1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer?
I think that the only reason that Plato would want to censor Homer is because his stories of the past bring up lots of acts of violence and wrongdoings. The people might want this stuff censored because it could insite violence or make them feel worse about themselves and their own country and government.
2. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Anything that would act as a disrespectful thing towards the king or government. Plus stuff that would cast a depressing or negative view on the afterlife.
b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think that poetry should teach values to young men and women that will help them grow up into a better civilian or somebody that will contribute to his or her fellow man. Somethings that this may include could be bravery, intellegence, hope, and leadership.
3. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
No, I would disagree with what Plato thinks is right. Censoring things only makes society less intellectual. People can only have a purpose if they are in their own, somebody different. The only way that can happen is by having them form their own ideas and opinions and ideas on different issues. By banning material that could potentially create different sides to an argument you are taking away the minds capacity for knowledge.
3.27.2007
3.26.2007
Republic Assignment 3/27
1) Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
3.21.2007
Seminar Assignment 3/22
1) What do you think is the best definition of justice? It can be one of the views expressed in The Republic, a modification of one or more of them, or something completely different
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
3.20.2007
Republic Assignment 3/21
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness?
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
3.19.2007
3/20 Republic Assignment
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Socrates says that if you are following whatever the stronger party says is right even if it is not in their interest, then it is right to go against it.
Then Socrates says that the stronger party is always in the interest of others just like a doctor to its patients, or a teacher to its students.
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Homie T's first point was that injustice can sometimes be just as good as justice
-Socrates says that injustice has punishments and penalties
Then he says that justice is what is good for another person.
-Socrates says that this contradicts his earlier statement that rules are made by the strong for the strong.
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I think that it is okay to harm someone but only in defence or if it is absolutly necessary, not over something unimportant. I believe this because justice is a way to aviod violence or conflict. Therefore before harming another you should try to find a peaceful way to settle it but if that cannot happen then you will need to resort to harm.
I think that Socrates will dissagree with my stance and that Polemarchus would very much encourage it because his stance on justice is to help your friends and to harm your enemies.
Socrates says that if you are following whatever the stronger party says is right even if it is not in their interest, then it is right to go against it.
Then Socrates says that the stronger party is always in the interest of others just like a doctor to its patients, or a teacher to its students.
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Homie T's first point was that injustice can sometimes be just as good as justice
-Socrates says that injustice has punishments and penalties
Then he says that justice is what is good for another person.
-Socrates says that this contradicts his earlier statement that rules are made by the strong for the strong.
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I think that it is okay to harm someone but only in defence or if it is absolutly necessary, not over something unimportant. I believe this because justice is a way to aviod violence or conflict. Therefore before harming another you should try to find a peaceful way to settle it but if that cannot happen then you will need to resort to harm.
I think that Socrates will dissagree with my stance and that Polemarchus would very much encourage it because his stance on justice is to help your friends and to harm your enemies.
3.16.2007
Republic Assignment 3/17
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
No, I actually dissagree with what Polemarchus thinks of justice. Cephalus' thinking on justice is much better, telling the truth and paying your debts is a lot better way to live your life than to spend your whole time hurting your enemies.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonides defines justice as giving everyone their dues. Polemarchus interprets this as helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates points our that a just man would never hurt a man whether it be friend or enemy for that would not be a just thing to do.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think that Socrates is trying to prove that wisdom and knowledge grows with age.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
In my opinion, Socrates has a better argument with more reason backing up his assertions. He gives examples such as when he referred to a horse, he said that by hurting a horse you are not making it any better, this is the same when you hurt a person. Socrates understands that hurting people is and should not be part of justice. Above all, Socrates is a philosopher and I tended to listen and trust him more than Polemarchus who isn't and who doesn't back his opinion up with fact.
No, I actually dissagree with what Polemarchus thinks of justice. Cephalus' thinking on justice is much better, telling the truth and paying your debts is a lot better way to live your life than to spend your whole time hurting your enemies.
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Simonides defines justice as giving everyone their dues. Polemarchus interprets this as helping your friends and hurting your enemies.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates points our that a just man would never hurt a man whether it be friend or enemy for that would not be a just thing to do.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think that Socrates is trying to prove that wisdom and knowledge grows with age.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
In my opinion, Socrates has a better argument with more reason backing up his assertions. He gives examples such as when he referred to a horse, he said that by hurting a horse you are not making it any better, this is the same when you hurt a person. Socrates understands that hurting people is and should not be part of justice. Above all, Socrates is a philosopher and I tended to listen and trust him more than Polemarchus who isn't and who doesn't back his opinion up with fact.
