We read the articles by Emily Wilson with her alternative take on the life of Socrates. In "What's Wrong with Socrates?"in The Philosophers' Magazine, 2nd Qtr., 2008, she listed 10 things that conflicted with the myth/legend of Socrates that we have grown familiar with.Among Socrates' perceived transgressions (in Dr. Wilson's eyes), he was:
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;
2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind;
3. A chatterbox (talk over action is valued);
4. Psychologically naive - with statements like "nobody does wrong willingly", Wilson tears him apart;
5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;
6. Anti-political - he felt that few if any are smart enough to run a government properly, but could he do it? Could anyone? If not, why have gov't in the first place?
7. Parochial - there was little that Socrates believed could be learned outside of the walls of Athens;
8. Arrogant - when Dr. Wilson says arrogant, apparantly she means ill-mannered and inconsiderate among other things listed in the article;
9. Superstitious - sometimes, philosophers mean that someone who is religious is superstitious, but the way she wrote this passage, she made him sound a bit loony (eccentric if you want to put a good spin on it) for listening to the voice inside his head. Is that voice his conscience or was hearing voices like the math professor in A Beautiful Mind?
10. Rationalist - normally, you wouldn't think there's anything wrong with being rational, but Dr. Wilson finds that Socrates puts such a strong emphasis on being rational that he leaves no room for emotion in solving problems. He is devoid of emotion.
So, your job here is to pick 4 of these criticisms and discuss whether or not you agree or disagree with them. We heard from many of you in class, and here's your chance to refine or air out your ideas.
200 words minimum. Due Tuesday, Dec. 15.
(if you lost the article, it is available on the T drive, in my handout folder, in Philosophy, and then in articles. There are six pages).
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;
ReplyDeleteSocrates made sure that he was not called a Sophist because he did not get paid for his teachings. In this criticism, I think that Wilson is right because if people didn’t get paid to teach, then education wouldn’t be what it is today. If teachers never got paid, then we wouldn’t have anyone ot learn from. They would go off and do things that earned them a living instead of working and not getting paid for their talents. The people that would be teaching classes to students for free would clearly not belong there because if they actually knew what they were talking about, they’d be making money somewhere else.
3. A chatterbox (talk over action is valued);
Socrates was told that he was the wisest man in all of Athens, to make sure, he had a conversation with all of the people he thought wiser. He concluded that the Oracle was right because he knew that he knew nothing. I think that Socrates was a little full of himself and went around trying to make everyone else feel dumb by showing flaws in what they believed. The only reason why he went around to talk to those people in the first place was to make himself look even wiser by proving their ideas unworthy.
5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;
I completely disagree with Socrates on this. If a person harms another human, the person who was harmed is going to be a lot more harmed that the person who did the harming. He believed that the guilt of what the person did would be the ultimate punishment because you’re forced to live with the action that you did. Most people who go around stealing, raping, and killing, don’t seem affected by their actions. The person who gets hurt is the one that ultimately suffers from mental and physical harm.
7. Parochial - there was little that Socrates believed could be learned outside of the walls of Athens;
While I do think that some of Wilson’s criticisms are a little far fetched and only apply to our present day society, I do think that Socrates was a know it all and held himself higher than others. I agree with Wilson on this one as well because Socrates must have believed that the people in Athens were better than everyone else. He didn’t give others a chance to teach him something because he believed them to be inferior to him. I think this is the main reason he died. Not to be a martyr for his beliefs but maybe he was afraid of someone being wiser than he outside the walls of Athens.
10. I agree with this statement about Socrates being a rationalist because he puts so much value on the mind rather than his own emotions. Also he shows no sympathy which you can see when he chooses to die instead of trying to change his verdict so his family won’t be left alone.
ReplyDelete1. I agree that Socrates was an amateur because he didn’t take any money for his classes. He just let the pupils come and listen. This wasn’t a good thing to do because through this, his students didn’t take him very seriously. If he would have made them pay they would have paid more attention to him.
2. I agree with this statement that Socrates is irresponsible because he choose death over his family. He should have fought for his life. Also he should have at least tried to change his verdict so he could continue to spread his ideas. To me it seems like he just gave up and left his family alone to fend for themselves.
3. I don’t agree with this statement that Socrates was just a chatterbox because he might have only talked but he gave people new insight on things. Through his talking he made people take action. Also he was the person that pushed people in the right direction.
Irina Laczkovich 4th hour
Jake Ozar
ReplyDelete12/13/09
Honors Philosophy
Mr. Wickersham
Blog #28
3. Socrates is irresponsible.
I agree that Socrates was irresponsible to choose death over jail. He said that he felt his own death and the suffering of his family were equivalent: his family was only an extension of himself. He was irresponsible to choose death because he expected the city to correct his boy’s moral errors. I feel he choose death to get out of teaching his children right from wrong. He then says that an orphaned, starving or enslaved child might have little to no time think about moral philosophy.
