YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, or indeed any of them. They're here to prompt your own reflections. If you can access this without my questions, feel free.
Questions pertaining to the assigned reading will normally be posted prior to each class.That's where you should always share your thoughts, in the comments space below each day's post (at least three relevant comments/questions/observations per class, so you can shade the whole diamond on the scorecard when you come to class, and thus receive full participation credit for that date... more than that gets you extra credit). You can also respond to your own questions(s) or your classmates' posted comments. Respond not merely with the authors' textual statements but also with your own thoughts & reflections.) 25 exam questions will pertain to the required texts. Additional bonus questions pertaining to the recommended texts will also appear.
- Socrates saw himself as a what? Do you think such a person is valuable to a community? Can you think of anyone in our time who fills that role?
- What kind of conversation was a success, for Socrates, and what did he mean by wisdom?
- What made Socrates wise and unusual? Do you think he was wrong about writing? In whose writing does "Socrates" appear?
- What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? What was his name for a perfect exemplar of anything (such as a circle)? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave? Do you think we need to conceive Ideas of perfection in order to pursue improvement in life effectively? (For instance, can you become a better person without having a perfectly formed notion of what a "perfect person" would be?)
- What was Plato's profoundly un-democratic view of how the state should resemble the mind (as he understood it)? Would you want to live in Plato's Republic?
- What was Socrates' "annoying" response to the jury that, by narrow vote, sentenced him to death? Do you think it was courageous? What would you have said, in his situation?
What did Socrates say his inner voice told him? Do you think "inner voice" is literal?
- "Philosopher" means what? Philosophy was what, in ancient Athens? (Introduction)
- What did Camus say is the one truly serious philosophical problem? Do you agree?
- What did Marcus Aurelius need, at dawn, to remind himself of? (And ask me about his morning mantra, which I daily remind myself of. UPDATE: Turns out it wasn't Marcus, but a 19th century American named Elbert Hubbard, whose morning mantra* has been falsely attributed to the Stoic emperor.)
- What was the first question young Needleman experienced? Have you experienced it? Do you think it is a good question? How do you answer it?
- What kinds of questions most interested Socrates?
- The Socratic dialogues consisted of what kinds of conversations? Do you enjoy participating in such conversations?
- What did Socrates say about the unexamined life? What corollaries does Weiner propose? Do you think Socrates was wrong?
SOCRATES: Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say?
EUTHYPHRO: We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry.
SOCRATES: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.
EUTHYPHRO: I do not understand your meaning, Socrates.
SOCRATES: I will endeavour to explain...
...Having thus brought his subject to a conclusion, Socrates proposes to bathe himself, in order not to trouble others to wash his dead body. Crito thereupon asks if he has any commands to give, and especially how he would be buried, to which he, with his usual cheerfulness, makes answer, "Just as you please, if only you can catch me;" and then, smiling, he reminds them that after death he shall be no longer with them, and begs the others of the party to be sureties to Crito for his absence from the body, as they had been before bound for his presence before his judges.
After he had bathed, and taken leave of his children and the women of his family the officer of the Eleven comes in to intimate to him that it is now time to drink the poison. Crito urges a little delay, as the sun had not yet set; but Socrates refuses to make himself ridiculous by showing such a fondness for life. The man who is to administer the poison is therefore sent for; and on his holding out the cup, Socrates, neither trembling nor changing color or countenance at all, but, as he was wont, looking steadfastly at the man, asked if he might make a libation to any one; and being told that no more poison than enough had been mixed, he simply prayed that his departure from this to another world might be happy, and then drank off the poison, readily and calmly. His friends, who had hitherto with difficulty restrained themselves, could no longer control the outward expressions of grief, to which Socrates said, "What are you doing, my friends? I, for this reason, chiefly, sent away the women, that they might not commit any folly of this kind; for I have heard that it is right to die with good omens. Be quiet, therefore, and bear up."
When he had walked about for a while his legs began to grow heavy, so he lay down on his back; and his body, from the feet upward, gradually grew cold and stiff. His last words were, "Crito, we owe a cock to Æsculapius; pay it, therefore, and do not neglect it."
"This," concludes Phædo, "was the end of our friend—a man, as we may say, the best of all his time, that we have known, and, moreover, the most wise and just." Phaedo
Phaedo audio...
*"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Elbert Hubbard, probably... and not Marcus Aurelius, though the Internet seems to think otherwise. Don't confuse him with looney L. Ron...
- What's one of the great unexplained wonders of human history?
- Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?
- What was Descartes's "still pertinent" conclusion?
- Why did the Buddha think speculation about ultimate reality was fruitless?
- What aspects of western thought have most influenced global philosophy?
- What do Africans not have, according to Kwame Appiah?
I should have said Yes! The word is meliorism (closely related, in my philosophy as in WJ's, to possibility):
"...there are unhappy men who think the salvation of the world impossible. Theirs is the doctrine known as pessimism.
Optimism in turn would be the doctrine that thinks the world's salvation inevitable.
Midway between the two there stands what may be called the doctrine of meliorism, tho it has hitherto figured less as a doctrine than as an attitude in human affairs. Optimism has always been the regnant DOCTRINE in european philosophy. Pessimism was only recently introduced by Schopenhauer and counts few systematic defenders as yet. Meliorism treats salvation as neither inevitable nor impossible. It treats it as a possibility, which becomes more and more of a probability the more numerous the actual conditions of salvation become.
It is clear that pragmatism must incline towards meliorism..." Pragmatism by William James
Section #3
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts and questions:
1: Why is it that the beginning of philosophy with Socrates and more specifically Plato end up supporting the idea of totalitarianism when it’s a persons own perspective and lived experiences that shape their lives and the community around them? Did they not understand this when having conversations?
2: Socrates question of what makes different actions moral or immoral depending on the circumstances placed, to me, questions the legitimacy of common laws or practices put in place by government and religion. I think I would understand why he was viewed as a threat by those who didn’t understand his motivations.
3: Is it ok to live in the blissful ignorance of your perception of the world? I understand that sometimes it is easier for many to accept what they know to be true rather than to find real truth, and I’m not sure if it is always a bad thing.
Section #1
DeleteI love your third question, and I'm curious what our peers think. Personally, I've found that I'm in a generally more positive mood when I avoid the news, which makes avoiding it ever so tempting.
However, I can imagine how certain types of ignorance can ultimately be perilous to a society, especially when it begins to affect people other than yourself. Same vibes as: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out..."
Section 1
DeleteI am also very much interested by the third question because as much as we encourage everyone to seek the truth of the world and not remain in blissful ignorance is it wise for certain people to be aware of the truth such as children who are regularly told about Santa clause and his infamous naughty list. So do we burst their bubble at that young age and remove the room for imagination and load them with stark realities of this world? I am just trying to expiate further on these questions
Section 3
DeleteTo respond to your third question, I don't think it's okay to live in ignorance. I feel that to live in ignorance is to live in danger. It might not always be a bad thing like you said, but it could cause more problems if we were to live this way than not. But that is my opinion on the subject.
Section #1
ReplyDelete-Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others? I believe in the opposite. We can't understand others if we do not understand ourselves.
-Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave? Yes, I think most are... not because we can't get out, but because we choose to stay in. Maybe because of the convenience, or maybe, like Christopher said, because we have grown used to our blissfully ignorant perception of the world.
Question:
Why would such a great thinker like Socrates fail to see that his model of an ideal government would be so tyrannical, immoral, and indifferent to people's rights and needs as humans?
Section #1
DeleteI find your question interesting. Yes, inherently, the idea of philosophers ruling the world while weeding out the unwilling philosophers by making them soldiers or workers seems to be bordering on eugenics in a sense, I believe that this isn't meant to be tyrannical. I think Socrates and Plato specifically were afraid of what an uneducated group of people can do if they were given the power to make decisions in society and their government without having the true wisdom to make said decisions. If someone is not willing to be wise by encompassing all perspectives and truly understanding themselves and their people, then it would be troublesome seeing them influence society through a wrongful means. It reminds me of how the current administration is being handled. Ignorance is one of humanity's hugest flaws. Many people voted for our current president under the notion of "Oh, well he wouldn't be crazy enough to go against our Constitutional rights or completely ignore our law." Then, when these events actually do take place, many people turn a blind eye and just acknowledge the supposed "good" that's been done for them.
Lecture #1
ReplyDeleteA Little History of Philosophy
2.) The cave story is connected to Plato’s Theory of Forms. I do believe some people are stuck in a cave. Not only with deep thinking, but they are just stuck in their ways in general. Some people are stuck into a routine of believing what they want, and no shaking, pulling, or tugging will help change their mind. However, some people—like the man who broke free—will successfully escape the cave. With escaping this cave, they are allowed to break years of routine that was supposed to be passed down to them.
3.) Socrates told his students that his inner voice told him to keep questioning everything. I do believe we have inner voices, but I also believe they can be skewed by what we want, or we sometimes mistake our thoughts for our inner voice. For example, if I want pizza, then my thoughts will begin to want pizza too. As a result, my brain will be talking to be, but I don’t think that is my inner voice talking.
How the World Thinks
2.) I do agree we can’t understand ourselves if we can’t understand others. If we can see where another person is coming from, how or why they act, or if we even acknowledge it a tiny bit, we can better understand ourselves. If we do not understand other people, I think it makes our actions selfish—this can be changed if we change our way of thinking.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteSocrates Express:
3. What did Socrates say his inner voice told him? Do you think "inner voice" is literal?
Socrates said that his inner voice only warned him not to do things, never told him to do things. As to whether it is literal or not, I would pose the reverse question, does it even matter? Does it matter to us if he heard voices in his head or was simply expressing an innate feeling of wrongness using words his fellow Athenians could understand (as he was talking about the voice of an inner, personal god) or if something was actually speaking inside of his brain? We will never live in his body, we will never know his complete truth of the matter. And even if we were to time travel and ask him, I doubt he'd give a straight answer.
