words freethinking.
ReplyDeleteI'm going skip straight to one of the HtWT questions because I love comparing my ideas to others. There's almost nothing I enjoy more than having a healthy argument with my friends on a topic, the key word in there is healthy, because you have to be at least willing to hear them out. For example, I think Pascal's wager, while not perfect, gets people thinking about the existence of God. I mean I think it should just make sense when you get new ideas, to compare it to your own. If 20 people band together and do their homework, and you're the only one with a different answer, I'm not saying you're right or wrong but you should at least be thinking on where you diverged from the rest. So I think it should be normal to change how you think based on your environment, but the sad reality, at least the reality that I've noticed, is that people become real combative when their ideas and beliefs are pushed to the limits, much like being stuck in a cave. What they see in the cave is what they want to see, and introducing something new to them is met with hostility.
Section 12
Moustafa, thanks for you post. I skipped ahead too so I could understand your post. In all my years I have seldom found anyone who can tell me what "Heaven" would be for them. I often hear the term bliss and complete happiness, but when I asked them what period of their life they would like to experience for infinity, as you can imagine, I get a wide range of thoughts from early childhood to late adulthood which presupposes that your parents or siblings choose a time in their life that is compatible with yours. And I often wonder when we consider that the distance across the universe is 14 billion light-years, are their other planets with inhabitants who are trying to answer the question what is the origin of their existence? The Bible only starts from about 6,000 years ago, but imagine if dinosaurs had been able to communicate, would they have envisioned a different origin of life on our planet? I wonder what Pascal might say today if he had the knowledge that exists today. Would he still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Would he believe that Native Americans are one of the lost tribes of Israel or would he acknowledge that DNA evidence shows that their ancestors came from Siberia across the Bering Straits and they have their own origin stories. Interestingly, there are multiple creation myths and many of people of Western Civilization seem to believe that only their creation story is valid. What if Pascal had been born in China and never left would he propose the same argument? Pascal was a great mathematician, but if he had been born 200 years earlier, he would have been taught and probably believed based on the Bible that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do we build on past knowledge only for some things, like technological innovations but suppress any thoughts which might challenge our beliefs? These are questions that I ask myself and I continue to search for the answers.
ReplyDeletePlato's Cave Allegory show on how philosophers and intellectuals feel when it comes to learning and seeing our reality in another light. Growing up, we were taught and believed that our world was perfect and that there is no need in perfecting it. However despite seeing all these beautiful shadows, you're still locked up and trapped with the cave. At some point, there comes that moment where someone or something shatters that illusion and all of a sudden, you're relased. While we may not be chained up like the prisoners in the cave, it could be as simple as turning off your phone and taking a walk outside to looking up the news and seeing all the events occur from the other side of the globe. It's that point where one begins to question everything they know and waking up to the harsh truth that is reality. At first, we crave to go back to that state of innocence but once you look at the sun, it can be very hard to find the shadows again. Once we know the truth, there's no going back and must face that this is the way that it is. Overall, I agree with his idea of the cave as our reality is just one of many and it's important to expand our view of the word and apprecate it's true beauty.
ReplyDeleteYour example about putting our phones down and observing reality the way that it is very much interests me and I will take some personal time to reflect on that and give it more thought. I think it is a great example to illustrate our every day lives to that of Plato's cave dweller example.
DeletePeople try to spin their personal opinions into reality. The first chapter of the book Fantasyland tries to argue that truthiness is a relatively recent development. It describes how in 2005 talk show host Stephen Colbert presented the concept of truthiness as a truth that comes from a feeling or opinion rather than known facts. Its author, Kurt Andersen, goes on to say that people confuse reality and opinions. People want to shape their world and believe that their way of seeing things is the right way. In the book, FantasyLand lists off many examples where they see truthiness dominating current culture like in social media, conspiracy theories and politics.
