Like what we talked about in class, Homer talks about the gods killing and fighting. But, the gods are good, and good things don’t fight, so it makes the gods image bad and teaches children about fighting. Also, Achilles, especially Achilles because he was the Geeks hero, he was the greatest fighter, but, as we read he refused to fight, he refused to fight for his honor. But, that could have been taken as selfishness, or being a coward, Homer was censored to not teach the children any of the bad qualities.
The reason why some parts of poetry should be banned is because the Guardians would become “god-fearing”. That would be bad, because the Guardians would grow up being afraid of the gods, the upper-beings that control everything. Also Plato (Socrates) says that Homer should stop making the after-life seem so gloomy, because then the Guardians would become afraid of death, instead valiantly charging into battle, not afraid of death, even hoping to die.
Poetry should teach not that gods are evil, but good. They should not “persuade our young men that the gods are the source of evil, and that heroes are no better than ordinary mortals.” That is what is taught in the poetry, that the gods are evil and the heroes are great, when the gods are good and the heroes are no different that normal people.
I would agree with that because, the gods are always portrayed as terrible beings that do bad things and act like humans. When really, they are greater and better than humans, the gods should have nothing to do with humans or doing anything that has to do with humans. I think, like Plato, the gods should not be explained as bad, or evil, or like humans, they should be described as perfect beings that are 100% good.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Homer Assignment
Like what we talked about in class, Homer talks about the gods killing and fighting. But, the gods are good, and good things don’t fight, so it makes the gods image bad and teaches children about fighting. Also, Achilles, especially Achilles because he was the Geeks hero, he was the greatest fighter, but, as we read he refused to fight, he refused to fight for his honor. But, that could have been taken as selfishness, or being a coward, Homer was censored to not teach the children any of the bad qualities.
The reason why some parts of poetry should be banned is because the Guardians would become “god-fearing”. That would be bad, because the Guardians would grow up being afraid of the gods, the upper-beings that control everything. Also Plato (Socrates) says that Homer should stop making the after-life seem so gloomy, because then the Guardians would become afraid of death, instead valiantly charging into battle, not afraid of death, even hoping to die.
Poetry should teach not that gods are evil, but good. They should not “persuade our young men that the gods are the source of evil, and that heroes are no better than ordinary mortals.” That is what is taught in the poetry, that the gods are evil and the heroes are great, when the gods are good and the heroes are no different that normal people.
I would agree with that because, the gods are always portrayed as terrible beings that do bad things and act like humans. When really, they are greater and better than humans, the gods should have nothing to do with humans or doing anything that has to do with humans. I think, like Plato, the gods should not be explained as bad, or evil, or like humans, they should be described as perfect beings that are 100% good.
The reason why some parts of poetry should be banned is because the Guardians would become “god-fearing”. That would be bad, because the Guardians would grow up being afraid of the gods, the upper-beings that control everything. Also Plato (Socrates) says that Homer should stop making the after-life seem so gloomy, because then the Guardians would become afraid of death, instead valiantly charging into battle, not afraid of death, even hoping to die.
Poetry should teach not that gods are evil, but good. They should not “persuade our young men that the gods are the source of evil, and that heroes are no better than ordinary mortals.” That is what is taught in the poetry, that the gods are evil and the heroes are great, when the gods are good and the heroes are no different that normal people.
I would agree with that because, the gods are always portrayed as terrible beings that do bad things and act like humans. When really, they are greater and better than humans, the gods should have nothing to do with humans or doing anything that has to do with humans. I think, like Plato, the gods should not be explained as bad, or evil, or like humans, they should be described as perfect beings that are 100% good.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Republic Assignment
A reason why somebody might want to censor Hesiod is because of what he wrote. I know that Socrates did not believe in the god’s, I am guessing the Plato didn’t either. That is one reason; another is because he is putting ideas in people’s heads that could change everyday lifestyle. People would be less concerned about what they did, because they thought that the gods might help or protect them. The God’s would be an excuse to relax, not do work, and just wait for the God’s to do something for them. Plato might have thought that people would become lazy and wanting thing to happen to them, instead of actually working towards something. That is why I think Hesiod might be censored.
Homer and Hesiod are guilty of making stories that create bad images. In most of the stories, somebody is banished from the heavens; also as I said they create something inside a person. The bad ideas portrayed in the books sparks wickedness, it brings the idea of hurting somebody. But, Socrates wanted the guardians to be good all around. He did not want them to have the ideas of hurting involved. Home and Hesiod are guilty of creating bad images in a persons mind. Fighting.