4. Socrates is psychologically naïve.
Socrates says that nobody really does wrong and denies that you can be driven by your subconscious, but we are, no one is rational enough to make the right decision. Hasn’t he ever heard of free will sometimes we know we are doing wrong but we still do it anyways. He is naïve because he expects everyone to be as rational as he was if not more. He’s acting like everyone wants to be like him, totally selfish, self admiring
9. Socrates is superstitious
Becomes religious, saying he listened to a voice in his ear, the divine voice, seems like Socrates is unpredictable because he rejects the Athenian assumption that religion is primarily a social institution. He makes religion radically personal. He has direct access to his God. He assumes that the voice he hears in his head comes from a god and seems to undermine his whole notion that one should live an examined life.
10. Socrates is a rationalist
He has an intensely high value on the life of the mind so much that he seems to have no human emotions either in life or philosophy. He has no sympathy. He thinks wrongly that the life of the mind must be separate from the passion and tears of the heart. I disagree because all humans have emotions regardless whether or not you show it.
Stefanos Thomopoulos
ReplyDelete5th Hour
2. I agree with Emily Wilson when she says that Socrates was irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind when he could have avoided death and could have escaped from prison. Socrates abandoning his family and choosing the death penalty makes him look like a coward. I believe that he should have taken the other route of escaping from prison and living a life with his family and supporting them.
4. I do not agree with Socrates when he says things like “nobody does wrong willingly” because most people don’t do something wrong like killing or stealing without thinking about it before they do it. People don’t just decide one day to kill another person, most of the time they have a motive or reason but in some cases people are sick and kill without reason.
5. I disagree with Socrates that pain doesn’t matter because if you are the person who is wronged or the person who is doing the wrong doing both of them will experience some sort of pain most of the time. If someone steals from me or says something bad at me I will feel upset and put down that someone did that to me. The sinner though may experience pain and guilt for wrong doing someone but it depends on the person and they’re feelings.
7. I don’t really agree with Socrates and his belief that there was little that could be learned outside of Athens because I believe that there is always something to learn from someone because no one knows everything. It was wrong for him to say that we can’t learn from other cultures and the past because we learn from mistakes in the past and from things that different cultures do.
1. I kind of agree with the author when she says that Socrates is irresponsible because when he was being exiled he chose death by killing himself instead of helping his family. I also think that he is immoral for what he has done. That is why I agree with the author when she says that she is irresponsible.
ReplyDelete2. I do agree with the author that is psychologically naïve because he does not know what he is doing when it come to him own life but I do believe that he is very smart when it comes to the books.
3. I do not believe that he is rationalist because Parmenides states that a rationalist has knowledge of reason but he has no knowledge of reason when it came to his family by leaving them by killing himself and letting other people kill his own family.
4. The author claims that Socrates was arrogant but I don’t think he is not because all she says is that way he dresses and how he dresses the way that she describes Socrates is sort of like a bum. He wears no shoes, his clothes are raggedy, and he does not take a bath.
Alesia Dunlap
Tyler Friedman
ReplyDelete5th Hour
1. I disagree with this view. If we accept Plato’s descriptions of Socrates as truth, than it seems more accurate to say that Socrates reasons for not accepting payment were because of how he thought of himself as a direct-link to god. You see, from Socrates point of view, if he thinks he is doing gods work, why does he need payment? Moreover, if he were to take payment for his services, he probably thought that would only tarnish what he was trying to make look as a pure and sincere effort to enlighten the city of Athens.
2. Socrates believed that his cause was worth dying for. More importantly, I think Socrates believed that his cause was more important than life itself. Now, the question becomes is it irresponsible to give up your life for an idea when you knowingly and openly leave behind family that depends on you. I think it really depends on who you are and what you value: if you are a mother who values family above all else, I’d say Socrates was pretty irresponsible in his actions; if you are a soldier who values the mission above all else, then I’d say Socrates made the right decision.
3. I can definitely agree that Socrates was a “chatter-box”, but whether or not this is a negative characteristic, I’m not so sure. I think that for most cases, if you have someone who constantly talks about doing things but never actually does them, you have a bad person. Socrates is one of few exceptions, however, in that his constant and persistent talking served a purpose that could only have been pursued by that course of action.
8. Arrogance by itself is not the best quality. In Socrates case, however, I make exception. To do what Socrates did, to go around bursting everyone’s bubble day in and day out, arrogance is a necessary quality to achieve that goal. Without it, I don’t think Socrates would’ve ever been taken seriously.
4. I agree that Socrates is psychologically naïve. I think that people indeed do the wrong things willingly. An example of this would be pre-meditated murder. When someone murders and innocent person and it is a premeditated murder, then that person did the wrong thing intentionally. Other instances such as making up a terrible lie is another time when people willingly do the wrong thing. There are absolutely no justifications for murder or dishonesty and many people today tend to do those things willingly.
ReplyDelete3. I agree that Socrates was a chatter-box. Because he never wrote anything down, I think that it helped him memorize his thoughts by saying them out loud. Sometimes when you say something out loud you can realize how legitimate or ridiculous it sounds based on others reactions. I’m not sure if Socrates really cared about what other people’s reactions were regarding his thoughts and beliefs, but I think he just liked to say them out loud as opposed to writing them down. This way, if her forgot what he had said at one point in his life, he could go back to the person he told it to and see if they remembered it.