However, because of this voice, we have this current understanding of philosophy. (If you wanted to write a historical science fiction, it would be easy to say that aliens compelled him to do so by guiding him according to laws we don't know so that plots could spiral and they could achieve some end goal). But is searching for the itch in his brain, if it was real or imagined or a sliver of soul, searching for Wisdom or just Intelligence? It seems to me that this is bit of knowledge that will change nothing and only disappoint and distract from the real matter. It happened, many things could have caused it, but what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do with his style of gadflying about? Do we emulate or turn away from? Is a life spent asking questions of others inherently more satisfying than coming up with and asking the questions of oneself?
Weiner:
4) What was the first question young Needleman experienced? Have you experienced it? Do you think it is a good question? How do you answer it?
Needleman's first experienced question was "who created God?" I have few childhood memories, and if I asked this question, I have since forgotten its answer. As for if it is a good question-- it certainly is a leading one. It starts from an assumption, many actually: God exists. Everything that exists didn't at some point and was created by something else. This question doesn't permit something to just exist in the endlessness of space and time, it insists on a beginning (and thereby suggests also an end).
I'm not sure I like that. Since 'like' is innately tied to 'good' as opinions (why? probably because I'm the one making the definitions and it seemed right at the time) I'm not sure I can call it a good question. However, there are some things about this question I do in fact like. It is big. It sparks more questions: "And who created that?". It is relatable to any cultures that have gods. Generally, the answers are gods all the way up till you get 1 or 2 central gods, which explains how easily Christianity spread because their central god was often superimposed over other central gods and everyone else was simply a saint. But that doesn't stop it from making people think.
Yes, that I like enough to deem it a good question.
Do I have an answer? Well, I'm not really a believer, so I'll say we created god in our image, but not all of us created the same god.
Perhaps your's stones gays and mine is a giant snake that breathes fire and someone else claims his says 'he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone.' Chicken egg scenario. Some chickens are just built different, and those that last limit the gene pool or expand it in new and interesting ways, depending on your viewpoint.
6) The Socratic dialogues consisted of what kinds of conversations? Do you enjoy participating in such conversations?
Questions about the meaning of life, love, etc. I can't honestly say I'm a fan of such conversations. I prefer writing over talking. (Socrates would likely be pissed that I only respond to his verbal punches in carefully considered written or typed words that I can go back and edit until I'm happy with them). As for the topics, I'm happy to discuss (and do often verbally discuss lower hanging fruit such as what-if questions) and unfortunately often end up distracting my younger sibling Michael with these things until I realize that I have something I should be doing or he has something he should be doing at that moment. Time is the greatest enemy for considered thought. But I often prefer quiet pondering on my own time or lengthy diatribes of writing instead of questioning people in a Socratic seminar style. When I was forced to do my first one in school, I ended up with over a centimeter of printed pages as notes to bring with me to class. For me, this sort of thing has to be prepped beforehand, pressure in the moment elicits too much of the freeze response for proper thoughtful discussion, and really, any freeze response is too much for deep thought that will come up with satisfying answers for oneself.
DeleteI'm (only slightly) upset! Dr. Oliver, you said there wasn't a word limit on too much! It won't let me publish this as one comment because it is too long. :(
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP- #1. A successful conversation to Socrates is one where he asks enough questions to make the person, he's talking to rethink everything they thought they knew and to make them feel like they don't know anything. To Socrates wisdom meant, "understanding the true nature of our existence, including the limits of what we can know" (Warburton 3). This means wisdom is when people understand their purpose and have the ability to think in different ways. Such as the Knife example Warburton noted, which depicted Socrates asking someone is it wrong to take a knife from someone and then asked is it wrong to take a knife from someone who's about to kill themself. Therefore, wisdom is understanding the world isn't black and white, but there's a gray area. Also, the quote highlights that wisdom is knowing one can't understand or know everything there is to know.
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP Q3- Socrates inner voice told him to keep questioning everything. In this case I think his inner voice wasn't literal but referring to his mind and curiosity with being able to think deeply.
#2
ReplyDelete- LHP1: Socrates preferred a conversation to end with everyone coming to the realization that they do not know as much as they thought they knew before the conversation happened. He believed that true wisdom wasn't in knowing everything, but it was knowing the limits of knowing what we can know.
- Plato's story of the cave is connected with Plato's Theory of Forms. (Which I found interesting, especially the circle analogy.) To my belief, yes, everyone is stuck in their own cave. Each person has different perspectives, different shadows making up different things. For example, many people believe that we as Americans are not as privileged as we actually are. We see headlines in the media, and some of us even blindly take them as fact with little or no further research. This creates distortion and a lack of thinking for oneself. It is easy to see our country as a horrifying and saddening place if we allow those shadows of headlines to dictate our reality, but a person from a third-world country might think differently about how good we have it. Again, it's all about perspective.
- Additionally, I will say I lost a little trust in Plato and his perspectives once I read about his totalitarian views. In no world is that the answer to my belief. I think one of the greatest gifts of being a human is having a soul, and with that, a general sense of freedom.
Weiner: In Weiner's book, he points out that "philosopher" translates to "lover of wisdom". In Athens, philosophy was self-transformation. It was practical, therapy even. "Medicine for the soul"
I agree with your cave theory. Especially as Americans, we are stuck in a cave, and there's little way to get out.
DeleteI like your theory on perspective, how our own "cave" can shape our views to differ from someone from another country. What if two different people were to be exposed to the same things, yet still had different perspectives? What do you think would be the cause of that? Their own beliefs/moral system?
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteThe fact that socrates refused to write because he thought conversation was more worthwhile really stands out to me. Written philosophy can be confusing which then leads to the points trying to be discussed being brushed off. It reminded me of why this is a conversation based class. Talking to others about philosophy broadens all parties perspectives, and can get certain points across in a more personalized and effective way. Socrates not writing also made me think about how what we know of Socrates is through dialogues that were personalized for his students, and while they're profound and meaningful it must loose some meaning to us as readers and not the intended audience.
Plato's allegory of a cave is connected to plato's theory of forms. Personally, I do think that people are kind of stuck In a cave. Everyone is stubborn in their own ways, and in their own situations. For example fights in a friendship, both sides are stuck in two very opposite caves. Both sides are focused on what they think is true while the whole situation may say that both of them are wrong. While this may seem situational, think about it through the theory of forms haha! Even if both people aren't stuck in the cave, usually one is!
Socrates thought that an unexamined life wasn't a life worth living. I agree, and I think that most people probably do. While ignorance may be bliss, growing up I was afraid of living an unworthy life. I was scared of doing a job I didn't want to do, going home, sleeping, and repeating. Nothing of substance, not a real thought. I think philosophical thought can make a "boring" life blissful because you're engaging in something worthwhile.
Section #3
ReplyDelete1.) From just the brief comparison of Plato & Socrates and Aristotle's views of how to experience the world from A Little History of Philosophy ("Plato and Socrates thought of the world we see as a pale reflection of the reality that could be only be reached by abstract philosophical thought, Aristotle in contrast was fascinated by the details of everything around him...") the synthesis of the 2 schools of thought is encouraged in Eastern philosophy for achieving “enlightenment”. Plato's Cave is similar (from what I understand) to Buddhist and Hindu principles about reality being illusory. It is an illusion which can be broken through abstract philosophical thought ( in Buddhism and Hinduism it is achieved through the destruction of the ego.), but existence in an enlightened state combines both the detachment from the reality that we see and is taught, while also cultivating a deep attention to the world around you with equanimity. All of this to say that maybe the platonic school of thought can be combined with aristotelian thought?
2.) I agree with Socrates on not liking to write things down, i think speech is so much more complex and raw, when writing you can edit yourself down too much to sound a certain way. Like this comment I'm making; I've edited my original stream of consciousness text down so much so I sound like I know what I'm talking about. When you pay attention to someone talking to you begin to see the unconscious bend of their thoughts. You can see it in writing as well but it's harder because it has been obscured with edits. And speech can be so much more fluid and interesting, unless you have really beautiful prose naturally. I think philosophy and coming to philosophical conclusions depends on following a thought and seeing where it leads, and its more natural for me at least to do that through talking to myself or others. And when you talk to others about ideas you can get the added benefit of viewpoints that differ from your own that you can factor immediately into your ideas. I think people who prefer writing don’t like to be sloppy and messy and wrong.
3.) (In response to the 2nd question about Camus in the Weiner section.) Camus said the one true philosophical problem is suicide, or the question of if life is worth living. This question is the one true problem, but it hinges on the way you experience reality. If you understand the world the way that Camus understands it, then yes the biggest problem is suicide because it addresses the 2 options avalable to an individual in a world which doesn’t seem to have a point to it. (In the words of the song “Child Psychology”- either kill yourself or get over it.) However, if you believe that there is a point to life ( determinism or some form of thought like that) the problem shifts to different things, because the problem of living in a pointless reality is nullified.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living. When Weiner heard this, it made life seem even more overwhelming than it already was, so he added two corollaries: 1) The examined life must produce results; 2) An overexamined life is not worth living either. I agree with Weiner’s additions, that we must not just contemplate life, but must use those contemplations to improve life, and that too much focus on the goal, without enough focus on the process, will stop us from reaching it (at least, this is how I interpreted his corollaries). But I also agree with Socrates’ original statement. I think it can be easy to get caught up in busy schedules and just rush from one activity right into the next, and then suddenly your life is almost over. Trying to examine your life doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re overthinking every single thing you do, it just means that you’re making an effort to ask yourself about what you do and why you do it. I think that effort can help us shift from feeling like robots that only wake up in the morning to complete our long to-do list for the day, to humans who have thoughts and goals and emotions and hobbies.