The first one mentioned was they Gods are good. They should be portrayed as good then, and not evil. The second one is that God is “is a kind of magician who can appear at will in different forms at different times...” God is a magician, he can do whatever he/she wants whenever he/she wants (I am saying he/she because nobody knows….). The laws of storytelling are, always make the God/Gods do something good, not have the banish somebody or harm people, the stories have to tell the good of the gods. The next, is that the Gods should be able to do whatever they want, they should not be limited by anything.
I was way off, what I said was that the people would become lazy, what Plato said, was that the reason why are because they are lies, and they say bad things about gods. When you think of a god, you think of an omnificent being, perfect, mainly good. The stories the Homer and Hesiod tell, say bad things, they say things that give the gods a bad image.
Homer and Hesiod are guilty of making stories that create bad images. In most of the stories, somebody is banished from the heavens; also as I said they create something inside a person. The bad ideas portrayed in the books sparks wickedness, it brings the idea of hurting somebody. But, Socrates wanted the guardians to be good all around. He did not want them to have the ideas of hurting involved. Home and Hesiod are guilty of creating bad images in a persons mind. Fighting.
The first one mentioned was they Gods are good. They should be portrayed as good then, and not evil. The second one is that God is “is a kind of magician who can appear at will in different forms at different times...” God is a magician, he can do whatever he/she wants whenever he/she wants (I am saying he/she because nobody knows….). The laws of storytelling are, always make the God/Gods do something good, not have the banish somebody or harm people, the stories have to tell the good of the gods. The next, is that the Gods should be able to do whatever they want, they should not be limited by anything.
I was way off, what I said was that the people would become lazy, what Plato said, was that the reason why are because they are lies, and they say bad things about gods. When you think of a god, you think of an omnificent being, perfect, mainly good. The stories the Homer and Hesiod tell, say bad things, they say things that give the gods a bad image.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Might Make Right
Does might make right?
I actually think it does, the reason is because of the government. The government is strong, they create laws. Those laws people abide by, they abide by them because they are afraid of the government, afraid of their strength. Afraid what the government can do. Because of this, might makes right, strength makes people follow the law. If there were no laws, people would do anything, the government prevents that, they scare the people into being just. In Plato’s Republic Thrasymahcus says the justice, is in the stronger parties interest. In other words, whoever has more power makes something right. I find this true because it is the reality we live in; people follow the law because they are afraid of the punishment. To sum up, might, in my opinion makes “right”.
I actually think it does, the reason is because of the government. The government is strong, they create laws. Those laws people abide by, they abide by them because they are afraid of the government, afraid of their strength. Afraid what the government can do. Because of this, might makes right, strength makes people follow the law. If there were no laws, people would do anything, the government prevents that, they scare the people into being just. In Plato’s Republic Thrasymahcus says the justice, is in the stronger parties interest. In other words, whoever has more power makes something right. I find this true because it is the reality we live in; people follow the law because they are afraid of the punishment. To sum up, might, in my opinion makes “right”.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Justice & Happiness
Justice and happiness are completely different things. Justice, to me, is what is morally right. By that I mean what is the right thing to do, the choice between helping an old man cross a street or letting him fall on the ground. The obvious right thing, is to help the old man, it is what it overall the right thing. Happiness to me is when you no longer have any wants. The reason why I say this is because, when you no longer want anything, you are content with what you DO have. Because you are happy with what you have and you no longer want anything. I am not truly happy, because I desire things, I want things. But, once I get the things I desire, I become closer to happiness. Being right, or just, to me helps you on your way to happiness. The reason why I say this is because you could feel better about yourself. It would bring you happiness to have done the right things, like helping the old man. Whenever I help somebody, it always make me feel good, it makes me happy to know that I have done something to better somebody’s life. I can’t tell you if Socrates would agree with me, because he can’t be happy, I also couldn’t tell you if he would agree with my definition of justice, because he hasn’t given his opinion on justice. He still wants things; I think only a truly happy person could agree with me. But, I know for a fact the Thrasymahcus would disagree with me, on both happiness and justice. The reason why he won’t agree on justice is because he has a strong opinion. He didn’t sway his answer when Socrates questioned him.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Justice Opinion 3
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 when the government or captain, that the orders they give are in the interest of the subordinates, not the leader. “So that a captain in this sense is in control, but will not give his orders with his own interest in view, but that of the crew which he controls.” This a good point because it is true, when the subordinate gets the task, it is there interest because it shows their skill. “No ruler of any kind, qua ruler, exercises his authority, whatever its sphere, with his own interest in view, but that of the subject of his skill. It is his subject and his subject’s proper interest to which he looks in all he says and does.” It is in the subordinate’s interest to live up to their title.