7. I disagree with Socrates regarding the fact that little could be learned outside the walls of Athens. I think that diversity is the key to learning. The best way to learn is to get many perspectives on the issues you are learning about. I think that the people in Athens all have similar views and beliefs, and if you do not leave Athens then there is no one to tell you why those views and beliefs may be wrong.
1. I agree with the author when she says that Socrates is irresponsible. I think it was very cruel of him to leave behind his wife and children. When he did this he diffused the responsibility of raising his kids and helping his wife do so. He could have easily escaped prison when he was given the ultimatum of life or death and I think her should have been a real man and chose life.
-Jules Ashe
4th Hour
2. Socrates is an amateur.
ReplyDeleteThe author explains that a world where educators do not get paid wouldn’t work at all. I agree that in today’s societies, no fee for education or payment for teachers wouldn’t work. However, I don’t agree that Socrates should be labeled an amateur simply because he didn’t accept payment for his services. In Socrates’ time, things were different. I’m assuming that many people wouldn’t be able to afford it if Socrates charged people for his teachings. I think that Socrates just wanted to make sure everyone that wanted to be would be educated, not just wealthy people. So, I think Socrates was right in his method of teaching without payment.
5. Socrates denies that pain matters.
I agree with the author that Socrates’ view on the importance of pain was crazy. Saying that pain doesn’t matter doesn’t make sense. Like the author said, it’s dangerous to assume that all perpetrators of crime will feel pain after they commit a crime. If this was true, there would be no repeat offenders. Though I’m sure some criminals feel guilt after, I’m also sure many do not- therefore jails and other forms of punishment are necessary. I also think that in some ways, it’s dumb to ‘face life with courage.’ I don’t mean that people should be fearful of everything in life, or that they shouldn’t take risks, but I do think that hurting oneself or others because ‘pain doesn’t matter’ is reckless and irresponsible.
6. Socrates is parochial.
I agree with the author that Socrates’ narrow-mindedness isn’t a good thing. I think that it’s good for someone to be passionate about something in particular, but I think the most important thing is to be open to others’ ideas as well. I think it makes someone look much more intelligent if they address and respect someone else’s idea when presenting their own. The only way to attain knowledge and form a well-thought opinion of your own is to listen to others. It’s strangely ironic that Socrates, a philosopher, would be one to be so narrow-minded on certain things when the concept of philosophy in general is to contemplate others’ ideas.
10. Socrates is a rationalist.
I disagree with the author’s thoughts on Socrates’ rationalism. I think that, as Socrates thought, the mind should be separate from the heart. I’m not saying that I think one should be cold and emotionless, but I think that in many things, emotions shouldn’t cloud the thoughts of the mind. Though sometimes it feels better to side with the heart, I can understand Socrates’ point in that the mind may make for better decisions in the long run. I don’t condemn Socrates’ rationalist way of thinking just because he isn’t ‘kind or generous’, but I do agree that being emotionless isn’t necessarily the right thing either.
katie Weed
ReplyDelete1. Socrates did not take regular fees for his services as a teacher, unlike the other sophists and teachers of Athens. Wilson suggests that because Socrates does not accept a salary then the students will be disinterested in their education. This is not true because Socrates was trying to teach to all of Athens and not just the wealthy that could afford a high-class education. Wilson also argues that Socrates approach of not accepting a salary will lead to only privately rich wealthy men and education will decline. This is not true because by Socrates not accepting a salary he s helping all of the people of Athens and not just the wealthy who can afford good schooling.
8. Wilson also argues that Socrates is arrogant and that he is sloppy and rude. Socrates is trying to avoid social conventions so it makes sense that he would ignore social codes like not wearing shoes and taking a bath. Socrates’ personal hygiene does not taint what his ideas are but enhances the ideas that he is ignoring societies standards.
10. Socrates is a rationalist and Wilson seems to find this as a flaw, however as a philosopher Socrates would have been governed by his mind and would disregard human emotion because it leads to irrational and unintelligent decisions.
9. Wilson claims that because Socrates hears a God that only talks to him and not the rest of the world he is a crazy person. This does not make him crazy but merely meshes with Socrates’ philosophy about not following the conventions of the society.
1. An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid;
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Emily Wilson when she claims that Socrates was an amateur for not accepting pay when he taught. This shows how dedicated Socrates was to teaching. Socrates must have thought that teaching was the right thing to do if he would do it without any material incentives. If one is truly invested in something that they do then they’re not going to do it for the pay, unlike someone who is greedy and would just teach for the money. This also showed that Socrates was truly devoted to teaching everyone, not just wealthy students that could pay him. In no way do any of these things make Socrates an amateur.
2. Irresponsible to leave his wife and two children behind;
although I do not support a husband and father leaving his family destitute, I would hardly call Socrates irresponsible. First of all, it’s important for one to take into consideration the time that all this was going on. Centuries ago, a father figure, especially Socrates, might not have been so important to have in the home. Paying the bills and putting food on the table wasn’t Socrates forte anyway, especially since he didn’t accept pay for teaching, so a father figure in their family wasn’t as important as the modern day person sees it. Second of all, I think that more than anything Socrates was being responsible for accepting his punishment and not taking the easy way out. He stood up for what he believed in, whether it was right or wrong, and was willing to die for that. To me, that demonstrates complete responsibility.