Personal Reflection 3/16
Since Socratic philosophy is largely about definitions, lets start with some of our own. In one paragraph (or more) define what a friend is and how you should act towards a friend?
A friend is another person that you enjoy being around, somebody that you can trust and confide in and somebody that's just fun to talk to or mess around with. Friendship doesn't usually have a mark in time where it goes from darkness to light, it is a slow process that grows in time. Eventually a bond or trust is formed after a certain amount of experience together is amplified by unique conditions. I think that friendship is extremely important to people because the human nature longs to be around others.
It is important to show kindness and trust in your friends or else they might not show kindness and trust in you.
A friend is another person that you enjoy being around, somebody that you can trust and confide in and somebody that's just fun to talk to or mess around with. Friendship doesn't usually have a mark in time where it goes from darkness to light, it is a slow process that grows in time. Eventually a bond or trust is formed after a certain amount of experience together is amplified by unique conditions. I think that friendship is extremely important to people because the human nature longs to be around others.
It is important to show kindness and trust in your friends or else they might not show kindness and trust in you.
3.15.2007
The Republic 3/16
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cepahlus is Polemarchus' very rich father.
What is the Profession of Cephalus?
It doesn't say in the text what he does but it refers to him as a money-maker.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was just making an offering in the courtyard
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus describes the virtues of old age to be letting go of your previous masters and desires(such as the sex drive) so that you can live your life peacefully.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
Cepalus thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts.
What is Socrates responce?
Socrates points out that if you borrowed a weapon from a friend and then he became homicidal it would not be just to return it.
II. Write a one paragraph responce to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephalus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I agree more with Cephalus because his definition is more truthful than anything else. Despite the fact that Socrates can find loopholes with anything that anyone says, Cephalus still has a solid opinion. But if it were up to me to define ideal justice, it would be a system that prevents violence from occuring.
Cepahlus is Polemarchus' very rich father.
What is the Profession of Cephalus?
It doesn't say in the text what he does but it refers to him as a money-maker.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was just making an offering in the courtyard
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Cephalus describes the virtues of old age to be letting go of your previous masters and desires(such as the sex drive) so that you can live your life peacefully.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
Cepalus thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying ones debts.
What is Socrates responce?
Socrates points out that if you borrowed a weapon from a friend and then he became homicidal it would not be just to return it.
II. Write a one paragraph responce to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephalus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I agree more with Cephalus because his definition is more truthful than anything else. Despite the fact that Socrates can find loopholes with anything that anyone says, Cephalus still has a solid opinion. But if it were up to me to define ideal justice, it would be a system that prevents violence from occuring.
3.14.2007
Cave Assignment 3/15
Compare and contrast what Socrates says in “The Simile of the Cave” with Fahrenheit 451. How are characters like Mildred similar to characters in “Simile of the Cave”?
I wanted to do this question before I had even read your blog because the relationship had been brought up to me by my friend who had you last year and by Justin. At first I didn't agree, but then it became clearer and clearer as I read on in the text and kept on finding more and more interesting passages in The Allegory.
The whole metaphor of the cave was actually litterally brought up during Fahrenheit. Montag compared being enlighted to those who were still inside of the cave (people like Mildred, his wife, who were contempt with being inside their own bubble or cave.) But not only was it literally referenced to, but the whole book was a metaphor to the cave metaphor. The people who were stuck inside a cave, unable to move their bodies or heads were the majority of citizens who believed the anti-book propaganda. By following everything that society tells them they are unable to reflect on their own opinions or question if the bunny rabbit is really a bunny rabbit. These thoughts are not only blocked out from their conscience, but thought to be rediculous and an offence against society that could get you arrested.
Basically to sum up the relationship between the two metaphors. The people making the hand puppets could be society as a whole or the government (but I don't want to make that connection because we never learned much about Fahrenheit's government) and the individuals are sitting just staring at the shadows believing that the dancing lack of light is a bunny rabbit because the ones in the cave percieve reality to be whatever is right in front of them rather than questioning it.
I wanted to do this question before I had even read your blog because the relationship had been brought up to me by my friend who had you last year and by Justin. At first I didn't agree, but then it became clearer and clearer as I read on in the text and kept on finding more and more interesting passages in The Allegory.