In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
One of Thrasymahcus main points is, justice is good for the stronger party, at the expense of the subject that obeys the stronger party. One main point of Socrates is, injustice does not pay better than justice. That brings up Thrasymahcus other point, injustice pays more than justice. “…no profession or art or authority provides for its own benefit but, as we said before, provides and orders what benefits the subject, of which it is in charge, thus studying the interest of the weaker party and not the stronger.” That is Socrates next point, most jobs don’t do anything for themselves. The product of their work usually goes to the public, mainly the weaker party, not the stronger.
In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymahcus say in response to your answer?
I think that harming somebody should only be if they attack first. It should only be used in self defense. The reason why I say this is because fighting never solves anything, it only leads to worse situation. A just man should never use violence; a just man should find a way around fighting. That is something that Socrates would say, that is basically what the told Polemarchus. He said that fighting is never the right thing that a just man would never right. Thrasymahcus would probably say something along the lines of the only time you should fight is if you are the stronger man. To me it seems that Thrasymahcus is about strength, because of his opinion on justice. He would say fight if you are strong because if you are weaker, then you will surly lose and be hurt, but if you are stronger, take advantage of the weaker man and defeat him.
Socrates says that when the government or captain, that the orders they give are in the interest of the subordinates, not the leader. “So that a captain in this sense is in control, but will not give his orders with his own interest in view, but that of the crew which he controls.” This a good point because it is true, when the subordinate gets the task, it is there interest because it shows their skill. “No ruler of any kind, qua ruler, exercises his authority, whatever its sphere, with his own interest in view, but that of the subject of his skill. It is his subject and his subject’s proper interest to which he looks in all he says and does.” It is in the subordinate’s interest to live up to their title.
In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
One of Thrasymahcus main points is, justice is good for the stronger party, at the expense of the subject that obeys the stronger party. One main point of Socrates is, injustice does not pay better than justice. That brings up Thrasymahcus other point, injustice pays more than justice. “…no profession or art or authority provides for its own benefit but, as we said before, provides and orders what benefits the subject, of which it is in charge, thus studying the interest of the weaker party and not the stronger.” That is Socrates next point, most jobs don’t do anything for themselves. The product of their work usually goes to the public, mainly the weaker party, not the stronger.
In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymahcus say in response to your answer?
I think that harming somebody should only be if they attack first. It should only be used in self defense. The reason why I say this is because fighting never solves anything, it only leads to worse situation. A just man should never use violence; a just man should find a way around fighting. That is something that Socrates would say, that is basically what the told Polemarchus. He said that fighting is never the right thing that a just man would never right. Thrasymahcus would probably say something along the lines of the only time you should fight is if you are the stronger man. To me it seems that Thrasymahcus is about strength, because of his opinion on justice. He would say fight if you are strong because if you are weaker, then you will surly lose and be hurt, but if you are stronger, take advantage of the weaker man and defeat him.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
What is a Friend?
A friend is somebody that you cant trust, sticks by your side, and is always there. To me a friend is one of the most important things in the world. The way to act toward a friend is to be yourself. That is what is great with friends, when you are with real friends, you can be yourself. Your friends dont care what you act like, they dont care if you are weird or strange, the reason is becase they know you, as you. Also, you have to treat your friends with respect, you have to treat them nice. Friends are one of the best things in the world, only if you can be yourself and have fun.
Justice Opinion 2
In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
I would have to say no. The reason why is because the first one is all about truthfulness and repaying your debts. The second one involves fighting, in no situation should fighting be used. That is my opinion, but I think the first definition of justice is right.
What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Siomonides definition of justice is “That it is right to give every man his due”. I think that Polemarchus interpreted this wrong. The reason why I think this is because Polemarchus stance on justice is to help your friends, but harm your enemies. I personally couldent see how Polemarchus could have pulled hurting your enemies from giving every man his due. Giving a man his due to me is repaying, giving back. I could be wrong, but I think Polemarchus interpreted him wrong.
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?