4. Psychologically naïve- with statements like “nobody does wrong willingly”,
Wilson tears him apart;
In this statement, I do agree with Wilson. Sometimes people don’t know that they’re doing wrong when they’re doing (or don’t believe they’re doing wrong), but in many instances I think that people know exactly what wrong things they are doing. When a serial killer is killing people I do not believe that they truly believe that what they are doing is okay. A serial killer knows that he or she will have to face serious consequences if they get caught because they are doing something wrong. I think that is the same with a lot of situations, maybe just not as extreme. When a student cheats on a test they have to do it when the teacher isn’t looking. They do this so that they won’t get in trouble, therefore the student knows that their actions will have a consequence because they are doing something wrong. So, I do believe that this belief of Socrates was naïve and a little too optimistic for the character of mankind.
5. Felt that pain didn’t matter;
I disagree completely with Socrates in this belief. Even if a wrongdoer knows that what they have done is wrong, it doesn’t mean that they always feel guilt. With that being said, if the perpetrator never feels guilt then ultimately the victim is the only one that has experienced harm. When Hitler was killing people in World War II, I do not believe he felt any guilt for it because he never stopped. But I don’t have Hitler’s mind-set, so I cannot tell you his emotions exactly. I just think that if he did feel guilt he would have taken his actions down a notch. Also, I believe that every “good” person makes mistakes; so then pain would matter to every person. I think that a statement like this from Socrates is way too far fetched. To say that if you’re good you will NEVER feel pain is just an exaggeration. To say that every sinner will feel guilt is also an exaggeration. This is why I do not agree with this belief.
I do think that the author is being too critical of Socrates. She sometimes gives arguments that I don’t find very logical such as the fact that students pay more attention to teachers that are paid then to those that aren’t paid. I don’t find that to be fair because some people may not be able to get an education. And saying that schools would be dominated by the wealthy men if teachers weren’t paid is a little extreme, in my opinion. I thought that on the contrary, the fact that he didn’t ask for money was kind of him. I think the author wants the readers to agree with her so much that she says things that are simply illogical. When she said that he was irresponsible for choosing the easier way out, I agree though. Especially since he had a wife and children, but I think that he hadn’t died, he wouldn’t have appeared as a martyr and his ideas would probably have never been as known. Somehow people who do great things and die of old age seem less remembered than people who die for a cause. I do agree with the author that some of Socrates ideas do not seem logical. The fact that “no one willingly does wrong” seems wrong. That would mean that no one knows the difference from right and wrong which seems to be a dangerous thing to say. In all I think that some of the ways that the author formulated her responses were a little too harsh, especially for someone who was executed and died such a long time ago, but not everything that she says seems wrong.
ReplyDeleteLaetitia C.
1. I don’t agree with the statement about how Socrates was an amateur because he didn’t take any money for his classes. I think that not charging money for his classes would make more people want to come. No charging students would also allow students who don’t have to money to pay for the classes join and learn about philosophy.
ReplyDelete3. I agree that Socrates was a chatterbox but I do not agree with the author when she says that this is a negative aspect of his persona. I think that saying things out loud helped Socrates decide whether they were reasonable or not. He also questioned people a lot, I don’t think that he did this just to boost his ego; I think that he did it to make people think differently about their lives than they normally would.
2. I agree with that statement that Socrates is irresponsible because he chose death over his family. I think that Socrates should’ve stayed alive and helped support his family. Choosing death was the easy way out because his colleagues could’ve easily gotten him out of the death penalty. Abandoning his family makes Socrates look like gutless because he chooses the easy way out. I also think that he choose death because I feel like after his trial people would stop trusting his ideas and beliefs.
4. I disagree with Socrates when he says that there is little to be learned outside the walls of Athens. Diversity and learning about other cultures is the key to learning. Everyone who lives in Athens most likely has the same or similar beliefs; if no one ever leaves Athens then there is no one to tell you if or why your beliefs or ideas are wrong, and there is no way to improve or build onto your ideas or beliefs.
maia knox
4th hour
Eric Singer
ReplyDelete5th Hour
Dr. Wilson’s argument has validity of prose, but lacks in logic…
First of all, Dr. Wilson suggests that Socrates was an Amateur because he did not accept money for his teaching, nor did he pay for his learning. Dr. Wilson is so liberal in her accusations that she feels that should this situation become rampant in society, it could account for man-kind’s return to the Dark Ages. I feel that this assertion is fallacious because of its use of exaggeration, but furthermore Wilson fails to look at perhaps why Socrates taught sans pay and learned without expense. One of the strongest under-pinning of the Socratic style is the quest of learning, the exploration of thought, Socrates seems to believe that man will not ever gain full knowledge of the world around him, but attempting to gain such knowledge is just as rewarding as it would be to finally ascended this mountain of learning and attain the unattainable. I think a more fair accusation would be that he is wasting his time in his quest for the unattainable, rather than his methods for trying to get there. It appears to me that because his work was of passion and not pay, Socrates likely came much closer to a truth than did his Sophist counter-parts, and therefore was anything but the Amateur that Wilson suggests he is.
