Some of these questions will turn up, in one form or another, on our first exam.Reply to any of the discussion questions you'd care to.
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)
LH
1. What kind of conversation did Socrates consider a success?
2. What was wisdom, for Socrates?
3. It is mostly through what texts that we know the ideas and beliefs of Socrates?
1. What kind of conversation did Socrates consider a success?
2. What was wisdom, for Socrates?
3. It is mostly through what texts that we know the ideas and beliefs of Socrates?
4. With what Platonic theory does the parable of the cave connect?
5. Was it abstract or empircal reasoning that Plato valued more?
6. According to Plato, how was the ideal society organized?
6. According to Plato, how was the ideal society organized?
The best books on Socrates
recommended by M M McCabe
The classical Greek philosopher is credited with laying the foundation of Western philosophy – without ever having written a word. Here, the eminent scholar M M McCabe recommends the best books to read to understand Socrates and engage with the eternal question: How best to live? (continues)
I do not agree with Socrates' idea of a successful conversation. Unlike him, I converse with people because I enjoy talking to them, as it brings us closer together. For him, however, he just wanted people to realize how little they knew. A successful conversation in my eyes benefits both people, leaving them satisfied, not confused.
ReplyDelete(H01)
DeleteI think it may be possible for both/all parties to benefit from a conversation that leaves them a little more humble and open to new ideas. Socrates would say that's actually a state of less confusion, not more.
DeleteDo you agree with Socrates' conception of what a successful conversation looks like (see LH p.2), or his definition of wisdom (p.3)?
ReplyDeleteIn a way I agree with with Socrates's conception of conversation because sometimes when you converse with other people someone may be able to realize they truly didn't know something or it can change a person's way of thinking. Regarding Socrates's definition of wisdom I disagree because on page three and a little of page two the book mentioned how sons who came from wealthy families would be sent to people like Socrates who were Sophists to study and Socrates didn't charge for his lessons unlike others because he once said "he didn't know anything." so if there is a connection between Socrates not knowing much of anything and he mostly just went by his beliefs it seems strange for him to later feel he was wiser than most carpenters since people like carpenters may have lived by what other authorities before them said. Also, I feel wisdom can come in different ways like one person may be wise about one topic or topics over others.
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 agree and disagree with this concept. I'm in agreeance that some people can be stuck in their ways that they're not willing to look beyond their own ideals making it difficult for them to see past what's "outside" their own thoughts, however there are also individuals who have the capability of looking beyond what's just in front of them like the the person who breaks free from the cave but not everyone whether a person is considered a philosopher or not is just that unwilling to open their mind to other possibilities that are part of the world.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
No I wouldn't want to live in Plato's utopian Republic because it sounds like a dictatorship to me when only a group of people can rule over everyone and in Plato's case those people being first philosophers, secondly soldiers, ending with workers and as the book points out Plato's Republic is "anti-democratic, and would keep people under control by a combination of lies and force." which to me also wouldn't necessarily align with the concept of philosophy because in my opinion philosophy is more so about people having their own set of ideas while being able to have open discussions about those notions for someone or people to either agree further with their thoughts or to maybe leave a conversation with a new understanding.
This is Katelyn Hampton from H3.
DeleteSocrates was accused of being a sophist. He denied that. But depending on what we mean by sophistry, it might not be such a reprehensible thing as the ancients thought. The term now connotes something deceitful, but originally it just meant teaching.
DeleteNote,by the way: Katelyn's responded to three questions here. That will entitle her to "circle the diamond" on the scorecard today. I'll show you what that means in class.
Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others? (xviii)
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this statement, actually. In my mind, it's the opposite. We can't truly understand anyone else until we understand ourselves. It's just like the saying "you can't love others until you love yourself". If we ourselves are judgy, hateful people and we don't notice that in ourselves, we'll never see them in a nonbiased way. We have to first understand how we think, how our own personalities and thoughts shade how we view others and the world. And besides. why try to analyze/understand others? Figuring yourself out is far more interesting and worthwhile. (HO3)
Though I agree that you should try to understand how you think and how those thought shape your perception of the world around you, I think, more often than not, you need others to help you. To understand your own thoughts you should look at history and those around you. These people and situations are often clues to why you are the way that you are. Understanding others is just a key clue to understanding yourself.