The problem he sees is defining who is good or bad. “ ‘But don’t men often make mistakes, and think a man honest when he is not, and vice versa’ ‘Yes, they do’ ‘In that case their enemies are good and their friends bad.’ ” You can say to harm a friend, but hurt an enemy, but it doesn’t specify who is good or bad. Unlike in the first, it says to help others and be honest. That is why this cant be right, because good or bad cant be defined.
What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
This could be because Cephalus is older, he is wiser, and he has lived longer. But Polemarchus has not lived as long and couldn’t know as much as his father. Socrates/Plato could be trying to teach people to respect your elders because they are knowledgeable.
Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
I find Socrates argument much stronger. The reason why I think this is one because in the end Polemarchus changes his mind and sides with Socrates. That is an example of a strong argument, two, because Socrates says “ ‘ Then, Polemarchus, it is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite, the unjust man.’ ” He says that a just man would never harm anyone, because that would be unjust. That was the turning point of Polemarchus, that was also a strong quote because it says that is morally right. The morally right thing is to never harm your enemies, because bringing harm unto somebody is unjust.
I would have to say no. The reason why is because the first one is all about truthfulness and repaying your debts. The second one involves fighting, in no situation should fighting be used. That is my opinion, but I think the first definition of justice is right.
What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
Siomonides definition of justice is “That it is right to give every man his due”. I think that Polemarchus interpreted this wrong. The reason why I think this is because Polemarchus stance on justice is to help your friends, but harm your enemies. I personally couldent see how Polemarchus could have pulled hurting your enemies from giving every man his due. Giving a man his due to me is repaying, giving back. I could be wrong, but I think Polemarchus interpreted him wrong.
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?
The problem he sees is defining who is good or bad. “ ‘But don’t men often make mistakes, and think a man honest when he is not, and vice versa’ ‘Yes, they do’ ‘In that case their enemies are good and their friends bad.’ ” You can say to harm a friend, but hurt an enemy, but it doesn’t specify who is good or bad. Unlike in the first, it says to help others and be honest. That is why this cant be right, because good or bad cant be defined.
What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
This could be because Cephalus is older, he is wiser, and he has lived longer. But Polemarchus has not lived as long and couldn’t know as much as his father. Socrates/Plato could be trying to teach people to respect your elders because they are knowledgeable.
Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
I find Socrates argument much stronger. The reason why I think this is one because in the end Polemarchus changes his mind and sides with Socrates. That is an example of a strong argument, two, because Socrates says “ ‘ Then, Polemarchus, it is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite, the unjust man.’ ” He says that a just man would never harm anyone, because that would be unjust. That was the turning point of Polemarchus, that was also a strong quote because it says that is morally right. The morally right thing is to never harm your enemies, because bringing harm unto somebody is unjust.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Justice Opinion 1
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cephalus is an old man, he is the father of Polemarchus. Cephalus at the start talks about old age, how he perceives his age and how other people think of their age. Polemarchus is as I said Cephalus son, at the start he doesn’t talk to much, but at the end Cephalus leaves so I am guess that Polemarchus is going to talk soon.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
I am not to sure if he has a job, he never really talked about it. He just talked about the money he inherited.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was sacrificing something. There was a festival and he was sacrificing something for a goddess. One of the events was a relay race on horses.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
I think he was saying because he is old, there is nothing else for him to do. Unlike when he was young, all he has to do now is think about everything.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks to tell the truth and repay all of your debts.
What is Socrates response?
He says that sometimes it is better to tweak the truth. That sometimes telling the truth can lead to bad things. He also thinks that sometimes it is not best to return something.
I agree with both of them, I think that it is right to tell the truth, and right to repay people. But, not all the times would I give something up right away and always tell the truth. Sometimes I would tweak the truth to make somebody happier, and as Socrates said about borrowing “For instance, if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind and then ask for it back, surely it would be generally agreed that one ought not to return it,…”I would have to agree with that, if I asked to borrow somebody’s paper and wrote on it, I would not give the paper back, if I gave it back it would not make sense. I would have to agree with parts of both sides.
Cephalus represents kindness and honesty. His opinion is the best choice that would be best for everything. What he says is morally right, his opinion is what most people would choose, but could never live by.