ReplyDeleteWhile in the book, A Little History of Philosophy, the author states that people have been fantasizing their desires to shape or reshape the world for ages. An example given in the first chapter was the Philosopher Plato. He dreamed of a perfect society that he called the Republic of Plato. He thought that “Philosophers would be at the top and would get special education; but they would sacrifice their own pleasures for the sake of the citizens they rule. Beneath them would be soldiers who were trained to defend the country,and beneath them would be workers . These three groups of people would be in a perfect balance… a balance that was like a well-balanced mind with the reasonable part keeping the emotions and desires in control” (p.6). This society did not exist but he hoped that he could convince people that it could.
I think that there are many times that one person's beliefs have changed the way the world thinks. While today, the proliferation of technology, communication, and information has so many ideas competing to dominate society, ideas have always had the ability to change accepted truths. A few examples from 500 years ago that I have would be that of Martin Luther when he stood up to other church clergymen that were selling the way to Heaven for payment. He felt that belief in Jesus was the only way to Heaven, not paying money. Later other people took the idea of recreating religion fit their needs or beliefs. Another example of this would be when King Henry the VIII decided to leave the Catholic Church and to start the Church of England just so he could divorce his wife and marry his mistress. King Henry was able to change the world to fit his belief system and obtain his desired outcome.
section 11
DeleteSince my books will be delivered on Saturday, I will revisit this post and update my thoughts. Hopefully this site doesn't have an availability clock for the sake of perspective. Anyways today's conversation deviated to the topic of sexism around the last 20 minutes of class and the lack of discussion prompted me.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the reality of old Greece and other societies of that time, I believe that sexism was born of fear. This fear would come from men in power who were reluctant to change.
"But the fear of change isn't a new concept, so why is it important?"
Today the the world's idea of the ideal masculine lifestyle is vary diverse and inclusive; whereas in the past, there were only a few variations. For leaders to be effective, they must work together and agree on certain actions. This process is difficult by nature and becomes moves along much faster and smooth as more people think similarly. I believe that men in power understood this and where afraid that a woman or a group of women would make this process even more difficult.
I think multicultural/lingual persons and societies are more creative and insightful because they have a better understanding of things than a person who just has one culture or knows just one language. This is because he has more knowledge in more than one cultures and languages and might see two different perspectives instead of one.
ReplyDeleteEnjoying Knew ideas:
I do enjoy finding knew ideas and philosophies and i think most people do too because it makes us think and try to put things into our own perspective and see if what we think is right or if what they think is like me.
Section 012
ReplyDeleteOn page 5 of A Little History of Philosophy, the author notes Plato’s belief that only philosophers understand the world as it truly is, given that they discover the nature of reality by thinking rather than their biological senses. The book then continues, summarizing Plato’s allegory of the cave to better explain his thoughts on the matter. His argument essentially claims that those who rely only on their senses without deeply utilizing their intellect to ponder what’s in front of them are deluding themselves and crafting a false reality based on an illusion. While I agree that deep contemplation is important for better understanding the world around us, I feel I should also point out that the human mind is functionally just as flawed as the biological senses he mentions and neither can exist in a vacuum. To be a brain in a jar, completely stripped of any senses to perceive our surroundings would lead to a perception of self and surroundings as empty as a blank canvas.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way a sensory-dependent person who foregoes deeper contemplation limits themselves to only a surface-level understanding of reality, a deeply thinking sedentary person who foregoes first-hand experiences similarly limits themselves by straining ideas through a narrow understanding of their surroundings. It is worth nothing, however, that even in finding a perfect balance between these two, a person can never truly perceive the universe as it is. Just as a mouse is ill-equipped to process Calculus, we (at least in our current state of development) are ill-equipped to process the near infinite complexity of the cosmos. The very basis of human perception relies on the restricted illusion of that which lies within our limited comprehension, and accepting the limitations of such a disposition is a necessary part of our existence.
Section 12
I very much enjoy your point with regards to the limitations of our physical brain that may lead us to have flaws in the way we think in addition to the flaws in our senses! Our senses do not mean much without our brain just as our brain does not mean much without our senses.