Dr. Wilson also makes an assertion that Socrates was irresponsible and that he should have chosen to leave Athens rather than accept death. She believes his irresponsibility stems to his family, who she believes was left behind by him out of arrogance. What Dr. Wilson fails to include in her argument was that Socrates’ trial happened in the times of Ancient Greece, a time when life-expectancy was short, and also a time when women were perceived as inferior to men. So, by modern standards, I would concur with Dr. Wilson to the extent that by leaving his wife and children, he was being irresponsible. However, should we be fair to Socrates and judge him by the ancient standard in which he lived, Socrates was acting on his conviction and regarding his moral principles as were popular in ancient Greece. Just as easily as Dr. Wilson suggests that Socrates was irresponsible, we can conclude that Socrates was living above the moral standards of his time by remaining steadfast to his convictions, and was acting as a man of ancient Greece would have; he felt that his family (including his wife) were his, as property is his, and therefore he can do what he chooses with it. Furthermore, Socrates was a seventy-year-old man, probably nearly twice the age of many of the elders of Athens. It is my feeling that Socrates’ family should consider his longevity as nothing short of miraculous.
Dr. Wilson also seems to incriminate Socrates as being anti-political. According to Plato, Socrates seems to doubt man’s ability to rule himself. Regardless of what he believed in terms of government, or what Dr. Wilson believes, attacking someone on their political position is a perfect example of Ad-hominem fallacious reasoning. She wants to make her reader believe that Socrates was somehow bad because he doubted the legitimacy of government. This argument also neglects to mention that Socrates was not a delinquent, and that he was not brought to trial based on legitimate convictions, but because he had managed to offend politicians, and they wanted to see to it that he would never be able to tarnish their reputations again. The very circumstance of his trial seems to suggest that perhaps government is inherently unjust.
Finally, Dr. Wilson calls the voices that Socrates hears in his head superstition, an argument not found on concrete principle, but just merely because she doubts that he hears divine voices. I agree that the likely-hood of those voices being divine is questionable, but perhaps he was hearing his conscious, or maybe he actually did hear voices and he is the first recorded Schizophrenic individual in history.
2) Socrates is irresponsible- For this argument relevance is the biggest key to why I disagree with this criticism. For that time period I believe that a family is viewed in a completely different perspective. For that time period dieing for a cause brought a good name to your family. Also Socrates was 70 at the time and even though is health wasn’t mentioned it was becoming a factor that he could possibly pass away soon.
ReplyDelete4) Socrates is psychologically naïve- I agree, however I feel most philosophers are the most naïve people. He believed in “Nobody willingly does wrong” I do see where he was coming from in his idea, but there are too many exceptions to his point, however since he believes strongly in what he says it makes him naïve.
6) Socrates is anti-political- Again relevance to him being anti-political is not a case for stating his ideas are wrong. There are plenty of anti-political people around, the fact that he could not a find a political way to replace the old system is the reason why he was a threat to current politics.
9) Socrates is superstitious- I agree, this man loved attention and any way he could get it, he would do it. At age 70 his brain could make him very venerable to superstition, and for him to hear “God” in his head is no surprise to me. But with this he also loved to spread the story to other people to make it seem real, as if he keeps talking about it, it will become real.
David Mohan
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dr. Wilson in saying the Socrates is a “chatter-box” because instead of actually taking any action, he would rather talk. Socrates believed that we should spend our lives gaining wisdom and knowledge by discussing philosophy; however, if everyone did that, nobody would be taking action and society would suffer as a result. I agree that Socrates can be psychologically naïve because his statement that “nobody willingly does wrong” is completely irrational. A counter argument for this statement is that a poor man stealing out of necessity knows that what he is doing is wrong, but he follows through with the action regardless. When it comes to government, power in the hands of the few always proves to be a failure as a result of greed and corruption. Socrates may be smart enough to run a governmental system; however, I feel that he would give in to greed. In fact, no one would be able to run a government alone. A government with power in the hands of many, with checks and balances is the only successful method of government. I do not agree with Dr. Wilson in stating that Socrates is arrogant because practically none of her criticisms are based on discreet evidence. She would have no idea whether he waddled when he walked or went around bare-foot; she merely read texts that say he did. Even if he didn’t wear shoes, it seems like a very weak criticism.
Richard Widdett
ReplyDelete12/14/09
4th Hour
What is wrong with Socrates?
1) Amateur – I disagree with Emily Wilson’s statement that Socrates was an amateur because although his lessons weren’t financed, his ‘students’ were interested and wanted to listen. Whether a student pays for a lesson or not, they are there to learn and if they didn’t want to learn anything, then they wouldn’t listen to him.
3) Chatter Box - I disagree with this statement because Socrates valued talking a lot more that making actions. He was a very good speaker and could explain things very well. Everyone has a certain way of teaching something to somebody. His way of teaching was by describing and explaining it thoroughly enough that he doesn’t need to use actions to demonstrate his point.