Cephalus is an old man, he is the father of Polemarchus. Cephalus at the start talks about old age, how he perceives his age and how other people think of their age. Polemarchus is as I said Cephalus son, at the start he doesn’t talk to much, but at the end Cephalus leaves so I am guess that Polemarchus is going to talk soon.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
I am not to sure if he has a job, he never really talked about it. He just talked about the money he inherited.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was sacrificing something. There was a festival and he was sacrificing something for a goddess. One of the events was a relay race on horses.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
I think he was saying because he is old, there is nothing else for him to do. Unlike when he was young, all he has to do now is think about everything.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks to tell the truth and repay all of your debts.
What is Socrates response?
He says that sometimes it is better to tweak the truth. That sometimes telling the truth can lead to bad things. He also thinks that sometimes it is not best to return something.
I agree with both of them, I think that it is right to tell the truth, and right to repay people. But, not all the times would I give something up right away and always tell the truth. Sometimes I would tweak the truth to make somebody happier, and as Socrates said about borrowing “For instance, if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind and then ask for it back, surely it would be generally agreed that one ought not to return it,…”I would have to agree with that, if I asked to borrow somebody’s paper and wrote on it, I would not give the paper back, if I gave it back it would not make sense. I would have to agree with parts of both sides.
Cephalus represents kindness and honesty. His opinion is the best choice that would be best for everything. What he says is morally right, his opinion is what most people would choose, but could never live by.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Question 1. Section 2
The prisoners in the cave are exactly like Mildred. Both people were censored, but in different ways. The people were censored from everything; they were protected from everything besides shadows of animals and other things. This is like Mildred, for one, because she was censored from books, two, she was censored from a real life. Neither of them knew the real meaning of a life, neither of them knew the truth of the world, neither of them ever had any stimulant. Both of them are ignorant, both of them have never been in a real world. The people in The Simile of the Cave would be afraid of the real world, they would only look at shadows and reflections because they were afraid anything that isn’t “real”. This is like Mildred because she is afraid what makes common life, she is afraid of everything except the parlor games.
Goodbye
Goodbye
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Personal Reflection
I think that I have found that I have found that life is not as easy as it appears. Almost all of the people in my life have made life seem easy; the reason is because they all have made it through life great. In elementary school, you don’t have a worry, nothing really happens. When I got to middle school, I found that life is harder than what I thought; I knew life was tough, but not so much. Finding out that life was harder, I changed, I got serious, and I became worried. I found out that what I do now affects the rest of my life. When all that hit me, I changed; I became a somewhat different person. I became more stressed, but hid that with energy. It is strange how one thing can affect your life in so many ways.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Pride
Pride, the definition of pride is a feeling of self-respect and personal worth. Pride is when you feel that you are too good, you think you are better than anybody else. Agamemnon and Achilles are full of pride, they both think they are great, even though Achilles really is, not Agamemnon.
Everybody gets prideful at times; everybody knows the feeling of being ‘superior’. If I ever get this feeling it is with my family, it is more in a joking way. Whenever there are those stupid television competitions are on. My mom answers all the questions and I answer some if she asks me; when she does I always say she is wrong. Implying that I am smarter, therefore being better, that is where pride can come into my life. I, don’t know really when pride comes into my life besides that. I guess I do it subconsciously, that or I just chose to not remember what happens.
Everybody gets prideful at times; everybody knows the feeling of being ‘superior’. If I ever get this feeling it is with my family, it is more in a joking way. Whenever there are those stupid television competitions are on. My mom answers all the questions and I answer some if she asks me; when she does I always say she is wrong. Implying that I am smarter, therefore being better, that is where pride can come into my life. I, don’t know really when pride comes into my life besides that. I guess I do it subconsciously, that or I just chose to not remember what happens.
Iliad Assignment
For this part of The Iliad, we read when Patroclus dies. This part started when Patroclus is taking out Hectors Charioteer. Then Patroclus starts to charge at Hector, but then, out of nowhere Apollo attacks. Patroclus is left lying on the ground, fighting for his life. Then, he gets a spear thrown through his back, Hector, being dishonorable, attacks and kills Patroclus. But before he dies, he says that Achilles is going to kill him, he tells him that his death is near.
Well, like I said before, Patroclus said that Achilles is going to kill Hector, so I know he is going to die. Achilles is going to be outraged, his love for Patroclus and wanting for revenge cancels his hate for Agamemnon. He loves Patroblus more than he hates Agamemnon.
Well, like I said before, Patroclus said that Achilles is going to kill Hector, so I know he is going to die. Achilles is going to be outraged, his love for Patroclus and wanting for revenge cancels his hate for Agamemnon. He loves Patroblus more than he hates Agamemnon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
