In The Republic, Glaucon talks about a ring that gives you the power of invisibility. He says that if one had that ring, he would be compelled to act unjustly, knowing there would be no consequences. Personally I believe that this is true. A person would be much more likely to do unjust things if they knew there was no chance of being caught. Also, anyone would want to be a "fly on the wall", able to listen in to what happens when they're not around. Being invisible though, would not justify acting unjustly. Crime is crime and sin is sin whether anyone sees it or not. Justice is still justice no matter what the circumstances.
I commented on Olivia's
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Justice, Justice, Justice, JUSTICE
It's everywhere. It's been the question in almost all the Greek texts... What is justice? I even wrote my paper about it (sadly, I feel was an epic fail). In the earlier Greek texts there seems to be the question of... "Is justice a who or a what?" Is it some being above even the gods (like the fates), or is it just a principality? Plato gives so many opinions on the nature of justice. Before, it kind of seemed like there was no real set rules of what was just and what was not. It seemed as if justice was "in the eyes of the beholder", or whoever was judging the situation. In the Republic, Plato gives some of our first clear cut definitions of what is just and what is not. "Don't give a murderer back his knife? Okay! That makes since!" Kudos, Plato. Furthermore, I wanted to ask YOU, do you agree with all of Plato’s reasoning? Are there some things he says are just that you disagree with? Why?
ps: If you're bored count how many times I used a form of the word "just" in my blog.
pss: If you're REALLY bored count how many times I used it in my paper.
pss: If you’re REALLY REALLY bored count how many times Plato refers to it in the Republic.
psss: If you’re REALLY REALLY REA- just kidding, I commented on Amy's.
ps: If you're bored count how many times I used a form of the word "just" in my blog.
pss: If you're REALLY bored count how many times I used it in my paper.
pss: If you’re REALLY REALLY bored count how many times Plato refers to it in the Republic.
psss: If you’re REALLY REALLY REA- just kidding, I commented on Amy's.
Consequences vs. Rewards
So, ring of gyres states that if it was not for consequences, people would do what they want. This is true, I believe, but what about doing something good just for an award? Do people not do this, or are they just destined to do bad if they could get away with it?
Think of Star Wars, when Han Solo saves princess Leia just for the money. Or a kid doing something just for praise. Or perhaps, leading a good life just to get into heaven? Is it ok to do a good deed just for a reward, or is it not any better than avoiding doing a crime just so you won't get punished? However, how can a thing that causes you to be good be bad? Could we say that as long as the outcome is good, than the deed is good, or is this getting back to the definition of a just man Socrates talk about?
However, I feel as though Socrates forgot the guilt factor. Macbeth, Crime and Punishment, and A Tell-Tale Heart all have similar themes, the perfect crimes that are then thwarted by the criminal feeling so guilty that they confess. Where does this guilt come from, is it a nature human emotion or is it taught to us? As a child, do we naturally feel guilt? Or is it the threat of getting in trouble that guilt is birthed out of?
Sorry that I am mostly questions, I don't feel like I have a definite answer to any of these.
He's a weirdo
Socrates has so many opinions on everything! I think if I knew him personally, he would get on my nerves very easily.
He says that doctors should be trained to treat the healthy, who suffer from a single, curable ailment. They shouldn't be trained to treat the chronically ill. He also says that those suffering from a physical defect should be left to die naturally, and those suffering from an incurable mental illness should be put to death.
REALLY? I know this was a different time than now, but you would think that he would not say stuff like this. Like FrostedMidnight said (or if that's even the name haha) in their blog "My Precious", Socrates would like to think that everyone would look deep within themselves and decide to give up the ring, like a decent human being. So where did this come from Socrates? HUH?? If you're saying that we should let people with a mental disease or a physical defect die then you must be crazy and you're kinda contradicting yourself. Shouldn't we look within ourselves and see that letting these poor lives die because they're sick, is a bad thing? Shouldn't we let them live? And shouldn't doctors try to help them? If doctors were to only help the people with a single, curable ailment, like a cold, then I could be a doctor! MWAHAHA >:}( no i would be a terrible one. everyone would die in my care hehe).
I commented on Jeremy's.
He says that doctors should be trained to treat the healthy, who suffer from a single, curable ailment. They shouldn't be trained to treat the chronically ill. He also says that those suffering from a physical defect should be left to die naturally, and those suffering from an incurable mental illness should be put to death.
REALLY? I know this was a different time than now, but you would think that he would not say stuff like this. Like FrostedMidnight said (or if that's even the name haha) in their blog "My Precious", Socrates would like to think that everyone would look deep within themselves and decide to give up the ring, like a decent human being. So where did this come from Socrates? HUH?? If you're saying that we should let people with a mental disease or a physical defect die then you must be crazy and you're kinda contradicting yourself. Shouldn't we look within ourselves and see that letting these poor lives die because they're sick, is a bad thing? Shouldn't we let them live? And shouldn't doctors try to help them? If doctors were to only help the people with a single, curable ailment, like a cold, then I could be a doctor! MWAHAHA >:}( no i would be a terrible one. everyone would die in my care hehe).
I commented on Jeremy's.
All Jumbled up and Crazy
To be honest I am really trying to understand philosophy. I wish now that I had taken the Intro to philosophy class that everyone else apparently has. As I read this text I continue to get lost in the arguments...But one thing I was reading last night in Book 3 was kind of interesting in a twisted way.
Socrates is talking about the relationships between an older man and younger man similar to a mentorship except not at all like the mentoring at my church. As we were talking about in class the other day about your parents influencing your believes similarly it sounds like these older men influence the young boys ideas. This is interesting to me especially in light of the idea of searching for some deeper truth. It makes me wonder if one needs to go on a journey for truth alone or with company. And if its okay to have an older mentor person influence your perception of truth. Hopefully, a well rounded individual would take the advice and opinions of all the people around one's self and think about all the sides before deciding on their own opinions and thoughts, which also might require having a standard for their own ideas of truth....
It really just seems to me like this truth stuff takes a whole lot of effort.
PS I commented on Amy's blog.
Old Traditions
I struggled with this before, and i cant say im done struggling with it. After living under your parents house, having your parents rules, and also having your parents beliefs, you begin to fit the mold of what you were brought up in. Well, as most do, there comes a time when you have to leave your parents and stand on your own. Once you are out though, you begin to wonder and question everything that you were taught to believe. Is it true or is there a different way of looking at an issue. I think the tradition of those before us, our parents, our teachers and/or our elders, become our own because thats all we have ever known. But we are supposed to find these things out for ourselves, right? Tradition can be a good thing because when we believed them for so long, we begin to acquire a knowledge about what we believe, but when we are faced with those who, like Socrates, question our beliefs, we begin to falter because we dont have a good knowledge about it.
I think it is very important to have a very good basis and understanding about what we believe. If we believe it just because our parents did, then we dont have a good knowledge or understanding about it. And that is very crucial to us as humans.
p.s I commented on Kelsey's post.
I think it is very important to have a very good basis and understanding about what we believe. If we believe it just because our parents did, then we dont have a good knowledge or understanding about it. And that is very crucial to us as humans.
p.s I commented on Kelsey's post.
Socrates' Hero
We all have our own definition of hero and Socrates is no different than the rest of us. He tells that the true here must never fear death. If we don't fear death then what fear do we have? Without a fear what would drive? What would move the passion as people of the Baroque Era would say? I like what Socrates tries to teach but some of his points don't make any sense. To me a fear of death would be what would drive the hero to fight to continue on. For according to the Greeks, after this life everyone goes to Hades and most people are forgotten, so the only way to live on for eternity in the eyes of the people would be to receive enough glory throughout life and one who does not fear death does not care about glory therefor will not be remembered. The hero must also not be portrayed as preferring slavery to death. This I agree with. No true hero would be willing to be of a slave of another country or group of people over death. Heroes must also never so emotion or cry for a famous person who dies. I don't know about you but if my brother just died in battle I would be showing emotion for him. It may be a mother or father and Socrates is telling us that we can't weep over them? That is crazy to even think of.
I commented on Kelsey's post
Knowledge and Experience
Often we are told that you cannot truly understand something unless you have lived it. You cannot look a struggling, former POW in the eyes and tell him you know how he feels if you have never even been in the military, much less in war. The place we most often apply this principle is grief. The phrases "I know" and "I understand" from people who have never come close to knowing or understanding are among the most frustrating a grieving person can hear. We apply this idea to many areas of life, but Plato points out one area where this idea is not the best standard to use: judging justice.
"That, you see, is why," I said, "the good judge must not be young but old, a late learner of what injustice is; he must not have become aware of it as kindred, dwelling in his soul. Rather, having studied it as something alien in alien souls, over a long time, he has come thoroughly aware of how it is naturally bad, having made use of knowledge, not his own personal experience."
Plato remarks that it is far better for a man to have studied injustice his whole life and gain his knowledge about it in that way than it is to personally commit an injustice and therefore know by experience. Injustice is said to be something "dwelling in his own soul." Surely some care must be given to what is allowed to dwell in our souls. In the same way that we do not want to know injustice by the experience of having committed it, we would also rather study injustice than have injustice enacted upon us.
Therefore fellow Honors students, in the case of justice and injustice, let your knowledge of injustice be from your study of Plato, not your own personal experience...
I commented on Jeremy's post.
"That, you see, is why," I said, "the good judge must not be young but old, a late learner of what injustice is; he must not have become aware of it as kindred, dwelling in his soul. Rather, having studied it as something alien in alien souls, over a long time, he has come thoroughly aware of how it is naturally bad, having made use of knowledge, not his own personal experience."
Plato remarks that it is far better for a man to have studied injustice his whole life and gain his knowledge about it in that way than it is to personally commit an injustice and therefore know by experience. Injustice is said to be something "dwelling in his own soul." Surely some care must be given to what is allowed to dwell in our souls. In the same way that we do not want to know injustice by the experience of having committed it, we would also rather study injustice than have injustice enacted upon us.
Therefore fellow Honors students, in the case of justice and injustice, let your knowledge of injustice be from your study of Plato, not your own personal experience...
I commented on Jeremy's post.
Growing Pains
In class we brought up the subject of keeping with traditions-the question of continuing to be governed by the traditions of our family and culture. This was to challenge what the thinkers stood for and believed to make them think about why they held that opinion.
I think this applies to us especially being in college. We (most of us) aren't still living in our parent's house. Even if we are, we are making most of our own decisions. We have to start asking these questions of the things we believe. Are we believing things simply because that's what our parents or surroundings taught us? If so, how well will those beliefs stand when we're not living under the same conditions? By tearing down the things we believe, we can build them back up based on out own convictions and foundations. This is something I would encourage all of us to do. Challenge your faith so that in the end you will only be left with absolute truth. It might be hard, but in the end, we will all be better for it.
I think this applies to us especially being in college. We (most of us) aren't still living in our parent's house. Even if we are, we are making most of our own decisions. We have to start asking these questions of the things we believe. Are we believing things simply because that's what our parents or surroundings taught us? If so, how well will those beliefs stand when we're not living under the same conditions? By tearing down the things we believe, we can build them back up based on out own convictions and foundations. This is something I would encourage all of us to do. Challenge your faith so that in the end you will only be left with absolute truth. It might be hard, but in the end, we will all be better for it.
It's almost that time of year again...
So, my fellow Honors students. In but 8 days, it will be a day, that to most people, isn't so significant. But if you have ever stood for something, an idea, a belief, it should mean alot to you. in but 8 days it will be November the 5th. And, so I figure that it is time to bring in my annual V for Vendetta reference. And yes. It applied to Plato.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".....artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up"
This line was delivered by Evey in the movie V for Vendetta. I think it illustrates the content of book 3 of The republic.