2. A successful conversation in Socrates’ eyes was one which ended with everyone realizing how little they knew. This is also how he defined wisdom–wisdom is knowing how much you don’t know, and that is why the Oracle deemed Socrates the wisest man alive. (I like that this story about Socrates makes humility and self-awareness a central part of wisdom.)
3. My favorite section of this reading was the chapter from Weiner about Marcus Aurelius and how difficult it can be just to get out of bed. I’ve never read Meditations, but Weiner’s explanation of it has convinced me to put it on my list. That chapter felt very personal, as roughly six hours before reading I had hit snooze on my alarm and gone back to bed for “just five more minutes.” Hopefully when my alarm goes off tomorrow morning I’ll remember what Marcus Aurelius told himself almost two thousand years ago–I wasn’t born to sleep the day away under the covers, but to do things and experience them.
The chapter about Marcus Aurelius was my favorite part of the reading as well!
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDelete1. I really liked how in A Little History of Philosophy it told us, "Wisdom for Socrates was not knowing lots of facts, or knowing how to do something. It meant understanding the true nature of our existence, including the limits of what we can know." For myself, I feel as though my immediate definition of wisdom is similar to the description in the first sentence, but with the introduction of wisdom meaning to understand the true nature of our existence allowed me to understand Socrates a bit more.
2. Plato's story of the cave is connected to his Theory of Forms. I think some humans are naturally, metaphorically, stuck in a cave. I think in recent times, social media and the way we consume media has become a major cave. The algorithms we interact with only reinforce what the people want to see, which keeps the people in the confinement of that view.
3. Socrates inner voice told him to keep questioning everything, and he could not betray it. I think in some sense, an inner voice in literal. I think your inner voice is shaped by how you grow up and what you want, and in times it leads you in making moral decisions on what to do in situations.
Hi! I also enjoyed how A Little History of Philosophy described Socrates. When we are taught about all of these grand, long-dead philosophers, it's hard to imagine them as people, just like we are now. This chapter really humanized Socrates for me, especially with his descriptions.
DeleteI also see what you are saying about that inner voice. While I think the "inner voice" was more of a figurative thing instead of a true voice, I agree entirely with how you said it shapes how you grow. Your inner voice, or conscience, most definitely leads your decisions in life, and there are times when that "gut feeling" almost feels like another person helping you in your head (if that makes any sense 😅).
Section #1
ReplyDelete2. What did Camus say is the one truly serious philosophical problem? Do you agree?
Camus stated that the only "true" philosophical problem was suicide, or in clearer words, the question of whether life was worth living at all. I agree with this, but only to a certain degree. I do think that it is important to consider the reasons that one would want to continue living. However, I do not think that every person should routinely consider whether they want to keep being alive or if they're tired and want to quit. I think that is a rather childish way of thinking about something as significant as a person's life, even if it is their own.
7. What did Socrates say about the unexamined life? What corollaries does Weiner propose? Do you think Socrates was wrong?
Socrates expressed that an unexamined life was "not worth living," but Weiner counters with his idea that an overexamined life is similarly not much of a life at all. He thinks that actually living life is more important than simply thinking about doing so. I don't think that Socrates was entirely, objectively wrong, but I don't exactly agree with him. I agree that a person should regularly examine their life and motivations. However, I believe that one purpose of life is to DO something. To achieve something, to complete something, to accomplish something, whatever it may be. Solely thinking about the fact that you are alive is no way to live simply because it leaves you with nothing to show for it in the end.
On a fairly unphilosophical note, I was fascinated by Weiner's love of train rides but not the trains themselves. How on earth do you appreciate a train ride without also appreciating the incredible invention that makes it possible?
I agree with what you and Weiner brought up about the over-examined life--the process of over-examining can be debilitating for people and strip them of the life they were living. If examining one's life becomes paralyzing, that seems counterproductive. However, I think that examining one's life in order to make positive change is worthwhile. Living without ever thinking about what you're doing and whether or not it's good for your soul, you, and those around you seems like it would cause a lack of personal growth and lead to an unfulfilling life.
DeleteThe above comment was from Natalie in Section #1 I forgot to put my name. Apologies!
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP #1- Socrates was a philosopher who decided to test the people's knowledge around him by asking questions in a somewhat interrogative manner until he finally came down to the true meaning of the discussion. Socrates regarded a conversation as successful if it was proven that the person who assumed they knew it all actually did not. This gives way to Socrates' meaning of wisdom: "understanding the true nature of our existence" (Warburton 3). Wisdom is not something that is artificially obtained, in my opinion; it is gained by thorough trial and error through deliberation of one's world around them. Like much of the assigned reading proposed, wisdom is not like general knowledge of trivia and facts. It is a learned skill that comes from being more aware of our surroundings, the people that we come across, and ourselves.
LHP #2- Plato's allegory of the cave is connected with his Theory of Forms, which is explained using the circle example in the text. From my understanding, the theory of forms states that there is some transcendent reality where everything is perfect, and our own 3D world is simply a distorted view of this perfect reality. I believe all humans are simply naturally stuck in the cave because of the fast-paced society we live in. Many people do not pause to deliberate or question the tiny things we experience in our daily lives that led up to specific moments we experience, in both a perfect and imperfect reality. For example, humans get so stuck with "going through the motions" that they fail to truly explore themselves or other people in a meaningful and fulfilling way. As a college student, I can say that it becomes difficult trying to make the most meaningful conversations or questions as most of the time, it feels like I'm just trying to complete the next thing and the next thing.
Weiner #4- The first question that young Needleman experienced came from his friend when he was a child: "'Who created God?'" (Weiner 18). This is a question that I believe many of us have experienced as well. Me personally, I have experienced this question by asking it to myself. Growing up as Catholic during my younger years, I found myself to be extremely curious about things I couldn't understand. If God was real, then how could he be documented through a book written by humans, and why hasn't he been documented in that manner since then? I truly believe this is a question that has many loopholes and can be expanded on in numerous ways. If God was created by God's power or God himself, how did the God or that power exist when nothing was here in the universe to sustain that power? If that power had been dormant in some universe before God created the world, then doesn't that mean that God isn't all powerful and that there is some other powerful figure more powerful than God? Additionally, if humans created God through this writing, why did they do it? Did they witness something that seemed supernatural in nature, or is it a coping mechanism to deal with the hardships of our physical world by believing in a Heaven where we will stand with God?
I'm also going to pose a question because I've just thought of it, and it's something that intrigues me. Do you believe that a true philosopher feels more connected and follows religions, or follows more of a scientific perspective on the world? Is philosophy somewhat a blend of these topics that lead philosophers to take some from both religion and science to formulate their own opinions based on a mixture of the two? I believe that it is somewhat of a blend of both these.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's probably a blend. Early philosophers would philosophize about the makeup of the world and how the world works but it seems like that became obsolete once we scientifically had an idea of those things. Socrates acknowledged the existence of the gods because of his eudaimon, but also questioned what the afterlife is like. Regardless of whether or not a philosopher is religious, they probably apply the same questioning process to whatever they believe in, so it seems like it could be a blend/either/or? Just a thought.
DeleteHere are some of my own questions/observations on the readings:
ReplyDeleteLHP
"Life, he declared, is only worth living if you think about what you are doing" (LHP pg 4). This made me think about the focus on mindfulness that existed in my elementary and middle school years, and wonder how much of an influence philosophical ideas/concepts have had on modern education and ideas. Even now, I see a lot of discussion of being present/mindful to combat the effects of excessive technology and social media use. Has anyone else had similar experiences? Have you seen ideas we read about show up in your education or your life so far?
On Socrates' preference for conversation instead of writing--I can definitely understand his preference for dialogue over written work which "can't answer back" and "can’t explain anything to you when you don’t understand them" (LHP pg 4). Nowadays, though, written words CAN answer back through texts. I know this is a silly hypothetical, but what do you think Socrates' opinion on discussions over text might be? Based on my previous learning, part of Socrates' brilliance was how quickly he could craft responses that would disarm his opponent. Texting gives the opponent the opportunity to take time to craft their response and also could also cause confusion in tone during a discussion. If texting were available to Socrates, would he think it was a productive way to have a philosophical discussion?
Plato's thoughts on "significant difference between appearance and reality" (LHP pg 5) reminds me of a discussion I've been a part of on the existence of one "truth" based in fact and whether or not that's a possibility. To summarize some of what was discussed, we bounced around the idea that our senses are unreliable, so the ability to determine that there is one, and only one, real "truth" is somewhat impossible; we each could have different accounts of something (as my classmate put it, "my truth may not be your truth"). Basically we discussed the idea of whether or not anything can actually, definitely, be factually "true" if everyone's perceptions are different. What do you think?
Weiner
"Crazy Wisdom"-- do you think people are more afraid to do public displays that make us "question [our] assumptions" now that social media exists? Or are people using social media as a device to make us question our assumptions? Has it made this kind of action/performance more or less accessible?
Hello! I believe Socrates would find text to be an even less desirable form of philosophical communication. I think his belief is that when it comes words on paper, mankind associates them with undeniable true. Socrates knows that claiming truth is inherently anti-philosophical. Because the internet is not erasable, whereas books can be easily lost, destroyed, etc, knowing that it would be possible for an increased association between words on "paper" and truth to be made would frighten him.
Delete(Section H01)
ReplyDeleteLHP 1.) A successful conversation for Socrates was one where the receiver "realized how little they knew". In other words, his goal was to make the people he spoke to question themselves and their thinking; as annoying as this may seem, I think these conversations promoted wisdom. Socrates thought of wisdom as more than just knowledge. You can try to know everything there is to know, but knowing the limits of knowledge is true wisdom. Socrates knew this, and believed he knew the true nature of our existence because of it.