DeleteSection 10
ReplyDeleteThe phenomenon of “truthiness” is unquestionably prevalent within our nation. In the sketch referenced in FL in which Stephen Colbert introduces this new word he goes on to state, “Anybody can read the news to you, but only I can feel the news at you.” His character is a little bit too real with this. I think there is far too much political commentary included with news reporting. Twenty- four hour news organizations resort to having “talking heads” scream and rant over one another to fill air time and get good ratings. I believe this mentality has majorly contributed to a belief that every story has two sides, regardless of facts and evidence. This week has gotten me enthusiastic for the coming months in this class. I’m hoping to gain a clearer perception for the tricks of logic which are played in the art of “truthiness.”
I don’t believe in angels or demons, I’m a little taken aback at being in the minority on that belief in this country. I have a similar reaction whenever I’m in a room full of people I would have otherwise considered intelligent exchanging their “true” experiences with ghosts. In those circumstances I’ve always chosen to remain politely silent, perhaps this means I am part of the problem.
I do not agree with Luther’s belief that the only way to be a good Christian was to take the supernatural stories of the Bible as fact. To me if one believes those stories actually took place, they are missing the point. I’m particularly frustrated at the assertion that being a good person would have no effect on one’s entrance to Heaven.
Introduction- 3 points
DeleteCommented on Taylor Christian's post Thurs afternoon- 1 point
Made a new blog post on this post- 1 point
(PLEASE have mercy on this being past the deadline, the "Introductions" post has not allowed me to reply to anything since Thursday evening and still won't. I have tried several times to post additional comments from two different computers on that post with no success)
Introduction (3 points), Commented on two posts (2 points)
ReplyDeleteWeekly Essay below (3 points), I just received my textbooks yesterday which makes me a bit late for this post:
Question: Do you think Plato was on the right track when he compared the human condition to that of cave-dwellers who are clueless about what's "outside"? (p.5)
I believe that Plato was absolutely on the right track as what the train of thought became known as "Plato's Theory of Forms" (LH page 5, is still a topic of passionate discussion to this day. Politics, religion, society, and many more aspects of our lives can be applied to the discussion of what some may call selective vision and even cognitive dissonance which may be related to some extent. The way in which we are raised, the experiences that we have, and even our own nature are all things that influence our perception of the world. This leads us to believe that we understand things even though the reality is often very different. The goal of Plato's example is to put forth the idea that philosophers "discover the nature of reality by thinking rather than relying on their senses" (LH page 5). This most definitely holds true in the world of science where theory drives much of what we know (or what we think we know) today. Our senses are only part of our physical shape as humans and represent very little of what we know about the world. Even put as simply as our vision, it has become very clear over the years that animals other than humans are capable of seeing things that we cannot. This may be the most basic example of how limited perception through only the senses is. The capacity to think is what drives much of our understanding and Plato seems to have encapsulated that very well.
Commented on Adam Chambers post (1 point)
DeleteCommented on Alexandra Jasso post (1 point)
Can you understand yourself without understanding others? It is a very interesting thought and, my simple answer is no. You can’t possibly know yourself without relating to others. Especially when you realize a lot of the characteristics, we identify about ourselves are usually in relation to groups of people like us. Our sense of self is based on how others and the world see us. We are an amalgamation of every person on Earth that has ever lived. Their actions and thoughts have affected your reality in some way, shape, or form. Therefore, in a way, you are everyone and everyone is you. Simple things such as someone telling a joke in class could shape your sense of humor. Moreover, is it really possible to truly understand someone? Because people exabit small changes every day, changes so small that even they fail to notice it. I say you can’t ever understand someone for two reasons, you do not know their thoughts so you can never truly see things from their perspective. The second reason is that everyone you see is a constant work in progress, you never meet the exact same person twice, they are always changing and learning new things. Similarly, you are not the same person you were a year ago or even a week ago, we are constantly learning. The presence of others is vital when gaining a sense of understanding of one’s self.
ReplyDelete