They talk about the stories, and what the stories try to accomplish.
When you write a story, you have something to say(unless you're writing stupid teenage vampire/werewolf/lovetriangle stories)(That was for you, Brandon). You use stories to make a point. Plato speaks about the stories that the Greek culture was built about, and what they really mean, and if they should be changed. For instance, he talks about how Hades should not be made out to be a bad place, so that men do not fear death. Plato very clearly shows that he understands the power of a story. A symbol. A symbol that represents and Idea.....and Ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bullet proof.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".....artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up"
This line was delivered by Evey in the movie V for Vendetta. I think it illustrates the content of book 3 of The republic.
They talk about the stories, and what the stories try to accomplish.
When you write a story, you have something to say(unless you're writing stupid teenage vampire/werewolf/lovetriangle stories)(That was for you, Brandon). You use stories to make a point. Plato speaks about the stories that the Greek culture was built about, and what they really mean, and if they should be changed. For instance, he talks about how Hades should not be made out to be a bad place, so that men do not fear death. Plato very clearly shows that he understands the power of a story. A symbol. A symbol that represents and Idea.....and Ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bullet proof.
Love and knowledge?
At first glance you might assume that the words 'love' and 'knowledge' have absolutely nothing to do with each other. True, they come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Love is fueled by passion, while knowledge is fueled by reason. When the two things come together, though, we see explosive results.
In book 3 Socrates talks about the relationship between the student and the teacher. If there is a loving relationship between the two, the education benefits greatly. I personally believe this is why Honors English is so effective. The teachers love us and want us to do well in the class. They don't just give a lecture and leave the classroom. They take time to befriend us, answer any and all questions we may have, and go to whatever lengths necessary to make sure we grasp the concepts. Love is also present in all of the students as well. We all love the pursuit of knowledge, and we love other people who are on the same quest. This is why knowledge permeates the Honors environment, because love is present around every corner.
Socrates also talks about physical and poetic training for the student. If the student has too much physical training, he will become dehumanized and savage. Adversely if the student has too much poetic training he will become soft and weak. Even though we don't focus much on the physical aspect of things in Honors, I believe some of this balance can be seen in our group. If we look at the Honors class as a whole, we have a wide array of students coming from different educational backgrounds. Poets, artists, musicians, scientists, athletes, nurses, theologians and psychologists can all be found in our class. If we were all poets, the discussions would all be very passionate, but easily distracted. If we were all scientists, the discussions wouldn't deviate much outside of the boundaries of the arguments in the text. Since we're all diverse, we can come together to create one ultra-mega-awesome-super-nuclear-student that is well versed in almost every subject. We can explore the 'what ifs' of the text without losing sight of where we're headed, and if we get confronted with a subject that one of us doesn't understand, someone else is bound to.
So, what did we learn this week? You can hyphenate as many words together as you feel necessary and get away with it? Socrates may have really been on to something with this whole love and knowledge thing? Ben really likes kissing up to the Honors Council by talking about how much he loves honors? All good answers. Tune in next week for another exciting episode of "Blogger"! We will now return you to your regularly programmed screening of 'The View'.
P.s. I commented on Lucas' blog "Insertreallylongandunnecessarytitlehere"
In book 3 Socrates talks about the relationship between the student and the teacher. If there is a loving relationship between the two, the education benefits greatly. I personally believe this is why Honors English is so effective. The teachers love us and want us to do well in the class. They don't just give a lecture and leave the classroom. They take time to befriend us, answer any and all questions we may have, and go to whatever lengths necessary to make sure we grasp the concepts. Love is also present in all of the students as well. We all love the pursuit of knowledge, and we love other people who are on the same quest. This is why knowledge permeates the Honors environment, because love is present around every corner.
Socrates also talks about physical and poetic training for the student. If the student has too much physical training, he will become dehumanized and savage. Adversely if the student has too much poetic training he will become soft and weak. Even though we don't focus much on the physical aspect of things in Honors, I believe some of this balance can be seen in our group. If we look at the Honors class as a whole, we have a wide array of students coming from different educational backgrounds. Poets, artists, musicians, scientists, athletes, nurses, theologians and psychologists can all be found in our class. If we were all poets, the discussions would all be very passionate, but easily distracted. If we were all scientists, the discussions wouldn't deviate much outside of the boundaries of the arguments in the text. Since we're all diverse, we can come together to create one ultra-mega-awesome-super-nuclear-student that is well versed in almost every subject. We can explore the 'what ifs' of the text without losing sight of where we're headed, and if we get confronted with a subject that one of us doesn't understand, someone else is bound to.
So, what did we learn this week? You can hyphenate as many words together as you feel necessary and get away with it? Socrates may have really been on to something with this whole love and knowledge thing? Ben really likes kissing up to the Honors Council by talking about how much he loves honors? All good answers. Tune in next week for another exciting episode of "Blogger"! We will now return you to your regularly programmed screening of 'The View'.
P.s. I commented on Lucas' blog "Insertreallylongandunnecessarytitlehere"
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
it's the little things....
I'm not so sure that I agree with Socrates concerning lower pleasures, or physical pleasures. To be quite honest, I have some of my most inspiring thoughts whilst sipping on my hot chocolate or chewing on sunflower seeds. Can't one argue that the whole lower pleasure/higher pleasure deal works like a ladder? I use lower pleasures to help me reach higher pleasures as I hate to overexert myself, haha. But in all seriousness, I think that lower pleasures can be quite beneficial, if used appropriately. A scalp massage encourages blood flow to the brain, thus helping the thought process, yet it's a physical pleasure. This can possibly be a general rule, but by no means absolute, in my opinion. Lower pleasures are great, in moderation, of course, and can help with inspiration and just general thinking. How many times have philosophers derived the most ground breaking analogies from lower pleasures or simple items that are seemingly unedifying to us?
p.s. I commented on Alanamills' post.
p.s. I commented on Alanamills' post.
Questioning
It’s interesting to me that Socrates mentioned “the natives” as if he was not one. As Dr. Mitchell mentioned in class, the statement made him seem less than patriotic? Now, let’s think. Don’t we frown upon people like Socrates in our society? We see people who question our standards, and systems and rituals and think of them as, “one of them,” or “weird.” The question we should pose, however is, what can questioning do to harm or hurt us? Is it wrong to question? Are those who question actually the foolish ones, like society labels them? Should we look down on people because they question our opinions, even our strong opinions? Admitting that those who question, may be right, and I may be wrong is strange to me. Aren’t they the rebellious ones? Aren’t we supposed to do as we were taught? This is an uncomfortable subject for me, after all I’m a UM student.
Another thing I noticed was how Justice is somehow tied to questioning. I’m not talking about questioning in the court. As we see in Plato, questioning can affect our perception of Justice. For example, some would argue that questioning produces great good. Socrates questioned, and by his questioning formed a system of government that America largely reflects. This is just one example. However, some would say that sometimes questioning leads to great evil. Motives are formed, doors are opened, and bad things happen when weak perceptions of things like Justice take control of a body of people. One can think of the French Revolution as an example. They argue that men who questioned brought great evil into the world. They created, in a sense, machines of injustice, by their ideas. Having said all I have said, how do we reconcile this in our minds and conscience? I’m not sure. Justice is tied to questioning, and vice-versa. Questioning may change our perception of Justice (as we see in Plato’s Republic). Questioning can change policy in Justice. Questioning can literally affect systems of government and Justice, or even all three. We see this mirrored in history, literature and today in our America. This is something to think about. It’s something to question. Maybe questions are more important than we thought?
P.S. I commented on Rachel's post
Another thing I noticed was how Justice is somehow tied to questioning. I’m not talking about questioning in the court. As we see in Plato, questioning can affect our perception of Justice. For example, some would argue that questioning produces great good. Socrates questioned, and by his questioning formed a system of government that America largely reflects. This is just one example. However, some would say that sometimes questioning leads to great evil. Motives are formed, doors are opened, and bad things happen when weak perceptions of things like Justice take control of a body of people. One can think of the French Revolution as an example. They argue that men who questioned brought great evil into the world. They created, in a sense, machines of injustice, by their ideas. Having said all I have said, how do we reconcile this in our minds and conscience? I’m not sure. Justice is tied to questioning, and vice-versa. Questioning may change our perception of Justice (as we see in Plato’s Republic). Questioning can change policy in Justice. Questioning can literally affect systems of government and Justice, or even all three. We see this mirrored in history, literature and today in our America. This is something to think about. It’s something to question. Maybe questions are more important than we thought?
P.S. I commented on Rachel's post
My Definition on Justice.
Hello,
Okay, in The Republic, it's mentioned that Justice is "To help your friends and hurt your enemies." Now, I do agree with the last bit. But, hey, maybe it's because I was raised with superhero comics and I spent most of my younger years with my nose in between pages(by the way, I LOVE the smell of book pages, so that might also be a factor), so I was raised with the belief that the wicked and the unjust should be punished, and I am also a HUGE believer in Karma. Do harm unto me and harm will come back to you, maybe not now, but it will...
But, that's nothing new. We all believe this to an extent. However, I do disagree with the first part. Don't get me wrong, I believe you should help your friends. Heck, I'd gladly give up my life for some of my closest friends. But, I believe that justice is to help EVERYONE who is in need. I know, I know, it's impossible to help everyone in the world all at once and in a single lifetime(as much as that REALLY sucks), but I am a big believer in RAKs(Random Acts of Kindness), so to me, justice is holding the door for people or beating the absolute tar out of some mugger on the street or just sticking up for someone who's being bullied.
I personally remember this one time where I had my head busted wide-open by some kid with a 2x4 because I was protecting a bunch of other kids he was threatening. This was in the fifth grade, I swear it's true. To me, THAT'S justice, even though I had NO idea who the people I was protecting were.
Now, I could be mistaken in that when it said "friends", it was probably referring to everyone who ISN'T an enemy. In that case...I'm probably just stating the obvious, huh?
---I commented on Willjustice's My Middle Name Post.
Okay, in The Republic, it's mentioned that Justice is "To help your friends and hurt your enemies." Now, I do agree with the last bit. But, hey, maybe it's because I was raised with superhero comics and I spent most of my younger years with my nose in between pages(by the way, I LOVE the smell of book pages, so that might also be a factor), so I was raised with the belief that the wicked and the unjust should be punished, and I am also a HUGE believer in Karma. Do harm unto me and harm will come back to you, maybe not now, but it will...
But, that's nothing new. We all believe this to an extent. However, I do disagree with the first part. Don't get me wrong, I believe you should help your friends. Heck, I'd gladly give up my life for some of my closest friends. But, I believe that justice is to help EVERYONE who is in need. I know, I know, it's impossible to help everyone in the world all at once and in a single lifetime(as much as that REALLY sucks), but I am a big believer in RAKs(Random Acts of Kindness), so to me, justice is holding the door for people or beating the absolute tar out of some mugger on the street or just sticking up for someone who's being bullied.
I personally remember this one time where I had my head busted wide-open by some kid with a 2x4 because I was protecting a bunch of other kids he was threatening. This was in the fifth grade, I swear it's true. To me, THAT'S justice, even though I had NO idea who the people I was protecting were.
Now, I could be mistaken in that when it said "friends", it was probably referring to everyone who ISN'T an enemy. In that case...I'm probably just stating the obvious, huh?
---I commented on Willjustice's My Middle Name Post.
What's the point?
As I have been reading The Republic, there are a few things that I have to keep reminding myself of...