LHP 3.) Socrates said his inner voice told him to question everything, even to his own death. I don't think that inner voice was literal, but instead a feeling. I think him saying it was a voice was a way for him to manifest the feelings of curiosity and desire inside of him as a tangible thing. People do the same now. Many describe their feelings of depression and anxiety as monsters or voices inside of them as a way to symbolize complicated and difficult to understand concepts. Socrates wanted those around him to understand the feelings inside of him, so maybe his "inner voice" was his way of describing his mind.
Weiner 1.) "Philosopher" means, literally, lover of wisdom. In modern times, this definition describes someone who asks difficult questions, but in ancient Athens, philosophers were practical people who aimed to understand the world around them. There were no cellphones, no computers to simply find things like there are now. One had to philosophise, to think and learn to survive.
(apologies, I pressed the submit button too quickly.) *philosophize
DeleteHi Haylie! I found your interpretation unique. We differ in thinking that his inner voice was literal, but I was curious to hear more about your perspective. Thinking of the voice as a feeling rather than words repeated in the skull makes sense, and I can relate to that. A lot of the time, feelings can be hard to label or define, but they are still recognizable and intuitive. Additionally, do you think that in modern times, with all the resources available to us, philosophy should play a greater or lesser role in people’s lives?
DeleteHi Haylie, I agree with your response to Socrates inner thoughts. I believe it was more of a what he wanted thing, and his 'thoughts' were actually skewed by what he wanted
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeletePlato and Socrates
2. What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?
Plato’s story of the cave is connected to his Theory of Forms. The way I interpret the Theory of Forms, and how it relates to the cave, is that our conception of reality can never be perfect or complete. This is similar to the circle analogy. The people in the cave only knew the cave and the shadows on the wall, and nothing beyond that. Because of this, I agree with the general idea of the cave, but I would argue that each person is trapped in their own unique cave, limited by the information they have had access to up to that point.
Maybe Plato is encouraging us not to hyperfixate on defining reality or trying to explain everything concretely. When I think about the idea of Forms, it pushes me to examine reality more broadly. Reality is bigger than us and our individual caves. When we think we have escaped one cave, we should remind ourselves that there is always more to learn and more to uncover. We will never have the full picture.
3. What did Socrates say his inner voice told him? Do you think "inner voice" is literal?
Socrates’ inner voice told him to keep questioning everything. I do think his inner voice was literal. It was that internal dialogue that most of us possess. My inner voice is constantly evaluating whether a thought or decision aligns with my values or fits my perception of reality. I imagine that when Socrates was faced with drinking the poison cup, his inner voice said, “Yes, this ending aligns with who I am and what I believe.” Socrates comes across as someone who was endlessly curious about reality. Therefore, he was not going to continue his life by being untrue to who he fundamentally was.
Weiner
1. What was the first question young Needleman experienced? Have you experienced it? Do you think it is a good question? How do you answer it?
The first question posed to Needleman that he said set him free was, “Who created God?” asked by his neighborhood friend Elias. I do not recall a time in my life when someone has asked me this question directly. I would answer it by saying that, long ago, someone came up with the idea of an omnipresent being capable of more than humans. I think having a god is a staple of humanity. That being said, I do not aim to offend anyone with this point of view; it is simply the cave I live in. God was created by humans to help grapple with the unknown.
The question “Who created God?” is a great one. A person’s answer can reveal a lot about their religious beliefs, how deeply they think about existence, and how they define what a god is.
Needleman's question is honestly a very good question. I have wondered that at a very young age as well. A lot of my belief system has been brought up through Christianity, so, for me, the answer has always been that God always was. I do respect other people's point of views because it is honestly a very mind boggling concept. The human brain cannot comprehend that something is outside of space and time itself and was just always there and will remain to be.
Delete2) What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?
ReplyDeleteThe theory connected to this story is the Theory of Forms, created by Plato himself. I cannot bring myself to fully agree or disagree with this theory in all honesty. Based on my own experience, there are most definetly some people stuck within this cave, who are content with the way the world is without ever really investigating higher questions. But I don't believe its impossible for these people to begin to consider those questions. Alternatively, some people DO consider those questions, but are quite unconcerned with finding the answer. And then there are those who actively seek out the answer hungrily, trying to search for life's meaning. These people usually find various different answers.
David Vargas - Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHD - Chapter 1
1. What kind of conversation was a success, for Socrates, and what did he mean by wisdom?
A: For Socrates, a successful conversation challenged the conventional axioms of his environment. When asking seemingly straightforward questions, he had an unparalleled ability to exploit the fallacies of the responding argument. In short, Socrates sought to "reveal the limits of what people genuinely understood." By Socrates' standards, it was far better to understand how limited your knowledge was than to carry false pretenses. By accepting the natural parameters of human comprehension, the key to wisdom is much more easily attained. Wisdom, to Socrates, measured not what you knew, but instead manifests in the "nature of our existence," which Socrates would attempt to derive through the asking of questions driven by reasons and evidence.
2. What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?
A: The "Allegory of the Cave" is connected with Plato's Theory of Forms
This theory is explained through an example involving the concept of a "perfect circle." If asked to recall every single circle one has ever seen in their life, not a single one will be perfect. But, one can also understand what a "perfect circle" is. This idea, as defined by Plato, is the "Form of a Circle." Essentially, Plato attempts to convey that those who rely solely on their senses to analyze the world around them are being misled. To truly understand a concept, you must concentrate on the abstract "Form" of the subject.
I believe that many humans, including myself, are "stuck in the cave." We all have respective interpretations of our experiences. These interpretations are shaped by the lens we choose to see them through. We deceive ourselves more often than we think, and it's incredibly difficult to break free of our distorted view. For the most part, this is a commonly shared human experience.
3. What did Socrates say his inner voice told him? Do you think "inner voice" is literal?
Socrates would rather have been put to death than to stop questioning everything. He could not stand the prospect of living in conformity, and died in defiance of such an outrageous request. I believe that this "inner voice" was literal. Socrate's ethical standards dictated his life, and he refused to break them, even in the face of death. He would rather have died than continued to live as someone who remained quiet about the world around him.
Section #2
ReplyDeletePlato:
2)Plato's story of the cave is connected to the Theory of Forms. Plato's story of the cave is a really good example of some humans in the real world. Some people are so stuck in their ways that, even though the other side might be better, they stay firm on what they WANT to believe in. Some simply do not stop and think critically about the "why". They are so occupied with what life has to throw at them that they just put their foot on the gas and go instead of slowing down and understanding the journey.
3) Plato's inner voice told him to "question everything". I think that his inner voice was literal. His "inner voice" was just his conscience speaking to him. Everybody has an "inner voice" that guides them and helps them make decisions. Plato valued his inner voice and chose to respect it all the way to the end. My inner voice helps me decide between right and wrong. Moral consciousness is what drives people to believe and do what they think is right.
Weiner:
6) The Socratic dialogues were very informal, mind boggling discussions. They were often in groups and challenged multiple accepted ideologies of that time. I love discussions like these because they require people to think critically. I like debating and learning the "why" of things not just memorizing something "just because".
Section #1
ReplyDeleteA Little History of Philosophy
1) A conversation was a success for Socrates when it ended with the other person realizing how little they truly knew. His goal was to get people to think beyond the scope of what they already know and what they see. To him, wisdom was understanding why we exist and how much we can know. I agree with Socrates and believe that everyone should question and challenge ideas we already know, because this is the only way we can learn new perspectives and see things through a different lens.
2) Plato’s story of the Cave relates to the idea that some people simply believe what is right in front of their face and never go beyond the “cave” which represents the knowledge they already have. I do believe that all humans are “stuck in a cave”. Even those who question the world and seek truth, will always be “stuck in a cave” about come things because we cannot truly question everything in life. In other words, there will always be things that we may not care enough about to learn further, so our knowledge will always be limited in a way. This allegory reminds me of people, especially Americans, who watch news sights like Fox News of CNN for all their information (like the people in the cave watching the shadows) about the world rather than going beyond that and seeking truth from 1st hand experiences or video evidence (like the man who left the cave to see the rest of the world).
Weiner
4) Needleman asked, “what is life really about?”. This presents a philosophical awakening and realization that life has a deeper meaning beyond routines and appearances. I experience this everyday as I question why I am here and what my purpose is. This is a good question to ask because it forces reflection rather than certainty. You cannot answer this question only with words, rather with experience and how you live.
Graham Waltenbaugh, Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Socrates's goal was to get someone to question their own biases and assumptions. His idea of wisdom was being conscious of how little you know. If he could lure someone into an assumption, then subvert it to make them question what they thought, the conversation was a success. It wasn't about proving anything or anyone right or wrong, it was about getting the brain working, developing the muscle of philosophical conceptualization. If he were alive today, maybe he'd be making obscure indie video games. Hotline Miami 1 & 2 are a duology of games that confront the idea of violence being the assumed default player action. The Beginner's Guide is a game that presents itself as a sort of digital museum of games by a creator who has recently disappeared, only for the person presenting those works to actually be revealed as exploitative and obsessive towards that person. It ends up being a meditation on how the presentation of art can skew the art itself. Socrates could be using art and media to get a large audience to question themselves. Doesn't have to be video games, that's just what was on my mind lol.
2. Plato's cave allegory is related to his Theory of Forms, which is that every existing material object only exists as an imperfect recreation of the idea of that object, or the abstract "form" of it. Both ideas portray how pure physical senses can't paint a full picture of reality, and that only philosophers, who have more developed conceptualization skills, can determine something's true nature. I think about whether bigotry could considered a cave. If someone is bigoted against a minority group, their perception of the group is obviously far removed from the actual reality of the people in it. Media outlets that thrive on creating bigoted propaganda would then be the ones holding up the objects in front of the fire.
