Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 63 Section 35c : "But apart from all question of appearances, gentlemen, I do not think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument"
I chose this statement from Socrates' trail because I thought it once again showed him in the democratic and just light. These type of statements would have really helped Socrates out if it wasn't for the jury's predetermend decision. It made the situation seem like Socrates was a saint and the prosecution as unjust jerks. After reading this I really started to side with Socrates and believing that he was in the right while his prosecutors were really criminals who thought that they were above the law.
5.17.2007
5.16.2007
The Apology 5/17
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
5.15.2007
The Apology 5/16
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion:
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
Pericles Funeral Oration 5/15
Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one and write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.
- They try to make a government others want to model
- They don't try to build walls or borders around their land; they are open to the world
- Individuals are not only interested in them selves but in the government and state's as well.
- They make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them.
4.24.2007
Jigsaw 4/25
1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
Freedom of Speech in Times of Crises
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "The press should be censored in times of crisis."
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
Viewpoint 4/23
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
4.18.2007
Don Imus Assignment 4/19
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich's main point is that freedom of speech makes it so that you have the freedom to say whatever you want no matter what affects that it has. Rich also points out that Imus isn't the only comedian or shock jock that could face reprocusions from the desicion to can him.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
Republic Assignment 4/18
1) What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
4.16.2007
Best Comment Award 4/17
I agree with Dulce and Paige that this is a great peice because of the fact you used descriptive writing. I also see that you used great vocabulary like climatic....i had no clue wat that ment until i read it in your writing. i also get mad when mr. commerson does not let us out on time.
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
3.27.2007
Republic Assignment 3/28
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.
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.
3.26.2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