1. In Books 2 & 3 Socrates is no longer arguing a point, but rather he is trying to "persuade Glaucon (and friends) truly" (Pg. 35)
2. Socrates' goal is to reach truth, and to encourage others to seek this truth
3. Socrates and friends are creating this city "in speech" as a broader way to examine the just and unjust in a person ("If we should watch a city come into being in speech... would we also see its justice come into being and its injustice?") (pg. 45)
And then they create a city based on their (aka. Socrates') idea of what a city should be. He sets the criteria that each person should devote themselves only to one thing (reversing this verdict later), determines what the poets can write, how the gods should be portrayed, states that "no one will possess any private property except for what's entirely nessecary" In Socrates' description of the city, he effectively creates one in which every little detail is designed with the best intention for the state.
But the question that I keep coming up with is, To what extent do the critera set for this city reflect the true opinions of Socrates? Or, are they just ideas from the point of view of a leader who wants the best for his state? Also, if the point of this allegory is to find the origin of justice and injustice in the city (as I earlier stated), then do the details of the city, as to it's particular view of the gods, etc. really matter in the long run - after all, isn't Socrates trying to learn the true nature of justice and injustice so that he may apply them universally - across cultures? Or maybe this rises a new question. To what extent can justice be applied universally? If the truth is rooted in the nature of how the city runs, then does the same truth apply in a different city that runs in a different way? Is the truth of Justice different for every person? Can one true justice exist among humans?
I commented on Olivias
1. In Books 2 & 3 Socrates is no longer arguing a point, but rather he is trying to "persuade Glaucon (and friends) truly" (Pg. 35)
2. Socrates' goal is to reach truth, and to encourage others to seek this truth
3. Socrates and friends are creating this city "in speech" as a broader way to examine the just and unjust in a person ("If we should watch a city come into being in speech... would we also see its justice come into being and its injustice?") (pg. 45)
And then they create a city based on their (aka. Socrates') idea of what a city should be. He sets the criteria that each person should devote themselves only to one thing (reversing this verdict later), determines what the poets can write, how the gods should be portrayed, states that "no one will possess any private property except for what's entirely nessecary" In Socrates' description of the city, he effectively creates one in which every little detail is designed with the best intention for the state.
But the question that I keep coming up with is, To what extent do the critera set for this city reflect the true opinions of Socrates? Or, are they just ideas from the point of view of a leader who wants the best for his state? Also, if the point of this allegory is to find the origin of justice and injustice in the city (as I earlier stated), then do the details of the city, as to it's particular view of the gods, etc. really matter in the long run - after all, isn't Socrates trying to learn the true nature of justice and injustice so that he may apply them universally - across cultures? Or maybe this rises a new question. To what extent can justice be applied universally? If the truth is rooted in the nature of how the city runs, then does the same truth apply in a different city that runs in a different way? Is the truth of Justice different for every person? Can one true justice exist among humans?
I commented on Olivias
Body and Soul
We as humans are composed of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. I will focus this discussion on the first two.
First, the body. What is our body? That seems like an odd question, but it's still a good one. To define body, it is the physical part of ourselves that we and others can see, and we can manipulate it to do as we please, its essentially a puppet. At least that's how I see it sometimes. We manipulate our flesh, and bend it to our will, but we do have limits, and consequences for disobeying those limits. (i.e. pain and death) The body isn't immortal, in fact, from the moment that we are concieved, we start dying, just at a slow pace, for we must grow first before we can whither away. What is the focus of our bodies? Well, regrettably they have needs, like hungry, thirst, and rest. It would be easier if this were not so, but life would be less pleasurable. Which brings me to a good point, we as humans often seek pleasure. (Freud's Pleasure Principle, for those that survived last semester) We humans desire to do things that result in pleasure like, drinking, eating, and sex. These three Socrates mentions specifically in The Republic. We love to drink alcohol, it is an escape from our reality, and it makes us feel good. We also love to eat, and sometimes we tend to overindulge ourselves, which is not a good thing. (I'll admit though, I do really love food, because it tastes so good.) And the last thing mentioned is sex. Yes, the sacred act that God created specifically for marrige, and it deeply saddens me to say that people rarely obey this rule. (I believe that God created it for a reason, so I have, and will obey this rule) So, our bodies tend to lead us to seeking pleasure in life, which is great, but that's not what life is all about. Well, what else is there?
To answer that question, we will discuss the soul. What is the soul? The soul is the unseeable, untouchable part of our body that does not fade away, it is immortal. You can choose where it goes when your body fades, but that is another discussion entirely. It is inside of us, and it is the reason why we exist. Our soul is the puppet master, whhich controls the body, the puppet. I just like that analogy. Our soul is the part of ourselves that remains after the body fades away. What does the soul contribute towards life? Well, religion is a huge part, but it also makes us humans, and not just machines. We help other humans because we know in our heart and soul that it is a good thing. Our soul helps us to focus on the good and profitable. What kind of profit? Not in the business sense, but in the eternal sense, as in life after death. That's where religion comes in. Religion is a mode of existence for us that helps us secure where our soul will go. I'm a Christiian, so I believe in the one true God, but not everyone does. I've accepted Jesus as my savior, and I truly believe that I'm going to heaven one day, hopefully in the far, far, FAR off future. Other religions exist too, but one thing in common with all religions is that at some point your soul is discussed among them. That's how the soul affects us, it helps us to focus on the eternal and not the temporal.
So, as humans we need to achieve a balance between body and soul. We need to have some pleasure in our lives, but not make that the main focus of our lives. (Or Freud would win in the end.) And we need to think about our immortal souls too. We need to think about where it is going, and we need to focus on the good of life.
I commented on Lucas' 'Bite Me' post.
First, the body. What is our body? That seems like an odd question, but it's still a good one. To define body, it is the physical part of ourselves that we and others can see, and we can manipulate it to do as we please, its essentially a puppet. At least that's how I see it sometimes. We manipulate our flesh, and bend it to our will, but we do have limits, and consequences for disobeying those limits. (i.e. pain and death) The body isn't immortal, in fact, from the moment that we are concieved, we start dying, just at a slow pace, for we must grow first before we can whither away. What is the focus of our bodies? Well, regrettably they have needs, like hungry, thirst, and rest. It would be easier if this were not so, but life would be less pleasurable. Which brings me to a good point, we as humans often seek pleasure. (Freud's Pleasure Principle, for those that survived last semester) We humans desire to do things that result in pleasure like, drinking, eating, and sex. These three Socrates mentions specifically in The Republic. We love to drink alcohol, it is an escape from our reality, and it makes us feel good. We also love to eat, and sometimes we tend to overindulge ourselves, which is not a good thing. (I'll admit though, I do really love food, because it tastes so good.) And the last thing mentioned is sex. Yes, the sacred act that God created specifically for marrige, and it deeply saddens me to say that people rarely obey this rule. (I believe that God created it for a reason, so I have, and will obey this rule) So, our bodies tend to lead us to seeking pleasure in life, which is great, but that's not what life is all about. Well, what else is there?
To answer that question, we will discuss the soul. What is the soul? The soul is the unseeable, untouchable part of our body that does not fade away, it is immortal. You can choose where it goes when your body fades, but that is another discussion entirely. It is inside of us, and it is the reason why we exist. Our soul is the puppet master, whhich controls the body, the puppet. I just like that analogy. Our soul is the part of ourselves that remains after the body fades away. What does the soul contribute towards life? Well, religion is a huge part, but it also makes us humans, and not just machines. We help other humans because we know in our heart and soul that it is a good thing. Our soul helps us to focus on the good and profitable. What kind of profit? Not in the business sense, but in the eternal sense, as in life after death. That's where religion comes in. Religion is a mode of existence for us that helps us secure where our soul will go. I'm a Christiian, so I believe in the one true God, but not everyone does. I've accepted Jesus as my savior, and I truly believe that I'm going to heaven one day, hopefully in the far, far, FAR off future. Other religions exist too, but one thing in common with all religions is that at some point your soul is discussed among them. That's how the soul affects us, it helps us to focus on the eternal and not the temporal.
So, as humans we need to achieve a balance between body and soul. We need to have some pleasure in our lives, but not make that the main focus of our lives. (Or Freud would win in the end.) And we need to think about our immortal souls too. We need to think about where it is going, and we need to focus on the good of life.
I commented on Lucas' 'Bite Me' post.
My Precious
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses."-Gollum, The Lord of The Rings:The Two Towers
When speaking of the Ring of Gyges, I felt that a Lord of the Rings quote was most appropriate, because in the end the Lord of the Rings can be seen to represent both sides of the argument in the second book of the Republic. If confronted with a ring that would make us invisible with no fear of reprisal, would we become immoral and deranged like Gollum, or would we do the honorable thing and destroy the ring?And in the end, what good could come from invisibility?
This question really bothered me in the end, because I honestly couldn't decide what I would do. I mean, invisibility sounds like allot of fun! But after thinking about it...why would you want to be invisible? There seems to be little good in this situation that doesn't come at the expense of others. After all, if it is something you feel you shouldn't be seen doing, is it something you should be doing at all?
Socrates, and our own conscience, would tell us most decidedly no. It would harm our souls, and we should feel something inherent within us telling us that what we are doing is wrong. The answer is so simple on paper, but it seems much harder in reality. Would it be like in the Lord of the Rings, with the ring of Gyges holding a certain power, bewitching those that held it, or would we be able to lean towards Socrates's counter argument, and be able to resist the temptation of the ring because it would harm our psuche, our souls?
In the end, this is a question that is up to the reader to answer for themselves. Is the ring of Gyges "precious", or is it a soul damaging artifact to be tossed into mount Doom?
P.S. (Yes, I know I am a dork.)
P.P.S. I commented on Treya's blog The Philosopher that must not be named.
When speaking of the Ring of Gyges, I felt that a Lord of the Rings quote was most appropriate, because in the end the Lord of the Rings can be seen to represent both sides of the argument in the second book of the Republic. If confronted with a ring that would make us invisible with no fear of reprisal, would we become immoral and deranged like Gollum, or would we do the honorable thing and destroy the ring?And in the end, what good could come from invisibility?
This question really bothered me in the end, because I honestly couldn't decide what I would do. I mean, invisibility sounds like allot of fun! But after thinking about it...why would you want to be invisible? There seems to be little good in this situation that doesn't come at the expense of others. After all, if it is something you feel you shouldn't be seen doing, is it something you should be doing at all?
Socrates, and our own conscience, would tell us most decidedly no. It would harm our souls, and we should feel something inherent within us telling us that what we are doing is wrong. The answer is so simple on paper, but it seems much harder in reality. Would it be like in the Lord of the Rings, with the ring of Gyges holding a certain power, bewitching those that held it, or would we be able to lean towards Socrates's counter argument, and be able to resist the temptation of the ring because it would harm our psuche, our souls?
In the end, this is a question that is up to the reader to answer for themselves. Is the ring of Gyges "precious", or is it a soul damaging artifact to be tossed into mount Doom?
P.S. (Yes, I know I am a dork.)
P.P.S. I commented on Treya's blog The Philosopher that must not be named.
ENJOYMENT
I am a sucker for what makes me happy. I love to enjoy myself; I can honestly say I hate when I'm miserable and doing something I don't want to do. (I know I'm not good at hiding that either, sorry.) But who else likes to do what they want and likes doing what they find joy in? Who can really stand up and say they like getting their wisdom teeth cut out? Or they like sitting in Dr. Steedley's elementary algebra class going over the stuff they learned seven years ago? I'm just saying.
In The Republic Socrates talks about the three types of enjoyment. The first was where you would do something you liked to do but would reap no benefit. The second was doing something that you enjoyed with a product of something, you would actually gain from it. The third was doing something you don't really want to do, but would still benefit from in the end.