I think it's super interesting that you bring up art as a way to encourage critical thinking, because Socrates emphasizes censorship in The Republic. I think your point really highlights how art can be used to bring us closer to the truth, whereas Socrates thought it was only a mimic of reality, bringing us further from the pure form.
DeleteA successful conversation is one where the person walks away questioning what they know. wisdom is the how of the world rather than the what or the why. The cave is a metaphor for how people think, I don’t think all humans are stuck in the cave but I do think it is the easiest way of thinking but non neccessarily the natural way of thinking.
ReplyDeletePhilosopher means a lover of wisdom, philosophy was the self help of ancient Athens. The questions that most interested Socrates were questions that led to self reflection and questioning everything that you know. The Socratic Dialogues consisted of conversations between Socrates and the people of Athens as well as conversations between Socrates and his students and are on of the only written evidence of Socrates as he didn’t believe in writing things down because the page cannot respond to the word. I heavily enjoy participating in discussions that leave me questioning what I know because it means that there is still more to learn about myself and the world around me. I love participating in Socratic seminars because it is a natural discussion where topics flow freely and wisdom AND knowledge is shared.
1. A successful conversation to Socrates was one that left a person feeling like they knew nothing, or less than they thought they did, as opposed to feeling like they learned more. By wisdom, he means asking and understanding the why and how behind things, and not just blindly thinking you know something.
ReplyDelete2. I think most humans are, if not all, for at least some time in their life. As humans, we tend to be drawn to things that make us comfortable and that don't challenge us beyond what we believe we are capable of. That's why it takes pain, hardships, and trials to grow. So in a sense, I think people grow up a certain way, and they never want to change a certain aspect of their life, maybe it's a belief or opinion, or a habit or way of doing something, but their never open their mind to something new out of fear of discomfort and therefore miss out on so many things. This also reminds me of the last question. People who are afraid to leave their "comfort zone" on something probably don't even fully understand the "thing" they are afraid of leaving because they've never ventured out far from it to study why they like it, as opposed to something else.
3. He said his inner voice told him to never stop asking questions. It could have been literal, maybe he was schizophrenic, but it was probably a gut feeling, or a passion of his to where life just was boring and meaningless if he wasn't asking questions and diving in deep to everything.
(Section H03)
ReplyDelete1. " What theory is Plato's story of the cave connected with? Do you think some or all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?" The cave allegory represents Plato's theory of forms. I believe that all humans are born stuck inside a cave, but an individualistic cave determined by a person's circumstances. I don't think any person is born with all the answers, and I certainly don't think every person has equal resources or even a desire to leave the cave.
2. "The Socratic dialogues consisted of what kinds of conversations? Do you enjoy participating in such conversations?" Socratic dialogues consisted of a chain of questions to uncover truth through reasoning. I believe this form of questioning encourages deep critical thinking and an opportunity to explore my own beliefs and their roots. It calls into question the logic behind my answers, leading me explore thoughts beyond my beliefs.
3. "Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?" I absolutely agree that we cannot truly understand ourselves without taking into account the people that surround us. Although we may have a declarative internal image, it's through our interactions that we define our characters. I believe we have to understand the meaning behind the connection we have with others to explore ourselves.
John Aduroja - Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Socrates considered thoughtful and insightful conversation that challenged people's thinking on matters they assume or appear to know, as used by Plato in his view of considering people as having appearances of the world, and only Philosophers see the reality.
2. Plato's story of the cave is connected to his theory of forms, on how we perceive a circle to be perfect in forms, but in actual illustration, it doesn't seem to be so. Yes, I do think that a large number of humans are in some allegorical sense stuck in a cave, as failure to question beliefs, opinions, or even not liking being questioned about what you hold dear shows you are stuck in a cave.
3. Socrates' inner voice pushed him to continually ask questions, and not just to assume or take things as the norm. Inner voice is not necessarily literal, but a representation of his moral compass, or as some call it, consciousness.
Weiner
1. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom, and in ancient Athens, philosophy was the practical, passionate, and intense pursuit of the truth and wisdom.
2. Camus identified the "one truly serious philosophical problem" as the conflict between humanity's inherent search for meaning and the universe's silent indifference. Yes, I do agree.
3. Marcus Aurelius needed to remember his mortality and duty, focusing on virtue and reason.
4. Young Needleman experienced the first question of "what is Justice?" I cannot expressively say I have experienced, as the definition of justice differs based on what becomes the standard to judge, but a relatable situation will be parents trying to decide which child is wrong and how to resolve it. Justice cannot be defined, but we can set boundaries and circumstances of what it seems like, which is why our laws that define justice are always under constant scrutiny.
5. Socrates was most interested in ethics, particularly questions about virtue, goodness, justice, piety, and the best way to live a flourishing life.
6. Socrates' dialogues consisted of cross examination question that tried to contradict and question what one believes. Yes, I do enjoy such kinds of questions, and I have had my share of them due to my involvement in the debate club.
7. Socrates said The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being. Weiner suggests that while Socrates meant we should seek wisdom, we must also be gentle with ourselves and others, recognizing that not everyone is a philosopher and that deep self-examination can be painful. I believe Socrates was both right and wrong, as we must take note of certain circumstances in his statement.
John Aduroja - Section 2
ReplyDeleteI observed in LHP Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all had a star pupil, so I would like to know if that is a trend among philosophers and if Dr Oliver does have one.
What do you think are some qualifications for being a star pupil? Do they vary based on philosopher? The pupils ideals? Could world events affect who is a star pupil and who isnt?
DeleteHello! I am from section #2 and have had some time to think on today's readings.
ReplyDeleteThough I have seen the cave theory a couple times in my academic career, I have not always been able to agree with it completely. While I do agree that the majority of new ideas that we now consider and will consider revolutionary were first shot down and criticized, I cannot agree that those who originally disagreed and felt threatened were "chained" or "stuck" per say. Our thoughts are one of the only if not the only part of our autonomy as people that cannot be controlled by law or forcibly "fixed." I am much more drawn to the idea that those described either by others or themselves as "stuck" are not being held captive, but rather entranced by simplicity. Thus the presence of a philosopher or philosophical thought is perceived as a threat to that simplicity.
During my readings I encountered the sentiment that these great thinkers will "live on" in the thoughts of others. But what does that really mean? They will not be able to continue to have experiences, have conversations, travel, teach, and all the things that made them human and especially who they were. Without those can we really call it living? And sure, they of course don't mean in the literal sense, no one has a little Socrates or Plato running around in their heads and especially not paying rent. I am also sure that these same great thinkers would not consider those conditions being alive at all, so what does "living on" really mean?
Stemming from this idea is the common description of the "voice in your head" guiding you. Though I don't believe it is literal I do believe that it has some sustenance to it as an argument. Maybe that is just one of the ideas that we will inevitably criticize later when someone changes what we know it to mean.
1. What kind of conversation was a success for Socrates, and what did he mean by wisdom?
ReplyDeleteA conversation was a success for Socrates when someone realized they didn’t actually know as much as they thought. He wasn’t trying to “win” arguments. He wanted people to question their beliefs. By wisdom, he meant knowing that you don’t know everything and being willing to keep asking questions.
2. What theory is Plato’s cave connected to? Are humans stuck in a cave? Plato’s cave is connected to the Theory of Forms. The cave means the everyday world, where people believe appearances and opinions are the truth. The world outside the cave represents real truth and knowledge. I believe that some people are stuck in a cave by choice and in fear of leaving their comfort zone.
3. What did Socrates say his inner voice told him? Is it literal?
Socrates said his inner voice warned him when he was about to do something wrong. It never told him what to do, only what not to do.
It’s probably not literal, but more like conscience or intuition.
WEINER
1. What does “philosopher” mean? What was philosophy in ancient Athens? “Philosopher” means lover of wisdom. In ancient Athens, philosophy wasn’t schoolwork. It was talking, debating, and thinking deeply about life, usually in public.
2. What did Camus say is the one serious philosophical problem? Do you agree? Camus said the biggest philosophical question is whether life is worth living. I agree because I believe whatever answer you have to this question kind of gives you a idea of how you want to live your life.
Daniel #1
DeleteRemember, there's no need to respond with the factually-correct textual answer after someone else has already accurately supplied it. Rather (for example) than telling us, again, what kind of conversation the text says Socrates considered successful, tell us what YOU think of Socrates' view.
ReplyDeleteFYI, all - I've been trying to reply in particular to some of the foregoing posts but for some reason Blogger is currently only letting me issue new comments. So to the "Anonymous" question above, whether I have any "star pupils": to quote Sly Stone, "everybody is a star."
ReplyDeleteSarah, there's no word limit on new author posts but there is apparently a length-limit on comments.
ReplyDeleteFall '26...
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2: For Socrates, a conversation was actually a success when it ended in a bit of confusion which is what he called aporia. He wasn’t trying to "win" debates; a good conversation was just one where both people realized their original assumptions didn’t hold up. Virounika Yowakim: Section H01
ReplyDeleteRight. That gets you to 2d base (or 3d, if you've just posted your Intro since last class). See if you can come up with another question or comment to bring you home.
ReplyDelete1.Socrates saw himself as a “gadfly,” someone who questioned people and challenged them to think differently. I think this is valuable because communities need people who aren't afraid to question things.
ReplyDelete2.For Socrates, a successful conversation was one where people questioned their beliefs and learned something new. He believed wisdom meant recognizing that you don't know everything. I agree because being open about what you don't know helps you learn.
3.Socrates was wise because he recognized his own lack of knowledge and was always willing to ask questions. I don't completely agree with his criticism of writing because writing helps preserve and share knowledge. However, I understand that conversation allows for more questioning and discussion.
FYI, all-If you'll post your comments and questions 24 hours prior to class, there's a much greater chance that I'll see them before we meet. If you wait to post 'til the night before, or on the day of class, I probably won't. I'll generally try to stay out of your conversation threads. But I'd still like to see your posts in advance, if possible.