6) Anti Political - I agree with Wilson’s analysis of Socrates’ statement that no one is qualified to govern a city. This means that no one would be in charge and social and political problems would be ignored. Running a city in this manner would bring chaos to the society and nothing would get accomplished. Even if ‘human wisdom’ didn’t actually exist and that no one was truly qualified for government, there are certain people that know a lot more than most about running a government and therefore would be the only ones suitable for the job. Someone needs to eventually bring order to society and solve all problems the city faces.
8) Arrogant – I do not believe that Socrates’ method of ‘telling it like it is’ was necessarily a bad thing. This method of approaching things sends the message across the first time. The most effective way of conveying a point is to disregard any possible emotions and tell it in a way that it will get through.
Sara Dziubek
ReplyDeleteThe first of the ten things that I am choosing is #4: Nobody does wrong willingly. I do not feel that the author was too harsh with this point; I think that she made a valid argument. By Socrates saying a statement like that, he is basically saying we can’t really put anyone at fault even if they do something terrible because they just didn’t understand. I don’t agree with that at all, people willingly and understandingly do wrong all of the time.
Socrates feels that pain doesn’t matter. I think that this is a crazy statement because a lot of people don’t even experience guilt after they do something wrong. Also, even if someone does experience guilt, I still think the pain they caused someone else can be much worse and it could have also scarred the person.
The next one is Socrates is superstitious. I think the author was a little harsh with this one. I don’t think Socrates actually had voices in his head like someone who is schizophrenic does. I think he was just trying to say he heard his conscious or his gut feelings, not actual voices.
Lastly, Socrates is a rationalist. I also think the author was too harsh with this one. I think the author took it too far by saying he leaves no room for emotion in his life. I think you can be a rationalist and still have emotions. He places higher value on reasoning than emotion but he still can have emotions.
1. Socrates is an amateur.
ReplyDeleteThe author states that a world where educators do not get paid wouldn’t work. While that statement is mostly true today I do not think it to be true in Socrates’ day. I think it’s a bit harsh to call him an amateur because he won’t accept pay for his teachings. Educators are here to educate, not to relay set information and receive pay for it. The author argues that “a student who pays nothing may have less emotional investment in learning than one whose parents have saved for years to afford tuition.” While that has truth to it, you’re more apt to attend schooling if you’re aware of the hardships your parents went through to get you there, there is still the argument that those students may not have as much drive to learn and that they are merely pressured into it. When it comes down to it those who truly want to learn will show up, whether there is a payment or not, and those who truly want to teach will do so, payment or not.
5. Socrates denies that pain matters.
I understand with what Socrates was saying about pain, that those who do wrong will be in the most pain because “only sin can harm our souls,” and they will have the guilty conscious. However, I agree with the author that what Socrates believes is dangerous, because what about those true psychopaths that have no conscious and what would the world be like if rape, theft, or murder were thought to mostly harm the perpetrator? There would be no trials, they would still roam the streets to continue committing vicious crimes and they’re supposedly only be hurting themselves.
6. Socrates is parochial.
I agree with the author that Socrates’ narrow-mindedness isn’t something that shows a higher intelligence. People who are more educated tend to be more cultured and rounded, and if you’re only going to accept your ideas and doubt whether human wisdom can exist at all you’re only limiting yourself.
10. Socrates is a rationalist.
I disagree with the author’s thoughts on Socrates’ rationalism. I agree that the heart and the mind should be separate. There are certain instances when you should think more with your heart and vice versa, however when you let them mix lines tend to blur and it’s much harder to make the right decision. Letting emotion come to play in decisions meant for the mind can cause a person to be impulsive and what you were feeling was right at that moment may not truly be the correct answer. I think Socrates shows intelligence when he expresses the importance of keeping the mind and the heart separate.
Jessica Keyes
4th hout
Noah Saperstein
ReplyDelete5th Hour
Wilson’s article said Socrates was irresponsible for leaving his family behind when he chose death over banishment, but is it not responsible to accept your punishment. Admit wrong doing and take responsibilities for your actions, he was setting an example for not only his children but all of Greece. Wilson continues to say Socrates’ is psychologically naïve for believing that “nobody does wrong willingly”, as stupid as it may sound it could be true. I would not do something I believe is wrong but I may do something that you believe is wrong. For instance if there is a man and his wife, and the wife gets raped, then the man kills the rapist some would view that as wrong while I would view that as acceptable. However, someone may know it is wrong to kill but may kill someone to save many other people. This is justified by “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” but is still wrong. Wilson also talks about Socrates views on crime and how the real harm is in the sinner rather than the victim. This is absurd, the sinner may feel bad but the victim is harmed. Wilson then goes on to say Socrates is an anarchist that he believes that few if any people are smart enough to a properly run a government. I fully agree with anarchy, but as our country has seen many good leaders. This does not mean the world would be better without leaders but it is working so far.
1. I believe Socrates was right for priding himself on not getting paid to teach. If a student paid him for his teachings and a student became uninterested, the student would still feel the need to attend to get “what he paid for”. Socrates on the other had only had students and were willing and interested in learning and had no stake in his teachings
ReplyDelete3. I don’t not agree with the author in criticizing Socrates for being a chatter box. Often time’s ideas can be worked out and improved through talking rather them implementing the first idea that comes to mind. In the same way a congress discusses the impact of a piece of legislation instead of just waiting to see what happens and adjusting from there.