DeleteDo you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with this, but I also feel it can be reversed. If we don't understand how we feel, how can we expect to understand how others feel. Grasping the world around us can result in us understanding what it takes to be successful in life. Self awareness is an important aspect of our mind that I feel is overlooked a lot in today's society. Everyone wants to feel like they have worth and contribute to our world. Everyone is human and we all think alike, even when you feel singled out. When we get a goof understanding of other people, we can make observations and reflect on ways to improve our flaws as well as build on our strengths.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic?
I did some research on Plato's republic, and personally I don't think his republic would work in modern day society nor would I want to live in it. He first states that their is no government because there is no competition among the citizens. Everyone is assigned their own job based on their skills, which seems like a smart idea. I definitely think the city would be more efficient since people would work in the field they are talented at, but just because someone exceeds in certain tasks doesn't necessarily mean they want to pursue that. Everyone has free will, and especially if their is no government, wouldn't that mean people have the choice to decline that option. He designs another city which would be ruled by philosophers, but there is little enforcements to ensure they don't abuse their power. Unlike his first city, this new one will allow luxuries and entertainment, so that's good at least. The only catch is that the guardians choose who get that. He mentions they are going to need more land for expansion, and this would come from neighboring colonies, so this could potentially lead to wars. They will be trained to be fearless, and protect the Guardians, who are only to have been bred by the best citizens. One big characteristic of his society is that each person is ranked among a medal: Bronze, Silver, and Gold. He invents the "Noble Lie" which means each person is born from Earth instead of their mother. Your so called "rank" would determine how valuable you are to the city. This just isn't a realistic approach when developing a city, because that would mean people would have to give up their rights and personal desires to the city and upperclassmen. This is not an environment I think would last or something I could see myself living in. So, no I don't think I would want to live in his idea of an Utopian Republic.
This is Clayton Tiller by the way. (H1)
Delete[H2] HANNAH LITVJAK :
ReplyDelete"Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others? (xviii)"
I completely agree. As humans, we are designed to discover and identify with our emotions, thoughts, experiences and ideals; however, the fatal flaw in such a design is that it can lead to a tunnel-vision-view of others. How to combat ignorance is to first allow open mindedness. We must allow ourselves to empathize, even when we do not relate, to listen, even when we are mentally jaded, to self-reflect, even when it is painful, and to learn, even when convinced correct. Ultimately, one of the main ironies of life is that to truly see within yourself is to see within others because our minds are designed narrow, and to expand our vision to ourselves is only done with perspective of someone else's mind - their tunnel-vision. How can we expect to know ourselves when we limit our knowledge to only ourselves? How can we expect to know ourselves when there is no guidance? Learning through someone else teaches us lessons internally, thus aiding to more emotions, thoughts, experiences and ideals that help us understand what makes us "us". Without the ability to seek understanding, our perspective of understanding can be easily tainted because, often, we like to assume we are right before we ask if we are.
H03
ReplyDeleteDo 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)
At first, I had to reread this part to understand the full metaphor. After grasping the concept, I do agree with this idea. What people see is a by-product of what really is. Once you see something it’s hard to explain it to someone looking at it a different way. He said, “people spend their whole lives thinking that the shadows projected on the wall are the real world” (Warburton,5). My interpretation is that people see what’s in front of them. While some choose to take that as truth, others venture on a search for more answers. The one that breaks free from the cave forms more ideas about where he is from and the world beyond.
I have a question for y’all about what Plato said later on. He said, “ordinary people have little idea about reality because they are content with looking at what’s in front of them because they are content with looking at what’s in front of them rather than thinking deeply about it” (Warburton, 5). Following this statement, this means that philosophers can change their whole reality by thinking deeply about something.