ReplyDeleteKrish Patel - Section H01
Delete1. Socrates saw himself as a "gadfly" that some people think of as annoying but they don't actually harm them. I believe this is very important to the community because Socrates pushed people to think more than they normally would. If they are not mentally challenged, they will do bare minimum. I think the modern day equivalent would be someone like Stephen Hawking because he wants people to think more deeply about the universe.
2. Socrates believed that a successful conversation was one where people had to think deeply about question their own thoughts. Socrates thinks that wisdom is knowing what you are talking about and recognizing that you don't know everything that you think you may know. This is actually good because asking questions is the best way to learn things.
3. I think Socrates was wise because he realized that he himself did not know everything and questioned his own thoughts. I have mixed feelings about his opinions on writing because I don't agree that you shouldn't write things down. However, I do agree that speaking, instead of writing, allows you to know who you are talking to and adjust the way you talk so you can get your message across to them. Socrates appeared in Plato's writing. This makes me wonder if the Socrates we know is because how Plato wrote about him or if that was how he actually was.
Section 3
ReplyDelete1. Socrates saw himself as a gadfly, that would fly around annoying people but not truly harming them. I think a community without a person like that would really be lacking because asking deep questions causes deep thinking, and when people in a community get comfortable and aren’t challenged, they’ll tend to almost lose their edge so to speak. I feel like the people like that of our time are those people who will set up booths on college campuses with a microphone and challenge people’s ideas and beliefs, notably someone like Charlie Kirk or Cliffe Knetchle.
2. The kind of conversation that was a success for Socrates was whenever people would leave his conversations realizing they knew so much less than they thought. Wisdom to Socrates appeared to be knowing what one is talking about. The realization of that for him came through the Oracle of Apollo saying there are none wiser than Socrates.
3. Socrates was wise due to the way that he challenged others and even his own thinking. He was unusual in many ways, such as how he was often ugly and unwashed despite having such deep-thinking conversations, as well as in his way of refusing to write due to his belief in face-to-face conversations being much more thought-provoking. He was unusual due to the way he would question and question and question, to the point he was put to death for it. I do think he was somewhat wrong in his stance on writing simply since it can convey an inherently different type of wisdom that isn’t always the easiest to convey through conversations, like self-wisdom or ego. If Socrates had decided to write down some thoughts of his he would have likely found other ways to view himself and that could have led to potentially more self-reflection. Socrates appeared in Plato, his star student’s, writing, which leads to the question of whether the Socrates we know is actually Socrates, or a version of Plato with a Socrates mask on.
Great post! I really like your point about communities losing their edge without someone to challenge them. The Socratic Problem (Plato vs. actual Socrates) is also super interesting to think about. The main difference I see with modern campus debaters is that Socrates didn't try to win arguments or push specific answers, his only goal was getting people to realize they actually knew nothing! Virounika yowakim H01
Delete1.LHP- Socrates saw himself as a what? Do you think such a person is valuable to a community?
ReplyDeleteSocrates calls himself a horsefly because of his constant, seemingly irritating remarks that debatably do not cause significant harm. He says himself the remarks did not cause harm however those statements in the eyes of the Meletus brought him to trial and ended his life after he refused to recant. I believe this type of person is valuable to society, considering the wisdom his annoyance brought to his community.
2. What did Camus say is the one truly serious philosophical problem? Do you agree?
Camus says the true philosophical problem is suicide, a question of whether life is worth living or not. I believe that is ultimately the beginning of many philosophical questions, which gives the problem immense value. If a philosopher does not see any value in living, they have no more questions to ask or wisdom to achieve, assuming their actions follow their beliefs.
3. What kinds of questions most interested Socrates?
Weiner shows that the questions Socrates asked differed from those of the philosophers who came before him, who were interested in what the world was and why it came into existence. Socrates' questions led to discussion with others, questions about how to make the most of our lives.
Section 2# Questions
ReplyDelete1: Socrates described himself as a gadfly, which is annoying and irritating to people. I would argue that having a person in an organized society that goes around and questions the societal and philosophical norms is of the upmost importance. Just because the norms that are in place have been well established does not mean that they are above scrutiny.
2: Socrates thought that a conversation in which everyone present realizes they know very little was a success. Socrates would define wisdom as understanding the true nature of existence and the limits of what the human race can know.
3: Socrates was wise because he kept asking questions and was always willing to debate others over philosophical questions. What was unusual about Socrates was his refusal to write down anything. While in concept, not writing anything down could encourage and sharpen active listening skills, I think that writing things down is beneficial for society as a whole. The generations that come after us can benefit greatly from the minds of great thinkers like Socrates. The best way to preserve ideas is to record them in some way. Socrates and his philosophies are mentioned in Plato's Platonic Dialogues.
2. What kind of conversation was a success, for Socrates, and what did he mean by wisdom? I think a successful conversation for Socrates was one in which the person he was questioning was left confused about what they believed. By questioning their ideas, Socrates helped them realize that they might not understand something as well as they originally thought. To Socrates, wisdom meant always questioning what we believe to be true and being willing to challenge those beliefs.
ReplyDelete6.What was Socrates' "annoying" response to the jury that, by narrow vote, sentenced him to death? Do you think it was courageous? Socrates' annoying response was that the jury should thank him and give him free food for the rest of his life. I think this was courageous because he stood by what he believed in, even though he knew he could die because of it. If I were in his situation, I would probably try to say things that were more in my favor so that I would not be sentenced to death, because I would value my life more. However, my perspective might have been different if I were also around 70 years old.
Side note: where do we find reading HW.
Baker Kilmartin section 1
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting that Socrates, who seemingly was so confident that he knew very little, would be a person so willing to give what he did know to others, as an example, his understanding that questions were more important than answers. Especially since the majority of people around him felt like he was quite literally one of the worst people in Athens. If I felt like the entire city in which I lived didn't think I had any value, I doubt I would be so kind in sharing with them the little wisdom I perceived myself as having.
More so as a general thought that was in my head as I was reading the assignment, it is shocking that, as a culture of philosophers, people aren't more upset and concerned that there are no direct records from Socrates that state his thoughts, relying almost purely on Plato. Since he is such a prominent figure with the thought system, I would have assumed before reading these chapters that there would be a lot more concrete knowledge that would be the basis of what is now philosophy.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteOne thing I believe Socrates aspired to find balance between was his love for philosophy and the realization that the general public is not okay with becoming uncomfortable. Socrates is controversial for not documenting any of his thoughts, which is glossed over in LHP, however I believe this was an intentional move to force those interested to ask and answer questions on their own. From the brief history provided in LHP, it is clear that Socrates found comfort to be incredibly boring and inhibitory to true philosophical euphoria. This is shown through his polarizing method of conversing philosophically with others. Socrates took pleasure out of making acclaimed "self-realized" people confused, frustrated, and left fundamentally shaken. Some may say this makes him a repeat offender of schadenfreude, but this would imply that Socrates believed discomfort to be a long term punishment. If anything Socrates saw discomfort as a temporary pang before genuine self realization and introspection was possible. It would be naive to say that "Socrates didn't write town his teachings because he preferred not to", when the truth is that Socrates knew any words written in a book would be taken at face value as factual and not looked into further. The entire exigence behind philosophy as a whole is that there is never a true end when looking deeper. Not transcribing his own philosophical ideals was a conscious effort to force philosophers to not accept word/custom/authority as truth.
Although argued in the book that Plato would hide his own thoughts behind the disguise of Socrates, I strongly disagree. I think Plato merely exposed the truth behind Socrates' thinking. Plato recognized the issue of true reality versus illusory reality, which is ultimately what Socrates strove to dispel through his refusal to accept knowledge at face value. This leads me to wonder if Socrates would be displeased with his status as a renowned philosopher today. Would he want to be looked at as a source of wisdom? Did that not defeat his entire purpose? In my eyes Socrates wanted others to ask uncomfortable questions for themselves. Now, if you google Socrates, you can find articles filled with hundreds of his own quotes meant to be shared, celebrated, tattooed, posted on social media, etc. Does this not intimidate others into not making their own philosophical claims, worrying that their questions won't live up to the proposed greatness of Socrates himself? The argument could be made that if anything it serves as inspiration, but I think Socrates would find philosophical inspiration quite boring.
H02
ReplyDelete1. Socrates described himself as a gadfly, meaning he was never causing threatening situations, however he was pesky and always right there enough to be very noticeable and quite annoying. I think that in every community someone like this is beneficial. In agreement with Socrates the people who ask questions allow for stronger community because they push the limits, exposing weak areas and finding further possibilities of growth.
2. A successful conversation for Socrates was creating confusion for the other, questioning their beliefs, questioning their existence and what they have been living by. I think it is a remarkable skill to have that effect in all his interactions. His views on wisdom was not having all the answers but asking all the questions. It is only once you ask the questions that you can attempt to find truth in anything.
3. Everyone at some point is asking questions to aspects in life, so in relation to the cave idea of the "ordinary" people being stuck in the cave, I get caught up on the fact that someone who started asking "deeper" questions is able to break free. Does this mean there is right and wrong questions? Maybe there are levels of complexity in questions but does that make one more philosophical than another and able to break free from the cave?
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. For Socrates a successful conversation meant that he was challenging the thoughts of whoever he was speaking to, and leaving them confused. I think that is a very unique ability to make someone second guess everything that they thought they knew, but I do think that part of the reason Socrates was able to do that was because he was alive at a time when they didn't know much about the world or life.
2. Socrates also did not believe in writing things down, because it couldn't speak back to him. I personally disagree with this take because I find that writing down my thoughts allows me to see how my mind has grown. That makes me wonder if Socrates was able to spend as much time reflecting on his own thought process as he was debating with others about theirs.