I am ready to start a club for the second one, amen? I think we would meet every day of the week (I know, I would be a very demanding President) and do whatever pleased our socks off, to get something in return! The first one we might could squeeze in a couple nights a week, but I don't see the point. And the last one, I'm not really a fan of it at all. I don't think it's an "enjoyment", anyways. For me, no matter how much money I can make at a job, if I don't have fun doing it, it's not worth it. It should be the two types of enjoyment instead of three. Socrates could have saved his breath on that one.
I commented on FrostedMidnight's post.
Whoever that is.
The Philosophical ‘Bite Me’ to Information vs. Knowledge (Or, A Long Title to a Short Blog)
I had the pleasure of reading Plato’s ‘Apologia’ during my Intro to Philosophy class with Dr. Mashburn last semester. And truly, it was a pleasure to read such material. Socrates’ approach to information-gathering is as close to objective as we will probably ever know. It’s quite possible that his approach was completely objective, but the idea that “objectivity is impossible to achieve” has been grounded and proven so strongly for so long that for most, this notion would be laughable – even when reviewing material that includes a conversation with Socrates. Nonetheless, it is evident that Socrates likes to question. What I’m curious about is if his questioning actually attains him knowledge. I wonder if he remembers the details of conversations he has had with others in the past. In-line with that and on another notion, I then wonder, since he remembers information shared during a conversation initially, if he keeps or disposes of that information when proven wrong/inaccurate/incomplete due to the fact that it is not ‘knowledge’
I’m looking forward to the rest of the read. Hopefully questions like will be answerable provided there are times when Socrates has to reflect on a past argument.
Now I just wonder what the question mark count would be in Plato’s ‘The Republic’. I’m awfully curious, as well as disturbed, by the thought.
P.S. I commented on Rebekah's post 'Is it all about Justice?'
I’m looking forward to the rest of the read. Hopefully questions like will be answerable provided there are times when Socrates has to reflect on a past argument.
Now I just wonder what the question mark count would be in Plato’s ‘The Republic’. I’m awfully curious, as well as disturbed, by the thought.
P.S. I commented on Rebekah's post 'Is it all about Justice?'
Is it all about Justice?
Reading the Republic of Plato has been, by far, the hardest thing for me this year. Not only is it confusing, but I have not really been able to connect with it like I’ve connected with the other works of literature that we have read. As I read book one a few days ago, one of the things that I noticed was that I could not really follow their arguments very well. They seemed to be going in circles. Honestly, they didn’t make much sense. Here is what I wonder: are they really debating about justice? Did Plato really write this to argue about the definition of justice? Although I am not sure what it is yet, I believe that there is a deeper argument and cause to this. It might not all really be about justice.
I commented on Tiffany Tindall's blog "Socratic Wisdom"
I commented on Tiffany Tindall's blog "Socratic Wisdom"
Polemarchusian Wisdom
"When he who hears does not know what he who speaks means,
and when he who speaks does not know what he himself means,
that is philosophy."
-Voltaire
It seems like every one has a philosophy in their lives that, they claim, defines and/or justifies the way they live their lives. Really, though, no personal philosophy can really be original, because apparently everything goes back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the "holy trinity" of philosophy. One such person in Republic with a radical philosophy was Polemarchus, son of Cephalus. His dad had just gotten shot down by Socrates, so he entered his beliefs on the definition of justice, which was do good to your friends and do harm to your enemies. Socrates, of course, destroys this philosophy by making him remember that our idea of friends and enemies can be very skewed, but let's take a further analysis of Polemarchus' way of thinking.
To build off of what Socrates said, it has long been my understanding that simply defining good people as "friends" and bad people as "enemies" leaves much to be desired. A fine, upstanding member of society like myself could easily identify what Polemarchus defines as good and evil by observing my personal friends and foes. However, those with decidedly amoral behavior or those that are straight up evil would have much more skewed perceptions, because an morally gray person may find friends in a gangster just as easily as he would a cop, and a wicked man would be against those that pursue justice and righteousness. So therefore, to hold everyone in society in all spectrums of morality to the same standard is destined to fail.
Also, did anyone notice that Polemarchus' logic is pretty much a bastardization of the Golden Rule? The Golden Rule states to do unto others as they would do unto you, which is meant to uphold a very high moral standard. The concept of thwarting your enemies instead of loving them is much more vengeful and spiteful. Of course, because it reflects Christian values the Golden Rule was not invented until much, much later in history it is still a noble way of life and a way of promoting social progress, unlike the Polemarchusian rule which does not promote a massive standard of justice but a personal one.
So, in conclusion, Polemarchus was way off. Better go back to the drawing board and keep asking questions. Please feel free to comment. BTW, I commented on Treya's post, "The Philosopher who must not be named."
The Philosopher who must not be named
The problem with being the greatest or the most intelligent is that you could possibly be the most evil and harmful. I see it as a graph where the two extreme ends are the most brilliant, either for good or bad, and the middle is full of the majority of the people who are somewhere in the center. As Socrates builds up his perfect philosopher he also takes the time to reflect on the possible corruption of this individual. Naming the characteristics that the philosopher or ruler would need he sees the potential danger in such a person. Talking about the philosopher he says “but, if sown and planted in an alien soil, becomes the most noxious of all weeds,” while reading this part of the text I could not help but think of Harry Potter. They call Voldemort “The greatest wizard of all time” except for Dumbledore of course, and this is because he is brilliantly evil. Harry and Voldemort are similar and yet completely opposites. In the book we see this is because of an internal choice, not because of there surroundings. Socrates continues to say that philosophers will be corrupted “unless he be preserved by some divine power.” In the terms of Socrates Harry is good because of this, the only power that can keep such a powerful person just.
Ps; I commented on Amy's post
Defensive
I cannot speak for everyone, but sometimes I find myself a lot like Thrasymachus and I know a great deal of people who are even more so in likeness. So, what is our problem? Why do we get defensive when people are trying to show us truth, when people are trying to help us move past our naivety?
It does not happen often, but there are times when I truly do not want to accept what someone is telling me despite the evidence and truth sitting before me. Sometimes I try to fight a losing battle. Is it really my pride? Do I really think that highly of myself, or am I just looking to pick a fight? I catch myself wanting to retaliate when someone comes to me in love to point out an area of sin in my life. My immediate reaction is to search for something to call them on, but my anger is not with them. My anger is with myself for not being good enough, for not seeing it myself.
Honestly, I do not like being wrong any more than Thrasymachus does. My face does get red when my wrong is pointed out. Sometimes I react and, in a way, lash out at them like Thrasymachus for pointing out my flaws. It has been a long road traveled, but our Father is faithful; He is working this flaw out of me, slowly and surely.
PS - COMMENTED ON RACHEL'S
Monday, October 25, 2010
My Middle Name
It is amazing to look into society over the years (in Christ's time and ours) and see how little things have changed despite Socrates's insight on justice. I still see the act of "treat friends with kindness, hurt the enemy". It's such a biased, warlike form of "justice". The justice of following honesty and law was even heretical at times, yes? The pharisees proved that. I just feel sorrow for Soctrates and Christ, that society looks past their teachings which are similar in ways. It would truly make our lives easier if we were educated. Fighting ignorance and drudgery must be a great treasure that many take from but to which they never give back. Education, in turn, has become a a pot that each greedy hand has taken from without analyzing and using it to better the world. It is all for the American Dream now. What have we done?
I commented on Anna Rhodes's "Indoctrination or Education" post from 10/21/10.
-Will
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Indoctrination or Education?
In class Tuesday we touched on the topic of indoctrination. Socrates was accused of corrupting youth. Many people say that education is indoctrination. This brings to my mind many questions. Where is the line between indoctrination and education? Some would say that indoctrination is forcing a belief on someone as if there is no other belief that could be considered. However, it is also common to hear the phrase, “What’s true for you does not have to be true for me.” Some say that Christians indoctrinate their children with their personal beliefs. In American culture as children, media and educational resources told us things like, “Listen to your heart,” “Live for today!” and “Follow your dreams.” Are these necessarily true and wise? Not always. Where is the line between indoctrination and education? If we are not educated we have no way to search through all the world has to tell us. We are completely clueless and helpless. We are too naive to prosper. Let’s pretend we’ve jumped in time ten years, and you are a parent. Would you rather your child be educated and prepared for the world, in many areas? Or would you back off, and not show them what they need to know, in order to survive, because you are afraid of indoctrinating them? No! Now, I do believe indoctrination is real, but I believe people accuse too quickly. It is better to know as much as possible, as an adult, so that you can make knowledgeable decisions. Don’t we want to give everyone that chance to prosper?
P.S. I commented on Amy's post
P.S. I commented on Amy's post
:-3
Socrates argues that since the state has raised and educated him, he owes the state obedience. By remaining in the state when he is free to leave, he has agreed inevitably to be bound by the rules of the state.
What should we do if the state is unjust?
Socrates argues that it is wrong for him to escape even if his imprisonment is unjust, apparently the injustice
of the state does not allow a citizen to act unjustly in return.
But I have this thought: He says it's wrong for him to escape, so doesn't that right there say that he's guilty?
I commented on Brittany's.
What should we do if the state is unjust?
Socrates argues that it is wrong for him to escape even if his imprisonment is unjust, apparently the injustice
of the state does not allow a citizen to act unjustly in return.
But I have this thought: He says it's wrong for him to escape, so doesn't that right there say that he's guilty?
I commented on Brittany's.
Socratic Wisdom
I remember in my first year of college, Socrates' Apology was one of the first works I studied. I was amazed by what he said, "I am the wisest man because I don't know hardly anything, and I know I don't know". (paraphrased) I remember one of my first comments on this work was "Great, so I come to college to learn that I don't know anything, and that I am wiser by not knowing anything, how does that make sense?"
Well, it's pretty simple; you cannot fill a full cup. If you think you know everything about a subject, how are you suppose to be open to learning new things? If I think I know everything about math just because I am really good at it, then why should I be in college? With education, you cannot learn if you are unwilling to learn.
However, I believe this is true about life also. You can't learn about new people, their lives, their thoughts if you are not open and willing to hear them. What I think is horrible is how judgmental and prejudice people are, and because of this they are not willing to learn about someone who is different. You don't know them, however because they do this or that you think you know them, and thus you think you are an expert on them and that is what I hate. Prejudice, even Socrates says, is the hardest thing to beat. How do you unteach a dog to do a trick? Impossible? No, difficult? Yes. However, the process is not a quick one. It requires a long time, and open minds.
Humility
According to a Pythian prophetess, Socrates was the wisest man alive, but he wanted to disprove her claim. Socrates knew that being wise meant realizing that you actually know nothing at all. The level of humility in Socrates is a major change from the glory filled desires of the characters in the epic and tragedies. Socrates' reference to The Iliad is also an interesting point. He compared himself the Achilles because he had no fear of this upcoming death. He had lived a full life and felt confident dying for his philosophical beliefs. Although he displayed some humility, Socrates was still confident in his wisdom.
I commented on Brittany's post.
I commented on Brittany's post.
Obey or not Obey
I feel like everything goes back to JUSTICE. How do we know what is just or unjust?
What is a just law? I really liked the distinction between a just law and an unjust law in The letter to Birmingham. It stated that, "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An Unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." So we define just and unjust based on moral law. But then who decides this moral law? God. Since its the law of God, then how do we ever reach that point? I believe its like life. We can never master everything that "life" throws at us... we just keep trying, keep learning. The same goes when we aspire to reach God's law. His law is moral and just. We just keep trying and keep learning.
p.s I commented on Malory's post
What is a just law? I really liked the distinction between a just law and an unjust law in The letter to Birmingham. It stated that, "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An Unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." So we define just and unjust based on moral law. But then who decides this moral law? God. Since its the law of God, then how do we ever reach that point? I believe its like life. We can never master everything that "life" throws at us... we just keep trying, keep learning. The same goes when we aspire to reach God's law. His law is moral and just. We just keep trying and keep learning.
p.s I commented on Malory's post
What wisdom from a Birmingham jail...