The whole metaphor of the cave was actually litterally brought up during Fahrenheit. Montag compared being enlighted to those who were still inside of the cave (people like Mildred, his wife, who were contempt with being inside their own bubble or cave.) But not only was it literally referenced to, but the whole book was a metaphor to the cave metaphor. The people who were stuck inside a cave, unable to move their bodies or heads were the majority of citizens who believed the anti-book propaganda. By following everything that society tells them they are unable to reflect on their own opinions or question if the bunny rabbit is really a bunny rabbit. These thoughts are not only blocked out from their conscience, but thought to be rediculous and an offence against society that could get you arrested.
Basically to sum up the relationship between the two metaphors. The people making the hand puppets could be society as a whole or the government (but I don't want to make that connection because we never learned much about Fahrenheit's government) and the individuals are sitting just staring at the shadows believing that the dancing lack of light is a bunny rabbit because the ones in the cave percieve reality to be whatever is right in front of them rather than questioning it.
3.13.2007
Plato Self-Reflection 3/14
Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?
During our library trip to UCSD there was a particullarly unsettling event that took place. I was pleasently minding my own buisness and hard at work studying for our interaction project when suddenly an unnamed person comes running at me telling me what just happend. A nameless girl had decided that she would go all the way to the top floor (8th) and drop a large book down the stairwell. Immediatly rumors starting flying like crazy, some people said that it hit and killed someone, others said that an ambulance had carted some guy out, and some said that it had hit our very own teacher. Of course none of this was fact, instead the book had flown off course and landed around the 3rd level of the building. Unfortunatly nobody knew the facts except for those who were there to witness and those people were in trouble so the rumors continued to flow. Later in the day our teacher (Mr. Jana) confronted everyone at once. He told us that the book had hit someone and they were seriously hurt. Now, this coming from a teacher was much more likely to be believed but instead that turned out to be a blatend lie. This didn't really change my perspective in life but I learned that nobody can be 100% trusted, even respected authority.
During our library trip to UCSD there was a particullarly unsettling event that took place. I was pleasently minding my own buisness and hard at work studying for our interaction project when suddenly an unnamed person comes running at me telling me what just happend. A nameless girl had decided that she would go all the way to the top floor (8th) and drop a large book down the stairwell. Immediatly rumors starting flying like crazy, some people said that it hit and killed someone, others said that an ambulance had carted some guy out, and some said that it had hit our very own teacher. Of course none of this was fact, instead the book had flown off course and landed around the 3rd level of the building. Unfortunatly nobody knew the facts except for those who were there to witness and those people were in trouble so the rumors continued to flow. Later in the day our teacher (Mr. Jana) confronted everyone at once. He told us that the book had hit someone and they were seriously hurt. Now, this coming from a teacher was much more likely to be believed but instead that turned out to be a blatend lie. This didn't really change my perspective in life but I learned that nobody can be 100% trusted, even respected authority.
3.01.2007
Personal Reflection 3/2
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences (or related to that, your inablity to forgive). You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
The year was 2002 and i had a new craving, a craving for more poker. Poker was a past-time and I loved playing it. One night while at a nameless friend's house we were intensely into a match, and this particular match had gotten into american currency wagers that were consitantly pilling up into higher and higher stacks. All fun and games were put behind us and a feeling of competitivness that could be cut with a knife was on our shoulders. Finally our hands were shown and as I came to the conclusion that I won I felt like a million bucks.
Now it was time for the next hand to be delt. I was feeling so headstrong and invinsible that I decided to go all in. I could feel the beads of sweat rolling down my fore head as each individual card was laid on the table. Finally the time came for the last card to be revealed....A Queen... I was devestated my hand was completely worthless and I had lost all the money that I had earned. I learned a lesson that night, you should always put your pride behind you and focus on the present.
The year was 2002 and i had a new craving, a craving for more poker. Poker was a past-time and I loved playing it. One night while at a nameless friend's house we were intensely into a match, and this particular match had gotten into american currency wagers that were consitantly pilling up into higher and higher stacks. All fun and games were put behind us and a feeling of competitivness that could be cut with a knife was on our shoulders. Finally our hands were shown and as I came to the conclusion that I won I felt like a million bucks.
Now it was time for the next hand to be delt. I was feeling so headstrong and invinsible that I decided to go all in. I could feel the beads of sweat rolling down my fore head as each individual card was laid on the table. Finally the time came for the last card to be revealed....A Queen... I was devestated my hand was completely worthless and I had lost all the money that I had earned. I learned a lesson that night, you should always put your pride behind you and focus on the present.
Iliad Assignment 3/2
First we skipped the middle section of book nine and then we continued to read on after the battle scene took place. Patrocleus was killed by Apollo, Hector and Euphorbus. Before he dies he predicts that Achilles will kill Hector in vengence. I really do not have any questions at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