3. One thing that I found really interesting while I was reading was Plato's cave. I had never heard of this and found a lot of the symbolism behind it very interesting. The fire symbolizes the constraints of everyday life, and that the average man only saw what was in front of him, but I also think that given Plato's dislike for the Athenian government that the fire could symbolize only seeing what the government wants you to see. This makes me pose the question of, how much a personal bias can shape our way of thinking even in things not directly related to the subject we are biased against.
1. What made Socrates wise and unusual? Do you think he was wrong about writing? In whose writing does Socrates appear?
ReplyDeleteSocrates, appearing in Plato's writing, was considered wise and unusual because of the sheer amount of questions he would ask. The book says that he would be start a conversation with a military commander, who thought he knew what courage meant, and leave feeling utterly confused. Socrates didn't believe in writing things down because he thought conversations were the gateway to insight. I think Socrates was right, especially because of what you said in class. Two minds are greater than one; they can figure out a lot more together and through conversation than they would be able to alone. However, if philosophers that came after Socrates had his written word then philosophy could have been a lot more advanced. The writing could have been just as useful for the following generations as it would have been to have the meaningful conversations that he had.
2. What was Plato's profoundly un-democratic view of how the state should resemble the mind? Would you want to live in Plato's republic?
Plato wanted society to live in three tiers: philosophers, soldiers, and workers. He believed that this resembled a well balanced mind, with the emotional part balancing out the logical side. In theory, this society sounds perfect, but the book goes into more detail about how Plato would have banned art because it gave false representations of reality. I would not like to live in Plato's republic because of the outlook he had on what altered reality and the belief that those who are "experts" should have control purely because they know more.
3. What was Socrates response to the jury that sentenced him to death? Do you think it was courageous? What would you have said, in his situation?
After the jury sentenced Socrates to death, his response was that he hadn't done anything wrong. Not just that, but he should be rewarded with free meals for life rather than punishing him. I think this response was courageous because he had the ability to talk his way out of it, after all, he was known for being notoriously good with his words. However, he accepted the jury's decision, staying true to his beliefs even when he was faced with death itself. Although I would like to believe I would have made the same decision, I think I would have tried to talk myself out of it if I didn't think I was truly guilty.
Section 002
ReplyDelete1. Socrates was a gadfly of an individual. He was persistent and annoying, constantly trying to question everything around him and encouraging others to do the same. A question deemed simple and easily answered could be deconstructed by him and made into a complex one, a talent not many adults have. I think people like these are important to society. Politicians come to my mind when I think of someone I want to be a philosopher like Socrates. Someone who not only was incredibly active in their community, but made sure to approach things at all angles to consider how every person is and would be affected by some bill they were signing, and someone who communicated their reasoning to a community. A person I can think of who takes on that role would be my friend’s dad from home. He is a district attorney, and incredibly involved in his community while always finding a way to challenge my beliefs with perspectives he doesn’t even necessarily agree on. I have had some frustrating conversations with him, but they challenged me to think more deeply about why I have a certain stance.
What was Plato's profoundly un-democratic view of how the state should resemble the mind…
He believed philosophers should rule, with a second class being soldiers, and then the workers. This is because of the ‘Mind’ needing to be at the center of society, and the ‘spirit’ underneath, while the ‘appetite’ was working at the bottom. It’s an undemocratic system because it gives power to such a small group with no one outside of that group being able to vote or find a way out of their class easily. I would not want to be in Plato’s Republic because it is a recipe for corruption in the highest part of the state. Any time someone can get uncontested power, they generally crave more. Also, I can’t help but think no matter someone’s actual character, if their mentor was an elite, they would become one, and maybe their peers would be too afraid to say anything or stop them.
What did Camus say is the one truly serious philosophical problem? Do you agree?
He said suicide was the only true serious philosophical problem. I sometimes think we can sort philosophers into two bins. The "what the hell am I doing bin" and the "what the hell is going on" bin, those that think about how to live your life and those who think about what the world is. Camus is in the former category. I think with his time period his question makes sense. He was probably struggling with the absence of God and wondering the age old question of what is the point. I do agree with him I think only because it really is the only serious question. If you’ve decided to follow Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, you have changed your life. But, it can always be changed back. If you become a stoic, you’ve changed, but you can change back. However if you are wondering if suicide is where you should go, and have killed yourself there is no way to go back. I think this is where I lie, it’s not the only question that matters, but the only question that is really that serious.
I would like to note as I forgot to in my original post the ‘The "what the hell am I doing bin" and the "what the hell is going on" bin, those that think about how to live your life and those who think about what the world is.’ Idea is from somewhere else. I don’t really remember where I got it from but it’s been lounging in my notes app for a while, and it’s something I like to use to categorize people, similar to the 20th page of the Weiner book. Thanks!
DeleteWhat I had wondered while reading was; Did Plato have a series of bad experiences with non-philosophers to warrant his idea of an ideal society?
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I take Plato to be a headstrong individual. He spoke his thoughts through the mouth of ‘Socrates’, and had harsh opinions on art etc.
I suppose though on the same train of thought that to be a philosopher even now you have to be stubborn to some capacity.
I am curious as to how religion interacted with philosophy during this time period. I know Socrates was accused of creating new gods, but did Socrates himself believe in any god?
While I agree with Camus that suicide is a truly serious problem but I don’t believe it is the only truly serious problem. I think it’s only one of many truly serious problems for example morality being another truly serious problem. Who defines what is moral? How do we know what is moral and immoral?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first chapter of LHP, I’ve started thinking of conversations differently. Socrates believed written word didn’t convey his messages as he couldn’t use it to personalize his messages to each individual. While I agree with this, I think writing is also a very useful tool as it can survive much longer than spoken word. Now we don’t have a first hand count of Socrates thought and must learn if him through what others say, whether it be true or biased.
As for the Cave story, I believe everyone is stuck in a cave and I’m not sure anyone can ever really get out. Some may be further back than others but I don’t believe anyone can get out of the cave as everyone has something more to learn about reality. What defines reality? Is there a true reality or is it dependent on the person?
Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP
3) Socrates was made wise by his unending search for truth through ostensibly simple questions that were, in reality, unfathomably complex. Unlike other philosophers, Socrates did not write a word of his theories and ideas, as he did not believe in capturing those ideas, constraining them to words on a page, as there was no conversation to be had with it. Though this method is unsatisfactory for later philosophers, I believe that it was necessary for his growth and development of ideas; defining what he thought would limit himself, and all who read of him, to a specific, unchanging idea.
5) Plato’s proposed republic placed philosophers as the head of a totalitarian government, with soldiers to defend them, and all workers at the bottom. This proposal would be not only undemocratic, but I believe it would be impossible, as philosophy would evolve much quicker than governmental systems could keep up with. I also believe that philosophy is beautiful because it is not administered and different for every person.
Socrates Express
7) Socrates believed that an unexamined life was not a life worth living, and Weiner proposed two corollaries: one, that an examined life without practical results was not worth living, as there is no reason without results, and two, that an overexamined life is not either, as there is no life. I don’t disagree with Socrates, but I agree with Weiner’s second corollary much more. I find that condemning an unexamined life can actually lead to an overexamined one, as neither truly has meaning if it is not felt.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Socrates saw himself as a gadfly. He was persistent and annoying to the citizens of Athens. He kept asking the questions that people did not understand or have an answer for. I think that when the citizens encountered his questions that they were annoyed by the fact that they did not have an answer. It is important that someone does ask questions that people are uncomfortable with. Some questions need to be asked, and someone has to ask them. Especially when it comes to the government. I feel as though today there are many people who can fill the role of the gadfly.
5. Plato wanted the state to be ruled by the Philosophers. He had three levels with Philosophers on top, then military, and then the workers. He would ban the arts because what they showed was appearance and not reality. He wanted a totalitarian state. I would not want to live in his Republic. I understand his view of wanting the rulers to be those that were "experienced." You cannot be a pilot without knowing how to fly. But his total oppression of the people who he deemed unfit was too much. Everyone should be able to be free and ask questions exactly as Plato and Socrates did. I feel as though the arts would help encourage these sorts of questions.
Weiner
1. "Philosopher" means "love of wisdom." In ancient Athens, philosophy was a way of self-transformation, therapy, and was practical. I think it was a way to look deeper into oneself and identify issues and how to fix them. It seems as it was back then, practical. It is good to see where your shortcomings may be and try to fix them.
I would also like to add about Plato's cave that kind of stuck out to me. I think everyone is in some way stuck in a cave. It is like your worldview. Some people are stuck in their ways and refuse to see outside of it, but for the people who are willing to accept conversation and explore other opinions, they are willing to see outside of the cave. It is like the saying "ignorance is bliss." Is not knowing better then knowing? Some people live in the comfort of their own world and believe it to be freedom.
DeleteRe ""ignorance is bliss." Is not knowing better then knowing?"
DeleteCommonly it is. Ignorance is mostly not bliss because...
"Ignorance is the root cause of all Evil. Since only Knowledge eradicates ignorance, it is our duty and moral obligation to educate ourselves, as well as the masses around us." --- Anonymous
Ignorance of lies and deceptions (=most mainstream news and establishment decrees) is bliss because exposing yourself to that is self-propagandization.
Ignorance of truths is not, or only temporarily or rarely, bliss because it is ultimately self-defeating .... https://johnmichaeldemarco.com/15-reasons-why-ignorance-is-not-bliss
"Ignorance is not protection from consequences. When you know better, you do better—but when you do not know, the consequences still arrive, often compounded. Proactivity matters. Asking questions matters. Research matters. Every choice we make carries outcomes, and those outcomes do not pause simply because we failed to understand them." --- https://archive.is/PLqhb
The FALSE mantra of “ignorance is bliss”, promoted in the latter sense, is a product of a fake sick culture that has indoctrinated its “dumbed down” (therefore TRULY ignorant, therefore easy to control) people with many such manipulative slogans. Eg...