Should we follow unjust laws? Where is the line drawn between obeying the laws of the land and allowing the persecution of others based on nothing more than skin color. Dr. King exhorts his followers to lovingly and openly break unjust laws. When those laws are broken, they must be willing to face the consequences for their actions in a loving and peaceful way. Dr. King drew quite a bit of influence from both Jesus Christ and Muhatma (spelled way wrong) Ghandi. He was a strong believer that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
How might one lovingly break a law? It seems impossible but when looked at further, those laws were quite easy to break lovingly because they were rooted in hatred and prejudice. THey were not allowed to gather if there were more than three of them. Despite this, they gathered directly in front of courthouses and town halls to march quietly and peacefully. If they made much noise at all it was singing hymns passed down to them by their ancestors who had sung them as slaves.
Openly? Openly breaking laws is done as I mentioned. THey did not try to hide the fact they were gathering and worshipping together. THey marched openly and peacefully. When they were arrested, they went willingly. Ultimately it worked, so maybe instead of complaining about unjust laws and statutes, we should follow in Dr. King's example and try to change them.
How might one lovingly break a law? It seems impossible but when looked at further, those laws were quite easy to break lovingly because they were rooted in hatred and prejudice. THey were not allowed to gather if there were more than three of them. Despite this, they gathered directly in front of courthouses and town halls to march quietly and peacefully. If they made much noise at all it was singing hymns passed down to them by their ancestors who had sung them as slaves.
Openly? Openly breaking laws is done as I mentioned. THey did not try to hide the fact they were gathering and worshipping together. THey marched openly and peacefully. When they were arrested, they went willingly. Ultimately it worked, so maybe instead of complaining about unjust laws and statutes, we should follow in Dr. King's example and try to change them.
Socrates in the Closet
Mashburn only mentioned this in class but it's something I wondered throughout the entire Apology. I noticed sometimes Socrates would mention "the gods" but many times he would mention "God". I wondered if this was sort of reference to Zeus or if they called the "god" they followed their "God". One example is when Socrates says is, “I shall obey God rather than you." Was he a closet monotheist? Maybe that's why his accusers thought him to be atheist... because they did not understand the concept of God rather than gods. The next thing I wondered is who is Socrates God? Is it YHWH? Which principality does he live by? Which lifestyle does he follow?
I commented on Fimbulvetr's
I commented on Fimbulvetr's
Well once upon a time I read a letter by Dr. Martin Luther King. I did not know that he went to jail.
Anyway. I found it interesting all the comparisons King alludes to from the Bible and Socrates. It seems as if he too should have read The Eumidides and contemplated justice with us since he is so interested by true justice and law. This article really made me start to complicate civil disobedience. I really like what King suggested that if one wants to disobey the laws they fall under then that person has to accept the punishment even if the law is morally or ethically wrong. This then causes others to have more respect for that person and therefore want to help incite the change in government of the laws.
In fact, I am kind of disappointed that I have never had the opportunity to participate in civil disobedience. Which in turn made me wonder what kind of disobedience would I participate in. So...Rachel Fiona Rebecca Kotlan....What can you see me doing? haha. I can tell you that I gave away money to this lady at the gas station the other day (i know stupid because she most definitely did not use the money to buy gas) and that is breaking a law but not because I thought that the law was stupid and I wanted to change it. I didn’t realize it was against the law (I am from Texas) and now I realize its against the law and I realize it was stupid so I won’t be doing it again. What is a bad law that I want to change, or a lack of law I want to add? I thought about this question a lot before deciding that in our country there is not a particular law I want to change at this time. But as soon as there is ... Im going to jail!
I commented on Rebekah's post.
You can't teach an old dog a new trick
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
~Proverbs 22:6
In his defense, Socrates points out that things you learn when you are young have more potential to be dangerous to you when you are older. If you think about it, this is so true. People are much more impressionable when they are young than when they grow older. Even things so simple as habits that you developed when you were little you could still be doing up to the time you die, not to mention things that you were actually taught and you stand for. This is why I believe it is so important for us to be serious about teaching children the whole truth about faith and a relationship with Christ rather than the watered down version that is taught more often than not. It might seem more appealing for the time, but in the end it doesn't serve any good.
“But far more dangerous are these, who began when you were young, who took possession of your minds...”
I commented on Lucy's post
I commented on Lucy's post
Death
Hello,
Why do we fear death? What is it about death that scares us, what's so unpleasant about something that is as natural as grass growing? Is it the fear of the unknown? Is it because we fear that maybe, just MAYBE there isn't an afterlife or "heaven", thus proving there is no god and that we will all just be another statistic that will rot beneath the earth, forever erased from memory and forgotten for all eternity, thus also proving that the universe is nothing more than an endless, uncaring abyss and that we as Humans aren't as special as we claim to be? Or is it because we feel that there is so MUCH we can do for the world, and that death leaves us with the feeling that we might not be able to truly make the most of this world and harvest its fruits? Or maybe it's because we can die at any moment, with little to NO warning whatsoever? Or maybe we fear death because death doesn't discriminate between the good or evil, the weak or the strong, that we are ALL equal in his eyes?
I think about this sort of thing almost on a regular basis, as depressing as that sounds. I began thinking about it again when I read Plato, The Apology when he examined Meletus. Who knows, maybe I'm just over-thinking about it.
PS-I commented on both Rebekah's and Jeremy Crews' posts. I felt like being an over-achiever.
Why do we fear death? What is it about death that scares us, what's so unpleasant about something that is as natural as grass growing? Is it the fear of the unknown? Is it because we fear that maybe, just MAYBE there isn't an afterlife or "heaven", thus proving there is no god and that we will all just be another statistic that will rot beneath the earth, forever erased from memory and forgotten for all eternity, thus also proving that the universe is nothing more than an endless, uncaring abyss and that we as Humans aren't as special as we claim to be? Or is it because we feel that there is so MUCH we can do for the world, and that death leaves us with the feeling that we might not be able to truly make the most of this world and harvest its fruits? Or maybe it's because we can die at any moment, with little to NO warning whatsoever? Or maybe we fear death because death doesn't discriminate between the good or evil, the weak or the strong, that we are ALL equal in his eyes?
I think about this sort of thing almost on a regular basis, as depressing as that sounds. I began thinking about it again when I read Plato, The Apology when he examined Meletus. Who knows, maybe I'm just over-thinking about it.
PS-I commented on both Rebekah's and Jeremy Crews' posts. I felt like being an over-achiever.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Greatest Wisdom
To know that you don't know everything. How comforting is that? It just makes me feel so relieved when I realize that I'm allowed to have a lack of understanding. Admitting this to oneself is not only a relief, but it is also the greatest wisdom. This brings about an attitude of teachability (Lucy's dictionary). If we accept the fact that we don't know everything, it opens us up to all sorts of possibilities. It allows us to be wrong. It allows new thought to have a chance. It allows for correction and constructive criticism. Socrates was absolutely right in saying that he was more wise than all of them because he knew that he didn't know everything. By saying this, he was declaring that they were a close-minded people stuck in their ways. In order to learn and grow more, we must admit to ourselves that we lack complete understanding.
P.S. I commented on Rebekah's
P.S. I commented on Rebekah's
Breaking Traditions
Why were the accusers of Socrates so adamant to have him executed? Why did they bring him to trial? It was because he refused to accept and conform to tradition. Why was Christ brought to trial and crucified. It was because he did not follow or fit into the traditional ideas of His time. Basically, what I’m saying is that people who do not follow tradition usually are not accepted. Should we want to follow tradition? We should not try to avoid conflict by being silent and following others. Like Christ, and Socrates, we should be willing to make our beliefs known, and not fear the consequences.
I commented on Brittany Hilbun's blog
I commented on Brittany Hilbun's blog
This might be heresy......No, it IS.
So, may be twisting it a little, but I wanted to address the issue of the corruption of youth. They were trying to get Socrates executed because his teaching were supposedly "corrupting the youth".
This makes me think alot of church, to tell you the truth. BECAUSE, the church(general term, I know it isn't this way in EVERY church) is so set in their ways that if anyone comes along and challenges what they've always taught, then that person is named a Heretic. Look at the reformation. When Martin Luther decided to stand up and teach the truth, he faced extreme persecution from the Catholic church. He was a heretic. Look at Jesus. He preached that the Messiah(Himself) came to seek and saved the lost, instead of destroying them all and conquering the world, like the church had been preaching.They killed him, becuase he was a heretic. So, friends, is heresy such a bad thing? I'm proud to be a heretic when it comes to speaking the truth of the Bible. Are you?
PS: I'm not a church hater. Quite the oposite, actually. You should talk to me about it.
This makes me think alot of church, to tell you the truth. BECAUSE, the church(general term, I know it isn't this way in EVERY church) is so set in their ways that if anyone comes along and challenges what they've always taught, then that person is named a Heretic. Look at the reformation. When Martin Luther decided to stand up and teach the truth, he faced extreme persecution from the Catholic church. He was a heretic. Look at Jesus. He preached that the Messiah(Himself) came to seek and saved the lost, instead of destroying them all and conquering the world, like the church had been preaching.They killed him, becuase he was a heretic. So, friends, is heresy such a bad thing? I'm proud to be a heretic when it comes to speaking the truth of the Bible. Are you?
PS: I'm not a church hater. Quite the oposite, actually. You should talk to me about it.
Socrates... the unlearned?
Socrates' first words in his Apology were an explanation of how he could not speak in rhetoric as the lawyers and learned men do. However, Socrates is still very persuasive. When he confronts the "wise" people of the day he is easily able to make them contradict themselves. Also, in Crito, Socrates is able to make Crito completely change his position. (Crito goes from trying to convince Socrates to escape, to believing that Socrates should indeed stay in prison)
However, despite Socrates' ability to persuade, he is still unable to persuade the jury that he is not quilty? Why is this? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that during his defense he implied that he was smarter than the rest of the state (Horse Analogy); or maybe that he accused the state of not upholding true righteousness (in his reason for why he would never be a politian Socrates said that no man "struggling against the commision of unrighteousness and wrong in the state" will ever win against the jury ) Socrates was so sold out to revealing the truth, that in his defense he made statements that even condemned him to his own death. It wasn't that socrates was unskilled in rhetoric, it was that he did not care enough to use it in this case.
I commented on Brittany's
However, despite Socrates' ability to persuade, he is still unable to persuade the jury that he is not quilty? Why is this? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that during his defense he implied that he was smarter than the rest of the state (Horse Analogy); or maybe that he accused the state of not upholding true righteousness (in his reason for why he would never be a politian Socrates said that no man "struggling against the commision of unrighteousness and wrong in the state" will ever win against the jury ) Socrates was so sold out to revealing the truth, that in his defense he made statements that even condemned him to his own death. It wasn't that socrates was unskilled in rhetoric, it was that he did not care enough to use it in this case.
I commented on Brittany's
Atheism or Intolerance???
