Attempting to Make Sense of Things?

Honestly, I have struggled more with The Republic than I did with the Iliad, and I thought that was a struggle. Since I am struggling with reading it, I cannot really make sense of everything I am reading. I think I can pick out some themes each book is discussing, but I cannot put any order to my thoughts. This post is merely to put some things out there that ran through my mind whilst reading Book X.

Socrates returns to the seeming versus being argument when he discusses imitation. The imitator (sophist, or poet?) is the one who sees objects as seeming; he takes the truth and interprets it a particular way--the way he sees fit. The philosopher sees objects for what they are in their state of being (nature), so he is seeing their truth, but does not claim to know how or why? Ugh, I'm gonna stop there on this part.

So, for each thing there are three different applications of the thing: use, make, and imitation/painter, carpenter, and god. Okay, got that, but I still fail how to see how we went from imitation to discussing souls, Socrates.

The only part that I registered with any level of understand is the portion of the dialogue located on page 287, 603c: "Then in all this ... arising at the same time." Socrates is talking about battling with oneself when one approaches a decision with the soul to act one way or "ten thousand" other ways. The questions make sense to me and I can relate, but I still don't see how we got here.

I was amazed when Socrates actually makes a valid statement rather than questioning good and bad: "What destroys and corrupts everything is the bad, and what saves and benefits is the good." Then I got lost again when he started discussing the body and soul, the destruction of the body in relation to the soul.

Perhaps class will clear things up tomorrow, but to be frank (though my name is not), I've been a little foggy on most of this with the exception of that which I had already studied in PY-101.

Council, I apologize for this lackluster blog.

Commented Regis's

The Emotional Man

I was reading along and I discovered this quote:

"But when personal sorrow comes to one of us, you are aware that, on the contrary, we pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and bear up, taking this to be the part of a man and what we then praised to be that of a woman."

I was thinking about this quote and realized that it is still so true today. When we see men crying we think that they are clearly weak and cannot handle a situation. Often I don't want to see a man crying. A woman or child crying encourages sympathy but a man crying encourages mockery. It really makes me wonder why? He says all this in conjunction with his want to rid the city of poets and it seems to me any excess emotion. What would a society look like without emotion? Because without the "bad" emotion of sorrow where can the true joy and love come from. If we all walked around always smiling, smiling would be normal and boring not something that brightens our day. We would be living in a boring world with nothing to hope for or laugh about.

I Am Shadow

The good is eternal, and shadows are temporal. So I am just a shadow. Im visible to all, and I try to achieve the good. Socrates said that we must aim for the good, and we will spend our entire lives trying to get there. But will we ever truly reach it? No, we wont, and yes we will. We wont reach it while we are alive, but we can reach it after we die. We can go to heaven, and spend the rest of eternity with the ultimate Good: God.

I am just a shadow, but I will live my entire life trying to be the best man that I can possibly be. I hope to get as close as I can to the good, but I know that I'll never reach it until i die. That won't stop me from trying though. I want to be a good Christian man, an example for others to follow. I want to bring glory to God in everything that I do. Life is the ultimate journey from elusion to perception. We mortals are certainly a deluded bunch. We always think that the universe revovles around us, but we are very wrong. We are only a tiny, insignificant mark on the line of eternity. God is the only thing that matters in this life. That's why I try to honor Him with every single one of my actions, and I try to always give Him the glory for anything that I do. It's all God, not me. I am a shadow, I want to be a loyal servant to God until the day I day. And I want to be a servant to others just like Jesus was. So sure, I'm just a shadow, but I plan on using my existence for the glory of God's eternal kingdom.

I commented on Lucas' last post. It was a good one.

Tapping into Philosophy or Rhetoric?

This blog will be based on ideas derived from class and readings more than body material.

Reading through the dialogue in book 6 on how philosophers can become corrupt, I began to wonder if the power of influence from philosophy or rhetoric would be more powerful -- or better still, if philosophy could be plugged into rhetoric. As Plato has Socrates explain (I'm having a hard time grasping the Plato/Socrates concept, but since Socrates is mentioned as speaking, I'm running with that), the 'strongest' philosopher, which encites a person most apt to ask good questions and meet the criterion previously suggested required for a true philosopher, is the most suseptible to corruption due to their increased ability to manipulate the crowd and embetter themselves by establishing themselves in a position of governance through promises to benefit the people. (long sentence) But could that philosophical mindset be used in rhetoric? Since myths, parabols, etc. are used to explain 'truths' in philosophy through examples, they can also be used to support false claims that might seem appealing to a group of people capable of giving the philosopher power and pleasure. I think we actually covered this idea pretty well in class, though I didn't hear the word 'rhetoric' mentioned; but it is something I'm curious about.