4. I agree with the author in saying that Socrates was psychologically naïve. I find it hard to believe that our subconscious doesn’t make up for a significant part of our decision making processes that lead to crime or wrong doing. Everyone experiences a time where they cheated at something and knew exactly what they were doing
10. I believe to be clear headed and rational in your thinking you must clear out any emotions that may be clouding your senses. Socrates believed the same in that you must not let emotions interfere in your solving problem ability. Therefore I do not agree with the author’s criticism of Socrates
stephan cass
4th hour
(2) After reading Emily Wilson’s article on Socrates I would have to agree with her that he was wrong for leaving his wife and children. Socrates was always talking about what’s right and his theories on what’s right, to him if you didn’t know you were seen as ignorant. To leave you wife and kids no matter was century you’re in I’m sure that’s its still considered wrong just like it was way back when Socrates was living. So if leaving his wife and kids is not right then is Socrates considered ignorant, due to his claims? (3) Wilson also said that Socrates was know to be a chatterbox, meaning he valued talked over action, I definitely see how Socrates was known to be a chatterbox because he always talked about his theories and never once showed them why it could be correct. He went around town talking to others who believed or wanted to listen and he would just talk and talk about what he thought. (8) At times it seemed like Socrates was flaunting how he was so much better and wiser than everyone, even though he simply talked about these “what ifs” he did it in a condescending. I know when we were reading it in class it was an eye-opener to just how rude and obnoxious Socrates was, even though Socrates was confident in his theories but his confidence came through as arrogance. (7) He also had this over confidence of Athens and believed that nothing can be learned outside the walls of Athens. Socrates saw Athens as a city of learning and were the best ideas are made; in a way that’s flattering towards the city and the people of the city but it’s not true. Socrates’ overconfidence/arrogance of thinking led him to some strange theories, and like I said earlier he stated that if you don’t know what’s right then you’re considered ignorant, so for the actions and theories that weren’t right make Socrates ignorant rather than this great philosopher?
ReplyDeleteBianca Kea 5hr.
Daniel Mooney
ReplyDelete4th hour
2. I agree with Emily Wilson in her assessment that Socrates was irresponsible for leaving his wife and two children behind. He was given a choice of death and escape and he chose death. He could have passed his knowledge to his children but instead decided to leave them to a life of poverty and starvation. For a man who prides himself on thinking rationally this decision was ridiculous. No one should ever leave young children to fend for themselves.
4. Wilson is correct again in her belief that Socrates was psychologically naïve. Saying Nobody does wrong willingly is the epitome of naïve. People knowingly do wrong every day. People steal for the sake of stealing. People cheat on tests people do awful things on purpose. In many ways it is human nature to look out for number one no matter the cost or harm brought upon anyone else. We are basically selfish people.
5. I actually agree with Socrates in the belief that the real pain occurs in the sinner. I believe in a higher power and believe that this power is just. In my own personal experience when I do wrong I experience more pain than when I am the victim of a wrong doer
10. While I agree that sometimes Socrates is overly rational, I think that as a philosopher it was a good thing. He needs to analyze things from a non-emotional place in order to better understand the world around him.
1. I disagree with the author when she stated that Socrates was an amateur because of the fact that he prided himself in not getting paid. I personally believe that it was a nice thing for Socrates to not accept payment for his services. If Socrates charged people for what he had to tell them, most people wouldn’t listen because of either a) lack of money or b) they may think that their money could be wasted. I think that Socrates just wanted everyone to hear what he had to say and prove his point, regardless of the money. I believe that he thought this would work best if his teachings were free, and he didn’t want only specific people to get to listen to what he had to say. Therefore, I definitely do not think that Socrates not accepting pay would make him an amateur.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that Socrates was irresponsible. This was shown when he left his wife and children behind, and because of this decision, his family had to live grieving over him. Also, his wife had to raise their children all by herself with no help from a father figure in the home. Socrates was given the choice to either go to prison or face the death penalty, and the fact that he chose the death penalty definitely showed how irresponsible he really was. It was a selfish decision that affected people around him who admired him, including his family.
4. I agree that Socrates was psychologically naïve, and this was truly proven when he stated, “nobody does wrong willingly.” I personally think that that is one of the most false statements one could ever make. For example, mass murderers and serial killers. These people knowingly do wrong by killing other people, which affects not only the person’s life in which they took, but also everyone that cared about that person. These killers have been taught all their life that killing someone is completely wrong, yet they don’t seem to care and do it anyway.
7. I definitely agree with the author saying that Socrates is parochial. I believe that Socrates’ statement that said something along the lines of “little could be learned outside the walls of Athens” is a very ignorant statement. I believe that there is always something to be learned everywhere. I think that maybe Socrates was afraid of what might challenge his beliefs outside of the Athens walls, because to say that nothing at all could be learned is foolish. Outside of Athens were people of all different cultures and beliefs, and I’m positive that there was plenty of new information to learn. It is clear that people that live in the same area are bound to have similar views on the world, and if those views are not challenged by others, than your knowledge is limited and not always correct.