One of the reasons that Socrates was on trial was because of the charge of Atheism. How can he be charged with atheism if he make multiple references to God throughout his dialogs? I think the Athenians charged him with atheism but what it really was, was intolerance. Everyone knows that ancient Greece had a polytheistic culture but Socrates multiple times refers to God not gods. I think by not acknowledging the gods in the manner that the Athenians did Socrates angered them enough to put him on trial. But the almost better question is God does he acknowledge? There is a possibility that it could be the same God we worship but highly unlikely since God wasn't introduced to Rome until later. We must remember that Plato writes of Socrates in the BC era. Socrates' second charge was corrupting the youth of Athens. My second question is how did he break a law when he was teaching them? It's hard to convict a man of a crime when the laws of your city aren't even written down. I could understand a charge against him if he was teaching them to question something such as a parent's profession. But that isn't what they questioned their parents about they asked about truth, piety, and justice. The only thing that Socrates was guilty of is making stupid parents realize how stupid they are.
I commented on Will's post
What Up with Rhetoric?
Sophism, rhetoric, persuasion, deceit...
Honestly, it blows my mind to think that people actually paid to have their sons essentially learn to deceive people, that people considered being a sophist a career, that someone only found you worthy of "wisdom" if you could pay. The situation is dirty with "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine," or rather, "I'll give you insight on how to argue deceitfully if you pay me." Frustration.
On a larger scale, it blows my mind again to know how much rhetoric is used in our lives. Not only do politicians use it, but all you have to do is turn on QVC or watch some late night paid programming: "If you buy this product from me, it will make your life better." The media uses it to sway us to one view of a news story. To put it bluntly, some religions use rhetoric to gain converts. That thought alone is not only frustrating, but it is downright scary.
How many people every day are led astray through rhetoric? How many people have used rhetoric on you today? How many people have you used rhetoric on today?
P.S. Commented on Treya's.
What God does Socrates believe in?
Reading the words of Socrates I can’t help but think of the possibility of him being a Christian. Honor was the most important thing to the ancient Greeks, but Socrates thinks nothing of it. Being a wise man he must have read the Iliad and all of the other famous works, but his ideas are so unique compared to his time period. His concepts of revenge and justice follow the standard of our God. He talks about his first principle being “neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil with evil is ever right.” His ideas are so needed in the Greek culture, especially in the tragedies such as The Oresteia. The family goes by the principle of using evil against evil, and so the cycle of revenge and killing can never be fixed by man. They do not consider justice to be brought about by the gods as the Christian religion does, so they deal with the justice themselves. So does Socrates secretly believe in our God or did he come up with these ideas himself? I guess we will never know the right answer, but he does talk about his belief in God and not in the gods. I think most likely Socrates did not actually know about the Hebrew God, but through his search for the truth he came upon the same theories because they are built into all man kind. Even without the commandment that we should not kill, humans know that murdering is wrong. To me Socrates is the wisest man in Greece because he did not follow any of their traditions, but dug within himself and others to find out the truth about life. Although much of his discoveries were about wisdom, he also had a hard time believing in the Greek gods. He went against the oracle to find the real truth and perhaps in his journey he discovered the truth about God.
Ps. I commented on Sara Dye's post
Getaway Car
I do enjoy Socrates's great discipline in order to walk straight into death even with an escape route blatantly present. I would almost say that reading deeply into this, the jury, the people who wanted him there in the first place, would have been greatly pleased if he had just fled and stayed out of the country. They became irritated with Socrates, yes, but I don't believe they truly wanted to kill him. The guards? Not even present because, as you may recall, Socrates was on a sort of "house arrest". At this time there were no tracking bands, no search dogs, no helicopters, no registration papers to be signed. Even if there had been, I don't believe any of these recovery techniques would have been used. These people in Greece just wanted to shoo the gadfly, not squash it. A last thought here: poor Socrates may have been a bit prideful in staying around and giving his life to the law in order to prove a point. Maybe?
I commented on Sara Dye's "Social Contract" post from 10/14/10
I Wanna Be Like You
A couple of things really stuck out to me about Socrates:
1. He lived a meaningful life, impacting other people for their good.
2. He didn't let other people persuade him against what he believed.
I want to strive to be like Socrates in those two ways.
So often I go through my day thinking about mememe. I'm usually thinking along these lines: "Why did they cancel our class? That is such a huge inconvenience to me." "Why did they have to move choir practice and not tell me?" "Why did they have to put me in a group with these people? I can work better alone." So I'm not really looking at it as an opportunity where I can make an impact on someone else. When a class is canceled I could hang out in The Commons and get to know someone new; when choir is moved I could ask someone where it was moved to and genuinely thank them, making them feel like they'd be helpful that day; when I'm assigned to a group I could really have time to influence my group mates or help them in whatever way possible. That is something I will probably have to continue to work on for the rest of my life; Socrates seemed to have figured it out by the time he was 70, so that gives me a little hope.
I've never come across a time when I was talking to someone about what I believe and them flat out told me I was wrong. I know that it is bound to happen, though. In my family there is always a debate going on between my dad and brother. My brother is straight up Conservative Baptist and my dad is headed towards being a Liberalist. COMPLETELY CLASHY!! I listen to their conversations and anticipate the day when I am confronted/asked about what I believe. I want to be like Socrates, my dad, and my brother and not back down to anyone about what I see as Truth.
I commented on Will's post.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Social Contract Theory
Before anyone freaks out and thinks that they have a blog due today take a deep breath and let it be noted that this is my blog for next week, due on class 10-21-10.
Reading Plato has provided much food for thought with me. Plato's Apology (which is technically Socrate's apology... confusing as that may be) is dynamite, however, this blog will focus on Crito.
One cannot get too far into Crito without noticing something that is seemingly strange and out of place; Rousseau. Jean-Jacques Rousseau would not appear on the scene of world politics until the 18th century, over 2000 years after Plato would pen his account of Socrates' conversation with his friend Crito. However, Rousseau largely pioneered a theory of politics called the social contract theory. This theory is in short: government by consent of the governed. Basically, people give all authority to a government in order to maintain social order, and they are ruled by a set of laws which they agree upon themselves. We see here that before Rousseau existed, Athens had already formulated this notion of government.
In a role playing scene Socrates takes the part of the government of Athens:
"For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways o the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him... but he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, he has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him."
The idea is that when you agree to be a part of a city-state and it's government, you are from that point out agreeing to adopt it's very concept of justice and you must obey it's law.
The only problem that surfaces here is for the believer. Christ-followers are called to submit to the authority of the government, however we are under a Higher Authority as well. When the word and law of the government directly contradict the word of God we are to obey the Higher Authority.
I commented on Regis' post JUSTICE.
Reading Plato has provided much food for thought with me. Plato's Apology (which is technically Socrate's apology... confusing as that may be) is dynamite, however, this blog will focus on Crito.
One cannot get too far into Crito without noticing something that is seemingly strange and out of place; Rousseau. Jean-Jacques Rousseau would not appear on the scene of world politics until the 18th century, over 2000 years after Plato would pen his account of Socrates' conversation with his friend Crito. However, Rousseau largely pioneered a theory of politics called the social contract theory. This theory is in short: government by consent of the governed. Basically, people give all authority to a government in order to maintain social order, and they are ruled by a set of laws which they agree upon themselves. We see here that before Rousseau existed, Athens had already formulated this notion of government.
In a role playing scene Socrates takes the part of the government of Athens:
"For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways o the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him... but he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, he has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him."
The idea is that when you agree to be a part of a city-state and it's government, you are from that point out agreeing to adopt it's very concept of justice and you must obey it's law.
The only problem that surfaces here is for the believer. Christ-followers are called to submit to the authority of the government, however we are under a Higher Authority as well. When the word and law of the government directly contradict the word of God we are to obey the Higher Authority.
I commented on Regis' post JUSTICE.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
JUSTICE
What is justice? What is the essence of justice? Who is Justice? Are those two the same? Wow, those are great questions,....one at a time please. Okay, let's define justice: justice is the action or consequence that results from breaking some law, whether it be moral, ethical, or civil. You pay for breaking the law, and this consequence is often matched with the size of the offence. Like the penalty for murder is the death penalty. And then we have the god Justice, she is a woman who has a blindfold covering her eyes and in each hand she holds scales, for measuring actions. She is the literal (or mythological in this case) embodiment of the act of justice, she is the essence of justice itself. She and justice are similar, but not the exact same. The act of justice results in giving out punishment to someone who broke a law, and she is the literal embodiment of the essesnce of justice, like I said, similar, but not the same.
What do the gods descibe justice as? You see that's a sticky nasty problem, because each god has a different definition of justice, depending on the situation and whether that affects them or not. Those gods have flawed human emotions, so they are bound to change their mind whenever they please and wherever they please. The Furies claimed that Orestes death would be justice, but it wasn't, since Apollo told Orestes to kill, so in that situation Orestes committed no crime, since Apollo basically held him at arrow point. So depending on the situation, the definition of justice changes.
I commented on Brittany's What is Truth?
What do the gods descibe justice as? You see that's a sticky nasty problem, because each god has a different definition of justice, depending on the situation and whether that affects them or not. Those gods have flawed human emotions, so they are bound to change their mind whenever they please and wherever they please. The Furies claimed that Orestes death would be justice, but it wasn't, since Apollo told Orestes to kill, so in that situation Orestes committed no crime, since Apollo basically held him at arrow point. So depending on the situation, the definition of justice changes.
I commented on Brittany's What is Truth?
What is Truth?
While discussing the essay questions for the exam, Anna and I came across the question about "suffering into truth." We know that Oedipus suffered into truth by the statement "I am Oedipus, I am agony." He had suffered so much agony that agony became his truth. We tried to tie it in with Emendates... the text says he also "suffered into truth" but how exactly? When did his nature ever "change" from one "truth" to another? While wondering this we got off on a tangent-which now becomes the basis of my post."What is truth?" The secular world says "Truth is relative." Truth is what we make it. If you believe something enough then yeah, it's truth. hmmm. Well if all truth is relative, it just depends on what you believe-Then what's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me, what if my truth says your's is a lie? Is it still true?
I commened on Fimbulvetr's post
I commened on Fimbulvetr's post
Athene: glory hog or impartial mediator?
I still don't understand how Athene was allowed to strip the Furies of their power in the Eumenides. They were created long before her. They were created for justice. She may be the goddess of wisdom but they are higher than her, or at least they're suppposed to be. It sounds like she's giving them a promotion but really what she's doing is treating them like children who've been bad and have to stand next to their mother for a while while all the other children play. She tries to reason with them about how she is the only one who knows where the keys to Zeus's thunderbolts are and tells them that all the people of Athens will treat them with respect. Well that's all fine and dandy but I still just don't understand where she got that power. Is she just asserting authority that she doesn't have over them or has she truly been given this right? Did the Olympians come in and simply take the power that had been placed for centuries? THat doesn't seem right.
Furthermore, what is with this whole, "I don't have a womb so I'm going to side with the boys." Our Athene was simply mimicking what Athene in the book did and no one can fault her for staying true to the text. However, can a male judge not judge a trial in which a woman killed her husband for hurting one of their children? Can a female judge not preside over the trial of a man who beats his wife simply because her fists are not as strong and full of hate? I think there's a moral precedent that should always prevail in justice. Now, in this particular trial it was quite a gray area but admitting that she always sides with the boys because she has no womb? That's kind of ridiculous.
Furthermore, what is with this whole, "I don't have a womb so I'm going to side with the boys." Our Athene was simply mimicking what Athene in the book did and no one can fault her for staying true to the text. However, can a male judge not judge a trial in which a woman killed her husband for hurting one of their children? Can a female judge not preside over the trial of a man who beats his wife simply because her fists are not as strong and full of hate? I think there's a moral precedent that should always prevail in justice. Now, in this particular trial it was quite a gray area but admitting that she always sides with the boys because she has no womb? That's kind of ridiculous.