““We’re all in this together” is a tribal maxim. Even there, it’s a con, because the tribal leaders use it to enforce loyalty and submission. ... The unity of compliance.” --- Jon Rappoport, Investigative Journalist
You can find the proof that ignorance is hardly ever bliss (and if so only superficial temporary fake bliss), and how you get to buy into this lie (and other self-defeating lies), in the article “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” ... https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
“If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?” --- John Mitchinson
"If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that vaccinologists, doctors, and the government in general do not have good intentions and never did. The clear intention of everyone concerned was and is to make as much dirty money as possible, letting any amount of collateral damage slide, including a genocide and mass poisoning [with Covid-19 jabs]. The fact [is] that Big Pharma just murdered millions of people, with the full support of government, media, and “science”. With Covid, everyone is part of the fraud, many of them paid off, so no one has any reason to expose it, and big reasons to bury it. Don't believe anything these people tell you, ABOUT ANYTHING. It isn't time for a civil war against your neighbors, it is time for a revolution against these hoaxers and thieves." --- Miles Mathis, American author, in 2025
Speaking of ignorance is evil, how can the masses get out of this whole mess (and create justice, freedom and peace for all)? First, EVERYONE needs to learn, and teach others, what TRUE morality is ---99% of people don't know what it is because (1) it's NOT taught in the official indoctrination system, better know as the "education system," and (2) it's NOT the same as religious morality: https://odysee.com/@woeih:e/Mark-Passio-Government-Is-Slavery:a
Because if you don't know what TRUE morality is you will not stop doing, unwittingly or wittingly, evil things...
"The solution is NOT to create something new (eg, new systems of organization, new technologies, etc). The solution is to STOP being complicit with evil. To STOP doing things that are not moral for a reward. To STOP being complicit with anything the control system tells us we must do." --- Mark Passio, Spiritual Teacher
"As financial access, employment, and administration become conditional on algorithmic systems, freedom does not disappear through overt coercion, but through participation that is scored, filtered, and managed." --- Mark Keenan, Dec 2025 [https://www.globalresearch.ca/ai-operating-system-digital-totalitarianism/5909796]
Section 2
ReplyDelete1.) When it comes to the cave story, I think some humans are sort of "stuck in a cave," not just when it comes to reality and thoughts but when it comes to others. Many people grow up surrounded by specific beliefs that they often learned from their family, whether that be political views, religion, or prejudice. Oftentimes, people who have beliefs like these refuse to see other people's opinions. I see this as those people being stuck in a cave because, instead of going outside of the cave to explore other opinions, they decide to stay inside the cave because they are content with only their own beliefs. I'm not sure if this is a stretch to connect that with the cave metaphor, but I believe it makes sense when you think about how many people think that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs and refuse to even listen to others. Additionally, I do not think we need to conceive ideas of perfection in order to pursue improvement. For example, if someone wants to be a kinder person, that might just mean complementing one person every day. You don't necessarily need to imagine the perfect version of kindness in order to do this, since it's just a small action to make you kinder. I believe that visualizing a goal definitely helps in motivating a person to pursue improvement, but I don't think that goal has to be "perfection."
2.) Camus said that the one serious philosophical problem is suicide. I partially agree and disagree. I think suicide is an awful thing and is definitely a serious problem, but I don't think it's the only serious problem, and I believe there is a lot more to suicide than purely being bad. To elaborate, I myself feel that life is worth living. I enjoy my life, the people in my life, and the things that living allows me to experience. However, I understand that there are certain things that could possibly happen that would make me feel otherwise. For example, if I lost the most important person to me, life would not be worth living. If an apocalypse happened and I was the only person left alive on earth, life would not be worth living. Basically, I think living is worth it, but only if you have something to live for, which is different for everybody. Thinking about it this way, suicide in my opinion does not seem like the only philosophical problem.
3.) For my final comment, I want to reflect on a phrase in the Weiner book rather than answer another question. The phrase that stood out to me was," 'You could be good today. But instead you chose tomorrow,' " on page 12. This stands out to me because many people, including myself, choose to wait and do something tomorrow. Sometimes there are good reasons to wait, but a lot of the time the thing you want to do gets put off so much that you never do it. Time is a precious thing that I would argue most people take advantage of, just because it seems like we have so much time until suddenly we don't. I think this phrase just resonates with me because I often do put off things for tomorrow, which then turns into next week, then next month, and then I either do it multiple months later or I never even get around to it. This phrase makes me realize that I need to start doing things "today" rather than waiting for "tomorrow" to come.
Section #3
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Socrates saw himself as a gadfly, walking up to people and annoying them by asking them questions they didn't know to get them thinking about life and their role in it. The role Socrates took on is highly valuable role in the community because it makes people less complacent, and modern day examples of people such as him are investigative journalists who ask questions and speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, challenging the knowledge we know and waking us up to information we were unaware of existing. Political satirists who poke fun at politics and make others uncomfortable are also another example of people that fill this role, as they challenge our political assumptions and force us to question and re-examine certain logic and habits.
2. Socrates only considered a conversation a success when it left his participants actually questioning how little they knew, realizing that there was so much more to life than just their normal day to day habits. To Socrates, wisdom was the recognition of ignorance, not how much someone knew, so he asked questions that were so perplexing that even he did not know the final answer to them.
3. Because Socrates defined wisdom as not what someone knew, but knowing their own ignorance, he was both wise and unusual, as he claimed to know nothing. He asked questions that were so complex that he didn't even know for himself the answers to them. The Oracle at Delphi even claimed him to be the wisest man in Athens because of this fact. Moreover, Socrates refused to write anything because he felt that writing ruins memory and lacks the interactive nature of day-to-day conversation. While he was wrong about the value of text, written records are vital to preserving progress and knowledge. For example, artistic depictions can prove that an ancient culture practiced religion, but it cannot explain theology. Writing and religious texts can. And not to mention, the only reason his "ideas" survive today is because his student, Plato, made him to be a character in his written dialogues.
1.Socrates saw himself as a pest meandering about proposing various questions with questionable merit. I find the archetype to be immensely important from a purely economic perspective. It is comparative advantage. If there is a heavy influx of these actors, it changes the calculus a tad. At that point we are evaluating the qualia, but even then it is evaluatively maximalizing. The individual claim of the value is epistemologically necessary.
ReplyDelete2. A conversation that left all parties closer to the truth. Wisdom being aware of what you dont know. The framework of the first relies heavily upon truth, which historically has taken multiple definitions. Egoists and hegelians ,primarily, divert. Claims of relativism, dialectically synthesis or even the "uselessness" of truth. Pragmatism is often acquiesced to these views on the merit of tautology; "The truth is what offers the most beneficial framework for our lives, therefore what is the most beneficial is the truth". This claim is false.
4. The allegorical cave is linked to the theory of forms. An issue is have regarding the allegory is that the synthesis is still preferential the experiential. Socrates moves from a fire to the sun which is still empirical. The truth of the matter is that form and perfection dont exist. Humans map their wants hierarchicly. It is not that the perfect want exists, merely one want can exceed all others. We are able to be recursive and then be exponential into what is essentially calculytic regarding limitations. Its recursion, not "rationalistic". Yes, though, individuals should harness their capacities of concept formation and extrapolation to maximize their wants.
Section #3
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. "What made Socrates wise and unusual?..."
While Socrates stood out for a plethora of reasons, the main, and most socially dividing one, was his endless questions. But everybody asks questions at some point or another or in some way, so what truly separated him? Well, It was his willingness and preparation for debating post-"ask" of his given questions. It wasn't that he was asking questions he knew the answer to and was simply testing people, they were more so catalysts of thought and further questioning. Often leaving people in sheer confusion, a symbol that he had succeeded in conversation. This is what made him unusual. There is also just a stream of anti-curiosity-esque social standards that seem to look down upon looking into things further than the surface level: anti-intellectualism. But that is a whole other can of worms.
4. "Do you think all humans are naturally, in some allegorical sense, stuck in a cave?"
Do I believe that we are all stuck in a cave? Probably, yes. Naturally, however? No. While the nature of being human innately means the experience of lacking knowledge especially in terms of where we fit in as a whole in the universe (even what the whole universe looks like outside of us), I find that the social and societal "caves" are much more prevalent. Meaning, the way we perceive life, which within this metaphor is through shadows on a wall, is molded and limited very early on by our community and what we are exposed to. Expressed somewhat in the famous idea of a bird born in a cage believes flying is an illness. We as humans on earth and all of our manmade rules and ideologies, are forced to look at life through those lenses. Some are much more restricting and harmful than others, but are nonetheless myopic. I think that this idea is more applicable to bettering ourselves and our lives than simply the notion that we are trapped as humans in general. Not because it might not be true, but because we can't change anything if it is. But societal borders are open to challenge and change.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Socrates said that "life is only worth living if you think about what you're doing." If everything we do as humans is planned ahead of time, is it really worth? Aren't unknown adventures worth living for?
2. What kind of conversation was a success, for Socrates, and what did he mean by wisdom?
For Socrates, a conversation that resulted in the other person not knowing as much as they thought they did about a subject was a success. It's important to come to the realization that you don't know everything about a subject. In Socrates eyes, wisdom was not simply the amount of knowledge you have about a subject, or how well you know how to perform an act, but understanding that you won't always know the answer to everything.
3. Do you agree that we cannot understand ourselves if we do not understand others?
I do agree with this because part of understanding the person you've become and are still becoming is being aware of the people around you. College can be used as an example. Although everyone in college is an adult, there are still things we learn about ourselves through being around others. We hear the term 'networking' used a lot, and through that we're exposed to other people who may have different insights life.