Gabe Weible (H03)
ReplyDeleteWould you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
No I would not because the book mentioned that Plato believed that art gave false representations of reality and would've most likely had it banned if he had the power to. As someone who loves art, I don't think I could live without it and I certainly wouldn't last long in his Republic.
Are multi-cultural, multi-lingual persons and societies more creative and insightful? (xxxii)
I would believe so just based on the fact that they have multiple ways of life to pull from and incorporate into their own life. This naturally makes a person more insightful because they are aware of more than just one way that people are living. Multi-cultural societies have more diversity and diversity powers ingenuity because they have different upbringings and traditions to pull from.
I agree that the banning of art would be a tragedy. Furthermore, having one tyrannical group with all the power is a dangerous way to live.
DeleteI love your idea of different backgrounds having an impact on society. People from different background would have something to bring to the table that others do not. This could spark thought and bring a new understanding to reality that may not have been thought of previously.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
ReplyDeleteH2
I would not want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic. If others were only allowed to express themselves how someone else saw fit, or how they thought someone was supposed to express something then the world would be a boring place. Plato wanted to use censorship to censor art, etc. I would not want to live in a would of censorship where I could only think and do as someone else believes I should. I also most likely would not have a large say in how anything turns out in the Republic because, for one, I am a woman, and two, I would be a worker most likely. I would like to think I could be a philosopher, but I feel as if I sometimes just say gibberish and people would just denounce me and demote me to a worker tier. The Republic was anti-democratic and what we consider a totalitarian state in today's time. I most definitely do not want to live in Plato's Republic as of now with the information I have gathered from the reading.
Tyler Martin (H02)
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Socrates' conception of what a successful conversation looks like or his definition of wisdom?
To an extent I agree that a good conversation should make you question your views, but I feel like a truly successful conversation should leave you with some form of concrete answers. Whether that is by informing one or sparking them to go seek and discover those answers.
I think his definition of wisdom is spot on. He truly understood the difference between knowledge and wisdom. That difference being knowledge is knowing (or thinking you know) facts or trades when wisdom is understanding the nature of things.
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"?
I think, while slightly narcissistic, that Plato was on the right track. I do not agree that that is the best analogy because I do not believe that people are blinded to that extent. I think a better comparison would be that “every-day people” see a lake and look at its surface, they also occasionally pull things out of it and can look in it, but the water is murky and they can’t stay under water long. The philosopher, on the other hand, has a set of goggles, air tank, and a flashlight so they can see nearly everything.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic?
I would not. It seemed as if in his mind, abstract creativity was looked down upon. If that were the case we would be missing great pieces of art and music that we would not have today. I also think it is important that the people have a say in the government so that an overbearing tyrant does not have complete control (not that the people have never elected someone such as that) it is important that the people get a say.
H2
ReplyDelete"Have we become a nation more interested in "truthiness" than truth, in alternative "facts" and fake "realities"? (FL p. 4)
DeleteI personally think that the people of this nation like to distort reality into their own reality. People take events that have happened, and they like to incorporate their fantasies inside of them. Whenever realities become shameful and embarrassing to people, or even hard to swallow, people start to interpret it in a different way.
I think this question also poses the question: what is the true definition of reality? How can one say that someone's truth is false, if, in a sense, each person on Earth has their own sense of reality that is made up of their truth, emotions, and thought processes.
I completely agree that people like to distort reality into what they want it to be. I see this most often from people who are terrified of being wrong. They stick to their first assumptions even when they are presented with hard facts that prove them wrong. For example, flat Earth believers continue to believe the Earth is flat despite every piece of information given.
DeleteWithout being able to change opinions and ideas that you previously thought were fact you may never know what is actually true. I think this was what Socrates was trying to convey by asking questions such as "What is courage" and others only to contradict the answer with an example. He wanted people to think about reality and question what is real.
[H2] HANNAH LITVJAK (secondary post) :
ReplyDeleteI came up with this question during our lecture. My question is: "Do you believe Socrates was a product of his own critiques of society? Plato shaped him out to be subjectively arrogant and striving to humble egotistical people, but Socrates also believed in withholding bias and thus expanding his understanding of society itself. So, who do you believe inspired his critiques, people or himself?