Rhetoric is a discipline used to influence. Philosophy is a means to search for truth. The two combined together, where the latter is used to support falsehoods with convincing claims, could be pretty powerful. And I remember someone mentioned after we read 'Crito' that it seemed as if Socrates might have been using rhetoric to support his claims, although he knew it would lead to his death. Although I don't support that idea, rhetoric was related to Plato/Socrates at one point previously.

Btw, does anyone know when CNN is going to move their crew away from the tree?

P.S. I commented on Regis' later post, 'I Am Shadow.'

My Right As A Citizen

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

-Won't Get Fooled Again, The Who

I did not vote on Election Day, and it does tie into what we've read about in Plato's Republic. Plato recognized that, in Athens, politicians would manipulate people by using their knowledge and twisting it to serve their ideals. They used their secret information to push their goals and pander to the crowd, giving people the false sense that they actually had knowledge. Likewise, crowds of people tend to be superstitious and easily fooled, as they listen and remember the ones who speak the loudest and most ear pleasing. Most people just aren't as deep as thinkers and only want the simplest, most convenient solution that fits with their own beliefs and stereotypes rather than actively seek the truth about their country. This constant ignorance of truth leads to political decay instead of productive change, which, by the way, is always a good word to use when pandering to the crowd.

Naturally, things haven't changed today, as politician's half-truism and American ignorance never truly satisfy the people of this great nation. Which brings me back to the reason why I didn't vote today. First off, I didn't obtain an absentee ballot, but I might've been able to travel back to my hometown in Mississippi before the polls closed. Even if I did, I made the greatest mistake of all in that I failed to do any research on the candidates. As an American citizen it is my responsiblity to know exactly who the candidates are and exactly what they stand for so I can make an informed decision to affect the direction this country should go. For me, simply choosing an candidate based on whether he has a (R) or a (D) or a (whatever) next to his/her name just isn't good enough, because then you're just voting for the party you think you support without knowing exactly who it is you're voting into a position of power. Voting while uninformed is like driving while drunk-if you know you're not in the right state of mind to be doing so, don't be making the decisions.

Socrates was right-people, both in power and not, should constantly seek truth and find the most beneficial way to knowledge. Maybe I'm a little idealistic, but I dare you to tell me I'm wrong on this matter. I'll vote next year when I actually know the score, until then I refuse to help add to the darkness clouding this country's vision. Please feel free to comment.

BTW, I commented on Will's post, Escaping Ignorance.

Escaping Ignorance

I know Plato writes the story as a breaking free into the world and finding knowledge personally, but I really doubt whether someone would even know to try to remove himself/herself from the bindings of the chair. When Dr. Mitchell drew the joke about the escape route from the cave, it interested me greatly. I thought about how there must be a rescuer to bring someone out of the cave, out of ignorance. If we are all in ignorance now, were alway from being born into it, and knew nothing else, how would we know to try to escape or walk away from all we know? That means the first person to escape would have had to be released by some wise, intelligent, supreme being or creator who was never bound. It seems that every reasonable or logical thought can be tied back to God.

I commented on Jessica's "The Ring" post from Thursday, October 28, 2010.

-Will

Learn to Love to Learn

For those who might read this and have not yet started reading for this week, let me encourage you, Books 7 and 10 of The Republic are much easier reads than the other books we have examined! So, take heart. I found much I could blog about in these two books, however, I decided to stick with a more elementary topic- balance in education.

Socrates viewed education much differently than the typical American views education. Often our view of education is attending a school (be it at the elementary, middle, high, or collegiate level), working to, at minimum, pass the classes and meet the minimum requirements so that we can get a degree and get a job. Socrates viewed education as something that must encompass all of life, from youth to adulthood. Socrates did state that "all the great and numerous labors belong to the young." That is, it is wisest and easiest to begin to learn to love to learn at a young age, when your body and mind are more apt to handle the strenuous work. However, education continues into adulthood.

Another point Socrates makes is the balance between physical education and mental, or intellectual, education. Both are important. Here is where we often disagree. In American educational institutions often we characterize people as "nerds" and "jocks." Those are the ones who exercise intellectually and then physically. Socrates says the two should be joined.

The interesting point arises here- as far as physical education and exercise go- you can force yourself to exercise and, even if you don't enjoy it, your body will still benefit. But if you try this same approach with learning, it will fail. "Forced labors performed by the body don't make the body any worse, but no forced study abides in a soul." If you do not love learning, academic pursuits will do you little good, for you will retain little, or nothing. This is not to say that if you do not love a book assigned for class you should simply skip reading it, but instead train yourself to love to learn...









I commented on Tiffany's post.