The Chorus
Hello,
There's one thing that has always bothered me as we read the Aeschylus. What's the purpose of the Chorus? I get that they move the story along, but...Why? Ugh, what meant is this. They spend the entire story persuading and urging the other characters on, and they seem to just come out of nowhere. More importantly, why DO these characters listen to a bunch of random singers that come right out of nowhere...? If I was Clytemnestra and a group of random singers came to me, telling me what to do, I wouldn't go, "Hey! That's a great idea!" I'd go, "Who are you? And why are you in my palace...?"
----I commented WillJustice's Gr33d post.
There's one thing that has always bothered me as we read the Aeschylus. What's the purpose of the Chorus? I get that they move the story along, but...Why? Ugh, what meant is this. They spend the entire story persuading and urging the other characters on, and they seem to just come out of nowhere. More importantly, why DO these characters listen to a bunch of random singers that come right out of nowhere...? If I was Clytemnestra and a group of random singers came to me, telling me what to do, I wouldn't go, "Hey! That's a great idea!" I'd go, "Who are you? And why are you in my palace...?"
----I commented WillJustice's Gr33d post.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
"I Will Never Let That Man Go Free, Never"
It’s almost midnight the night before the mid-term. Will this blog make sense? Most likely not, but I’ll give it a shot anyway.
“Talk on, talk on. But if I lose this trial I will return in force to crush the land.”
If something really stands out to me in The Eumenides it is the idea of reason and logic verses emotion and passion. As it shows in the title of my blog, the furies are extremely passionate and unreasonable. Towards the end of the text we see the furies arguing with Athena. However, the furies use the same arguments over and over again:
“But for me to suffer such disgrace…I, the proud heart of the past, driven under the earth, condemned, like so much filth, and the fury in me breathing hatred- O good Earth, what is this stealing under the breast, what agony racks the spirit? …Night, dear Mother Night! All’s lost, our ancient powers torn away by their cunning, ruthless hands, the gods so hard to wrestle down obliterate us all.”
Their passion and raw emotion seem to get in the way of their ability to make a valid argument. Then we see Athena who may not possess their passion, but she has reason. And reason, in the end, wins out in this text. Ultimately, there needs to be a balance of passion and logic. If we become too passionate, like the furies, we will lose the ability to reason.
I commented on Ben Folse's post
“Talk on, talk on. But if I lose this trial I will return in force to crush the land.”
If something really stands out to me in The Eumenides it is the idea of reason and logic verses emotion and passion. As it shows in the title of my blog, the furies are extremely passionate and unreasonable. Towards the end of the text we see the furies arguing with Athena. However, the furies use the same arguments over and over again:
“But for me to suffer such disgrace…I, the proud heart of the past, driven under the earth, condemned, like so much filth, and the fury in me breathing hatred- O good Earth, what is this stealing under the breast, what agony racks the spirit? …Night, dear Mother Night! All’s lost, our ancient powers torn away by their cunning, ruthless hands, the gods so hard to wrestle down obliterate us all.”
Their passion and raw emotion seem to get in the way of their ability to make a valid argument. Then we see Athena who may not possess their passion, but she has reason. And reason, in the end, wins out in this text. Ultimately, there needs to be a balance of passion and logic. If we become too passionate, like the furies, we will lose the ability to reason.
I commented on Ben Folse's post
The Furies 2.0
At last we come to the end of our cheery trilogy,the Eumenides end our tale. The main action of the Eumenides is of course the trail. At the end of which Orestes is declared innocent by Athena, since the jury was unable to decide.
The Furies seem to get the raw end of this deal, and they know it. But somehow, in the course of a few short pages, Athena talks them into joining her and letting go of their fury. The play ends with the Furies, 2.0, frolicking merrily around Athena and promising to reign blessings instead of punishments down upon the world.
Okay....what the HECK!?!?! Somehow, we managed to get from "I loose my poison on the soil...cursing the land to burn it sterile" to orgies for life in the space of a few pages. What happened to the FURY in the Furies? The kinder, gentler, Furies 2.0 don't seem to be the same Furies at all, merely a shadow of the creatures claiming and assured of their own greatness, who even Athena admitted "the years have taught you more, much more than I can know." In place of the old ones, full of power, we are presented with creatures now under the power of Athena, creatures that seem incredibly different than the ones mere moments before.
The question I pose to you is this: Was this a good ending for the Furies? Are the Furies 2.0 really the way to go, or did the world of tragedy lose something valuable when the Furies allowed Athena to change their nature. I would argue yes, but in the end that is up to the reader to decide.
I posted on Athena for a Day
The Furies seem to get the raw end of this deal, and they know it. But somehow, in the course of a few short pages, Athena talks them into joining her and letting go of their fury. The play ends with the Furies, 2.0, frolicking merrily around Athena and promising to reign blessings instead of punishments down upon the world.
Okay....what the HECK!?!?! Somehow, we managed to get from "I loose my poison on the soil...cursing the land to burn it sterile" to orgies for life in the space of a few pages. What happened to the FURY in the Furies? The kinder, gentler, Furies 2.0 don't seem to be the same Furies at all, merely a shadow of the creatures claiming and assured of their own greatness, who even Athena admitted "the years have taught you more, much more than I can know." In place of the old ones, full of power, we are presented with creatures now under the power of Athena, creatures that seem incredibly different than the ones mere moments before.
The question I pose to you is this: Was this a good ending for the Furies? Are the Furies 2.0 really the way to go, or did the world of tragedy lose something valuable when the Furies allowed Athena to change their nature. I would argue yes, but in the end that is up to the reader to decide.
I posted on Athena for a Day
Lust on the Brain
"Lust's passion will be served; it demands, it militates, it tyrannizes."
-Marquis de Sade
As I was sitting in my room studying with Rebekah I had an epiphany. I finally found the thread that ties all of this literature together. The source of conflict in all of the literature is lust. Lust manifests itself in different ways in the different texts, but it certainly rears its ugly little head in them all.
The Iliad
The theme of lust is easy to find in the Iliad, but I'll explain it for the sake of being long winded. The Trojan war was started because of Paris' lust for Helen. Tens of thousands of innocents died because of two men lusting after the same woman, but this isn't the only theme of lust. Agamemnon lusts for Chryseus, which results in his entire army being plagued. He then lusts after Briseus, which results in Achilles refusal to fight. I could dwell on this topic for a while, but I think we all understand how detrimental lust was in this text.
Oedipus Rex
In this text we can clearly see that Oedipus is also lusting after something, Power. He wants to be in control and he will do anything, even killing his father, to get it. You could also argue that he lusts after the truth to a point. Oedipus was pursuing the truth about his life like he was starving and the truth was food. Unfortunately for him, once he ate the food of truth, he found out it was poisoned.
Agamemnon
This text is crawling with references to lust. Sometime before he sets sail for Argos, Agamemnon brings Cassandra into the picture to fuel his lust for flesh. Upon returning home he is greeted by his wife who is also being consumed by lust. Her lust, however, is for power. She kills Agamemnon, and exiles Orestes to ensure that all of the power would fall to her and her lover, Aegisthus. The Leader of the chorus sees this and calls Clytemnestra out on it. Her response only solidifies her lust for power in our minds.
"Let them howl- they're impotent. You and I have power now. We will set the house in order once for all." - Clytemnestra
The Eumenides
The text begins with Orestes asking for forgiveness from Apollo with the furies sleeping around him. He is told to flee to the statue of Athena, to hug it, and to ask for her to judge the matter. The Furies are then awakened by Clytemnestra's ghost and begin pursuing Orestes. The only thing driving the Furies is their lust for blood, which is made clear every time they open their mouths.
"-No, you'll give me blood for blood, you must! Out of your living marrow I will drain my red libation, out of your veins I suck my food, my raw, brutal cups- Wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!" - Furies
I don't know how you guys interpret that quote, but it sounds like serious bloodlust to me.
So, what did we learn today? You can lust after tons of things? Don't eat poisoned truth food? Being chased by furies really sucks? All great answers. Tune in next week and you'll be reading this blog again due to fall break.
Until next time,
Benjamin.
P.S. I commented on Lucas' blog "Furies Bloody Furies"
-Marquis de Sade
As I was sitting in my room studying with Rebekah I had an epiphany. I finally found the thread that ties all of this literature together. The source of conflict in all of the literature is lust. Lust manifests itself in different ways in the different texts, but it certainly rears its ugly little head in them all.
The Iliad
The theme of lust is easy to find in the Iliad, but I'll explain it for the sake of being long winded. The Trojan war was started because of Paris' lust for Helen. Tens of thousands of innocents died because of two men lusting after the same woman, but this isn't the only theme of lust. Agamemnon lusts for Chryseus, which results in his entire army being plagued. He then lusts after Briseus, which results in Achilles refusal to fight. I could dwell on this topic for a while, but I think we all understand how detrimental lust was in this text.
Oedipus Rex
In this text we can clearly see that Oedipus is also lusting after something, Power. He wants to be in control and he will do anything, even killing his father, to get it. You could also argue that he lusts after the truth to a point. Oedipus was pursuing the truth about his life like he was starving and the truth was food. Unfortunately for him, once he ate the food of truth, he found out it was poisoned.
Agamemnon
This text is crawling with references to lust. Sometime before he sets sail for Argos, Agamemnon brings Cassandra into the picture to fuel his lust for flesh. Upon returning home he is greeted by his wife who is also being consumed by lust. Her lust, however, is for power. She kills Agamemnon, and exiles Orestes to ensure that all of the power would fall to her and her lover, Aegisthus. The Leader of the chorus sees this and calls Clytemnestra out on it. Her response only solidifies her lust for power in our minds.
"Let them howl- they're impotent. You and I have power now. We will set the house in order once for all." - Clytemnestra
The Eumenides
The text begins with Orestes asking for forgiveness from Apollo with the furies sleeping around him. He is told to flee to the statue of Athena, to hug it, and to ask for her to judge the matter. The Furies are then awakened by Clytemnestra's ghost and begin pursuing Orestes. The only thing driving the Furies is their lust for blood, which is made clear every time they open their mouths.
"-No, you'll give me blood for blood, you must! Out of your living marrow I will drain my red libation, out of your veins I suck my food, my raw, brutal cups- Wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!" - Furies
I don't know how you guys interpret that quote, but it sounds like serious bloodlust to me.
So, what did we learn today? You can lust after tons of things? Don't eat poisoned truth food? Being chased by furies really sucks? All great answers. Tune in next week and you'll be reading this blog again due to fall break.
Until next time,
Benjamin.
P.S. I commented on Lucas' blog "Furies Bloody Furies"
I don't know who to be on the same side with
OK, so we had to be on the side of the Furies the other day. I understand why they're mad and I agree with it, but I'm also on the side of Orestes. I mean, his mom sells him when he's young and she kills his dad. He was mad. What else could he do? Well I don't think he should have killed her, he could've hired someone to kidnap her or something and then he could take the throne. I think killing her was a little harsh. But I understand that he was really upset, and people do things that they regret when they're upset.
But I can also see Clytaemnestra's side. Her husband sacrificed their only daughter so he could go fight a stupid war. Men are so selfish sometimes! I really do not blame her for doing what she did. I think any mother would agree with me. But I think the thing that pushed her over the edge was when he came home after being at war for 10 years, and he has a war bride with him!!! Can you say scumbag?? I think I would have flipped too.
So I can see both sides.
i commented on Alana's
But I can also see Clytaemnestra's side. Her husband sacrificed their only daughter so he could go fight a stupid war. Men are so selfish sometimes! I really do not blame her for doing what she did. I think any mother would agree with me. But I think the thing that pushed her over the edge was when he came home after being at war for 10 years, and he has a war bride with him!!! Can you say scumbag?? I think I would have flipped too.