Tyler Lansford: H03
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Socrates' conception of what a successful conversation looks like (see LH p.2)
I agree think I would tend to agree with Socrates here. An ordinary conversation could be considered successful when both participants feel the need for clarity by the end of it. I think that that is a strong motivator for people to seek out more information than they would have, had they merely reaffirmed their existing views. However, I think that this is not the ONLY way to deem a conversation successful. I think that another way a conversation could be considered successful is when the once opposing parties together reach a conclusion. This way one or more of the arguing parties is not left feeling lost where they once were certain. It can be hard to know where to go from that point. I think that when two conflicting viewpoints mesh into one sensible and agreed upon viewpoint, that can also be considered a successful conversation.
(H2) Pertaining to Plato's vision of the ideal society, I believe he has a skewed view. In his plan, there is no possible voice for the common folk. Plato believes that only the top minds of a society should have control, but in the end this only creates a totalitarian state.
ReplyDeleteH2
ReplyDeleteWould you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic?
I think Plato's idea of an "utopian republic" is severely flawed. There is no doubt that a primary goal for a society and civilization would be to provide wisdom and education to its citizens. However, a philosopher's job is to ask questions and seek wisdom. Being rooted as a leader in society would limit this capacity. Not to mention that not everyone that is smart or wise is suited to be a leader. What makes someone a leader should be more reliant on their character and their ambitions for their country. But of course this isn't something we even follow today so what do I know.
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?
I believe that no two people share an exact same outlook on life. What people believe, how they act, and how they perceive the world is all dependent on their youth and development, the people that they become, and the environment that surrounds them. This makes learning about people very intriguing to me. I take joy in being able to talk to people about their own lives. Whether other people enjoy to hear the same from me, I'm unsure. It tends to vary on the person. Some people you mesh well with, and others you never will.
(H01) 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)
ReplyDeletePlatos hypothetical scenario of the imaginary cave: humans are chained facing the wall and could only see flickering shadows of objects and that's all they think life is until one of them breaks loose and sees the sun and what the outside world really is. My take on this is that some people are content with not asking deep questions or perplexed thoughts about life. However, I do not think plato truly compared the human conditions to the cave dwellers; this is because everyone views things differently. Yes, they were seeing flickering shadows on the wall, but every single person could have imagined those shadows to be different objects for their own theoretical reality. I understand how Plato was trying to compare the one who broke free to a philosopher who goes beyond the threshold of normal life and thought, however, I just do not agree with the cave dwellers who are supposed to be the other "normal" people in society that are not philosophers with deep rooted questions or the urge to know more.
(H01)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Socrates because I too think a conversation should inspire deep thought which should lead to a new conclusion that had not already been made. As for wisdom, Socrates knew his limits which is a very powerful skill. While some people try to pretend that they know they are right they often know very little.
The wall that the cave dwellers watched was a 2d version of reality. It was presented to them and they went with it rather than question it. Plato was on the right track when he described this scene because it mirrors the life I live and the lives of people around me. It is much easier to focus on grades and future aspirations, but those are often shadows on a wall. I do not tend to think about the thoughts of others or what is really going on around me whether that be in my city, state, or world. By including this perspective, Plato makes the point that we as an audience should put more thought into our everyday lives rather than focusing solely on our own, imminent situations.
Though Plato's Republic has some great aspects it relies on the philosophers completely. No matter how educated and wise the philosophers are, they are still human. As seen throughout history, humans tend to want what is better for themselves. At least one of the philosophers is bound to become drunk with power and try to take over the city in an attempt to live a life of luxury and riches. I would not like to be caught in a trap as a puppet serving a power drunk philosopher.
Socrates considered open and unwritten conversations a success. His only goal was to create new thoughts and shine a light on an unknown idea.
For Socrates, wisdom was understanding your limits and trying to understand more by testing the limits you have.
We know the ideas and beliefs of Socrates from Plato's Platonic Dialogues, but some of what was written may have been the beliefs of Plato himself.
The cave story is known to connect to Plato's Theory of forms.
Plato likely valued abstract thinking. He wanted to think more than he wanted to see what was right in front of him.
The ideal society, according to Plato would have had highly educated philosophers as leaders. They would not be voted into their positions because Plato believed that would be similar to letting the passengers on a ship steering the ship. Underneath the philosophers would be the army and then the workers. It would look similar to the tyrannical rulers of present day. Rather than having one all powerful dictator, it would be a small group with all of the power.
(H01)
ReplyDeleteAccording to Plato, how was the ideal society organized?
Plato wanted a version of our idea of a totalitarian society. Ranking at the top would be philosophers, under them would be soldiers, and at the bottom would be workers. Society would be controlled by philosophers and voting would not be allowed. Art would also be prohibited as Plato believed it gave false representations of reality.
Would you want to live in Plato's so-called utopian Republic? (p.6)
I would absolutely not want to live in this type of society. I think power should not only be given to one person and even if it was it would need to be given through the power of voting. Having a limited amount of people in power leaves too much room for public manipulation.
Do you value reason and rationality, and generally the notion that we all have an obligation to base our ideas on defensible reasons? (xxiv)
I do value reason and rationality. However, at the minimum you should have a way of defending your thinking based on your own thoughts not merely the thoughts and persuasion of others. Sometimes others opinions can be valuable but it is important to come to your own conclusions. Blindly following others can be dangerous to not just yourself but other people.
(H2)
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Socrates’ conception of what a successful conversation looks like or his definition of wisdom?
I both agree and disagree with Socrates’ conception of a successful conversation. Conversing with an individual who is more knowledgeable on a certain topic allows the other person to receive information and develop a more in-depth understanding of the topic at hand. However, conservations should not solely occur or be considered “successful” for the purpose of gaining more knowledge on a specific subject, but also as a friendly gesture or method of getting more acquainted with another individual.
Would you want to live in Plato’s so-called utopian Republic?
I would not want to live in Plato’s utopian Republic because of its dictatorship-like system and the restrictions it places over the lower-class individuals. For instance, Plato’s ban on most art pieces would limit the expression and interpretations of many artists while his “ideal” voting system would deprive the citizens of their democracy and freedom. I cannot reside in a society where each individual is forced to think and believe the same things because there is little room for growth and progression. The citizens would only follow the ideals of the people in power without considering their personal beliefs, which I believe is the wrong approach to governing a society.
Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?
I do not fully agree with this statement because I believe one should give priority to understanding themselves before trying to understand others. However, I do believe understanding other individuals could help someone realize certain aspects about themselves. In my personal experiences, I find it easier to notice specific characteristics of the people around me, whether that is someone’s body language or the way they treat others. In society, many people tend to seek out the weaknesses and flaws of others without any self-awareness of their personal blemishes. Which is why I consider the understanding of one’s self more important than understanding others. If someone is able to have a sense of self-awareness, then I believe that individual possesses a better understanding of the people around them. How are we expected to fully grasp and recognize the emotions and beliefs of others, if we cannot fully grasp or recognize our personal emotions and beliefs?
(H01)
ReplyDeleteDo 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?
I agree with this perspective, but I do not think that it applies to everyone. There will always be people who will only see what's right in front of them and who will disagree with you when you propose that there could possibly be more. However, I do think that there are insightful individuals who can understand that their knowledge of the world does not equate to everything that exists in the world.
Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?
I'm not quite sure if I agree or disagree with this idea. I think that the understanding of ourselves and the understanding of others happens simultaneously. You'll never truly understand others if you're constantly in self-isolation, but you'll also never truly understand yourself if you're constantly surrounded by other people.
Are multi-cultural, multi-lingual persons and societies more creative and insightful?
In general, I think that people who are exposed to more than just people who think, talk, and look like them have more wisdom and self-awareness than people who are only around people who are exactly like them. I think that creativity and intelligence is amplified by the questions that arise with human interaction, so naturally, I would also believe that people who are exposed to different languages and cultures are more creative and insightful.