So I can see both sides.
i commented on Alana's
Furies Bloody Furies
Such a sad attempt at a mock title...
Well, for starters, the Furies scare me. Any time we discuss them, I imagine ageless (yet old beyond age) Amazon-like women with huge claws and battle axes. Talk about a bunch of nut crackers.
(I'm so dead.)
ANYWAY,
The Furies seemed very ill-lead. I don't want to say that they were mislead, as there was Orestes' situation that could possibly be labeled as a crime, and it would be their duty to act upon it. But they seem more passion-geared than purpose-geared, hence the prominent 'blood-for-blood' theme that they run with. In lines 316-317, the Furies seem all but ignorant of the fact that Orestes admitted to his deed, and even his "suffer[ing] into truth" as noted in line 274. Apollo may have had it right when he said that "justice and bloody slaughter are the same" to the Furies. Nonetheless, the Furies' leader accuses Apollo for Clytamnestra's death through Orestes' action since he gave the order. Thankfully, a trial ensues, and a discussion is had rather than an all-out slaughtering of Orestes.
So, my questions of the day,
It was vaguely mentioned in the class debate we had outside yesterday (and it was originally intended to be part of the guy's secret weapon... hehe), but what control do the Fates have on the Furies, if applicable? Do the power of the Fates encompass everything? Then tie that in with justice, and will 'justice' be served no matter what the Furies, Apollo, Athena, or anyone try to do? i.e. Is justice always ultimately served?
Either way, I'm glad Athena adopted those crazy Furies. Less blood, more beauty. And drama.
P.S. I commented on Alexandra's blog, 'A Day as Athena'.
Well, for starters, the Furies scare me. Any time we discuss them, I imagine ageless (yet old beyond age) Amazon-like women with huge claws and battle axes. Talk about a bunch of nut crackers.
(I'm so dead.)
ANYWAY,
The Furies seemed very ill-lead. I don't want to say that they were mislead, as there was Orestes' situation that could possibly be labeled as a crime, and it would be their duty to act upon it. But they seem more passion-geared than purpose-geared, hence the prominent 'blood-for-blood' theme that they run with. In lines 316-317, the Furies seem all but ignorant of the fact that Orestes admitted to his deed, and even his "suffer[ing] into truth" as noted in line 274. Apollo may have had it right when he said that "justice and bloody slaughter are the same" to the Furies. Nonetheless, the Furies' leader accuses Apollo for Clytamnestra's death through Orestes' action since he gave the order. Thankfully, a trial ensues, and a discussion is had rather than an all-out slaughtering of Orestes.
So, my questions of the day,
It was vaguely mentioned in the class debate we had outside yesterday (and it was originally intended to be part of the guy's secret weapon... hehe), but what control do the Fates have on the Furies, if applicable? Do the power of the Fates encompass everything? Then tie that in with justice, and will 'justice' be served no matter what the Furies, Apollo, Athena, or anyone try to do? i.e. Is justice always ultimately served?
Either way, I'm glad Athena adopted those crazy Furies. Less blood, more beauty. And drama.
P.S. I commented on Alexandra's blog, 'A Day as Athena'.
Gr33d
I do wonder if somehow Athena, being the goddess of wisdom that she is, knew or foresaw the whole time where the jury's verdict was going to end. I think that she may have even wanted to steal some of the other gods' thunder. A strong accusation? Maybe. How, though, would that be inconsistent with all of the other gods' habits? The greed and glory belongs to them, right? She might have wanted all the attention from Orestes, so she played the fates to her advantage, threw in the saving swing vote at the end, and then she's the hero. At that point, Orestes is thankful to her, the Furies are hers because they play into her hand, giving up their original purpose, and everyone throughout history now adores her decision and belief that mercy should reign over harshness. We've found your corruption again, gods.
-Will
Commented on Lane's Nicies blog from 10/6/10.
So Are They the Nicies Now?
Throughout the whole book of the Eumenides, The Furies are chasing Orestes around Greece. They chase him to the temple of Apollo where Apollo puts them to sleep. I think it's very important to notice here that Orestes has been purged of his sins. After the Furies awake they chase him to Athens where Athena intervenes on Orestes side. Athena's idea was to have a trial to decide if he was guilty or innocent. But that was just a little background to get to the point that I want to make. You know when Athena lets the Furies join her city as a demi-god type deal? Then they agree to start blessing people and whatnot instead of carrying out the fury of others. So can you technically call them Furies anymore? It kinda seems like an oxymoron to me. Calling someone who does nice things Furies and all. So instead of calling them the Furies can we call them the Nicies now? It seems much more logical. It's like calling an athlete a nerd, you just don't do that. The Nicies are now blessing people so we can't call them a negative name anymore. Anyone that blesses my sheep to have twins instead of a single lamb is ok in my book.
On a more serious note why does no one ever comment on my blogs I feel like the red-headed stepchild. And speaking of red-heads I commented on Alexandra's blog.
A Day as Athena
In order to prepare myself for the trial this week, I assumed the character of Athena. In other words, I forced myself to think and reason through things like I thought she would. (except for when I spent about ten minutes ranting to the young ladies of english class about how there are not floor length long sleeved dresses for everyday winter wear. I just don't understand it!!!) For the most part, this was fairly easy for me, because I'm generally a very logical person. I'm not cold-hearted, but I do express less emotion and passion than the typical young lady of today.
However, once presented with the trial, I began to struggle. I felt that there was no logical choice without including circumstances and emotional ties. So, I had to very slowly go over the circumstances in my mind. As I cautiously sorted through the facts, careful not to be biased or let my emotions awaken, it hit me. Oresteis could not be held accountable, because of Apollo's command. Even though I saw the action itself as wrong and simply not justifiable, Apollo placed Oresteis between a rock and a hard place. Therefore, he can't be held accountable. What would you have done? Would you have refused Apollo?
Apollo, however, needs a serious whippin'. Thank you.
P.S. I posted on Alana Mills' post.
However, once presented with the trial, I began to struggle. I felt that there was no logical choice without including circumstances and emotional ties. So, I had to very slowly go over the circumstances in my mind. As I cautiously sorted through the facts, careful not to be biased or let my emotions awaken, it hit me. Oresteis could not be held accountable, because of Apollo's command. Even though I saw the action itself as wrong and simply not justifiable, Apollo placed Oresteis between a rock and a hard place. Therefore, he can't be held accountable. What would you have done? Would you have refused Apollo?
Apollo, however, needs a serious whippin'. Thank you.
P.S. I posted on Alana Mills' post.
Its all coming together :)
So, its the day before the midterm and i have to say, i didn't understand everything and was very worried. I went to the Study party in Jeremy's cottage and i feel very confident.
After reading the Iliad and then the Genesis and Exodus and then Oepidus the King and Orestia, my view of the gods has changed. In the Iliad, the gods were very actively involved in the lives of the humans. They fought in the war and chose sides. But when we moved to the Orestia and Eumenides, the gods seemed to back away and not be actively involved as they were in the Iliad. It was like they just watched and observed and then in the end, they would hold a trial and determine the result.
p.s i commented on alanamills post
After reading the Iliad and then the Genesis and Exodus and then Oepidus the King and Orestia, my view of the gods has changed. In the Iliad, the gods were very actively involved in the lives of the humans. They fought in the war and chose sides. But when we moved to the Orestia and Eumenides, the gods seemed to back away and not be actively involved as they were in the Iliad. It was like they just watched and observed and then in the end, they would hold a trial and determine the result.
p.s i commented on alanamills post
Sweet Sacrifice
"Hypocrites kick with their hind feet while licking with their tounges."
Russian proverb
Ok, just as a warning, this post in particular will be slightly shorter than my previous posts, although I'm not entirely sure why. ANYWAY, I will now continue on about how injust Clytemestra really was and how she deserved to be defeated by Orestes.
It would seem to be that the main reason why Clytemestra murdered her husband, Agamemnon, was because he used their daughter as a sacrifice to Artemis so he could go to war against Troy. It has been argued by the men of the Honors Group that this was not the sole reason for her uprising, as she may have also been primarily pursuing a power grab. Considering both these things, I accuse Clytemestra not only of being a power hungry tyrant, but a hypocrite as well. As far as being a tyrant, Clytemestra sent Orestes away for seemingly for no reason, but by reading the text of the Libation Bearers, Clytemestra realizes that the Furies may seek vengeance on her for mudering her husband and needs someone to ensure they won't come. That person is Orestes. When she hears of his death she says "Just now, the hope of the halls, the surgeon to cure our Furie's lovely revel-he seemed so close, he's written off the rolls." (683-685) This passage proves that Clytemestra wanted Orestes not as her long-exiled son but solely as a means of warding off the Furie's great wrath. No, "hello, son, I've missed you," but instead "oh no, who will save me from the Furies now?" Pathetic.
Do you now see a parallel between husband and wife? No, please, allow me. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to stop calamity for rather selfish reasons and he suffered for it. Arguably, Clytemestra used her son in the same way, when, faced with her own demise, was planning to use her son to save herself from a disaster that she could have avoided, just like her husband. If this is true, than not only did Agamemnon deserve his fate but so did Clytemestra because their sins, in my eyes, are the same. Oh the irony!
So, yeah, Clytemestra is a hypocritic tyrant, something that I'm not sure would have made a difference in the court case but the accusation is on the floor. Please feel free to comment.
BTW, I commented on Alexandra's post, A Day as Athena.
Chaos
A theme that is prevalent in the Oresteia is revenge. Agamemnon kills his daughter, so his wife kills him, only to be killed by their son, Orestes. If everyone lived that way; avenging every wrongful death by committing murder, the world would be a terrible place. Maybe Agamemnon shouldn't have sacrificed their daughter, but Clytaemnestra was still not justified in killing him. Although Apollo told Orestes to kill his mother, murder is still wrong. Without a standard of justice, society would be chaos, and chaos is never a good thing.
P.s. I commented on Alana's post.
P.s. I commented on Alana's post.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
This post is about me, not getting it.
I don't get it.
How can you form a "fake" opinion? Today, I wanted Orestes to go free, but was told to fight with the Furies. I didn't have much passion for either side, but I had more for his than I did for the Furies.
This exam that we are having in a couple of days, is exactly the same thing. I'm having to form and opinion on something that I don't have an opinion on. I think that's the way I am, though. I don't like confrontation. I don't like arguments. I'm more of a lets-just-laugh-and-not-get-into-it kind of person. Getting to the core of things has never been my strong suit.
I don't get it.
I think I may fail.
And, I feel that I've run out of things to say on these blogs...I can only say so many things about a story. Which they are basically all the same anyways. (Someone kills someone, goes for the gold, a god interjects, that person is killed, etc.) I mean no matter the story, my point of view doesn't change.
Take today for instance, I think killing someone is wrong. Period. No matter how justified, no matter what god told you to do it, no matter if God Himself told you to do it. (By the way I don't believe that was God.) Now compare that with my post from a while back about "True Honor", I think killing a person is wrong. I think I said something like I don't like war or something. Well, my thoughts haven't changed from the battlefield to the home. (Or mansion, wherever all those people were killed in the tragedy stories.) I don't believe in murder to any extent. I feel like I just keep repeating myself.
Now, in all of that I said "I believe" and "I think" a lot. (Which I believe I was told not to do.) I'm not going to come right out and say that I am right, because I don't know that I am. I could get to heaven and be completely, absolutely, wrong. Who am I, little-ole Alana Mills, to say that the way everyone else believes is wrong and I am right? I can't bring myself to do it, sorry.
I seriously don't get it.
I think I may fail this course.
I commented on Samantha's post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)