Amanda Schmerin
4th hour
1. Emily Wilson states that Socrates was an amateur that felt that if he got paid for what he taught it would go against his teachings. I agree with her. If teachers weren't paid to teach, they might not have the motivation to teach. There wouldn't be enough teachers in the world because these teachers would spread there knowledge elsewhere where they get money for it. If students aren't paying for their knowledge they wouldn't have the motivation to go to school each day either. It wouldn't be like they were wasting their parents' money.
ReplyDelete2. However, I do disagree when he author says he was irresponsible. If Socrates never got paid for what he taught, he was probably not helping his family very much when it came to money. Also, at that time, you were pretty lucky if you got to live to the age of seventy. If he had gotten sicks years earlier, he'd still be leaving his family if he died. Also, when he died, his family should be proud of what he's sacrificing his life for.
4. I think when Wilson said Socrates was psychologically naive, she was right. To say that "Nobody willingly does wrong" is just incorrect. When a person steals, they know that what they were doing is wrong. A couple months ago on the news, there was a story about a man who tried to rob a liquor store owned by a muslim man. When the robber came into the store, the owner pulled out a rifle. The robber dropped to his knees and begged about how what he was doing was wrong and he knew it. When a student cheats on a test, they would know they were doing it, and they would also know that cheating is wrong.
7. I agree when Wilson says Socrates is parochial. To think that people other than himself may have knowledge, but not the "right" knowledge is just arrogant. He may have been very wise, but he could have learned a lot more if he stepped outside of this Athenian culture and talked to people elsewhere rather than believing that outside of Athens, everyone is just ignorant.
Olivia Lossia: 5th Hour
6. I agree that Socrates is anti-political. He helped developed Plato's republic, and disliked the way people ran the government because he felt no one can run a perfect society. So he would develop a government that can run itself, and that is Plato's republic.
ReplyDelete8. I agree that Socrates is arrogant. Even the smartest of minds should be considerate to others, and he was not. His arrogance couldn't prove to be beneficial to anyone as he is very prideful of himself, but thinks he or anyone knows nothing. Those kinds of thoughts are what push back society's advancement and understanding of the world and humanity.
9. I agree that Socrates is a rationalist. A person isn't a person without emotions. He would be considered a robot if that. Our emotions are what separate us from evil, and without them, many would make decisions that are in their self interest.
4. I agree that Socrates is psychologically naive. No one is perfect, and although he may have thought about some excellent philosophies, there are other thoughts of his which appear to be naive. He believed that no one does wrong, but he neglects the morals of each person. There are people whose intent is to terrorize or cause harm because they enjoy it in some kind of way.
Timothy Weerakoon, 4th Hour
1. Socrates is an amateur and prided himself in not getting paid.
ReplyDelete-I agree with this because not getting paid for your work usually comes hand in hand with extreme creativity and he doesn’t make any money because he is doing something completely different and thinking about different things than the usual people think about. Just because he is not getting paid doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he is doing
2. Socrates is irresponsible- I believe that it was wrong for Socrates to choose death over jail. His own death and the suffering of his family were equivalent and he would rather suffer than have his family suffers. He expected the city to correct his boy’s moral errors and they did not.
3. Socrates is a rationalist- I agree with this because Socrates was a philosopher so he was always thinking about things more often that acting intuitively. He does not have any sympathy for anything and believes that the mind should be separate from the passion and tears from the heart. This is wrong some people cannot help the emotions that they are feeling.
4. Socrates is parochial- The fact that Socrates is so narrow-minded is not a helpful idea at all. It is great to be passionate about something, but it is an even greater accomplishment to be able to be open to other peoples passions also not matter what they are. The only way to obtain knowledge is by talking with others and listening to their views while comparing them with yours. He did not listen to other people’s ideas which is why I agree that he was a parochial
Ian Perfitt
Honors Philosophy
12/15/09
2.) I think that this exploration into his selfish nature is absolutely true. He is completely narcissistic to believe that his family would be better served if when he dies that they die too. I think that his ideas of his family show the truly limited scope of his thinking and understanding.
ReplyDelete4.) I think that most people when do something wrong they know that it is the wrong action and they must have had that understanding when they first did the action. I think that it is naïve to think that people do only do bad things out of ignorance and that their actions are excused by their ignorance.
5.) I think that if you believe pain doesn’t matter then the society that those individuals are going to be living in is going to have chaos and no control. Then there’s the question of whether the punishment can actually be carried out if people don’t feel pain. The punishment is meaningless.
6.) I think that its interesting to say that man cannot be politically savvy or understand how to govern themselves because man has always had a system of control in government. He felt that there were very few people that could actually understand the workings of government and he said that he was one. So this begs the question of whether or not he just thought that he was better than the rest.
. I agree with her when she said he was irresponsible for leaving his children and wife. He was selfish he took easy ways out; he was self-righteous and not willing to take responsibility for his actions not even for his family’s sake. Socrates somewhat put himself on a pedestal and felt that his family’s well being was not important.
ReplyDelete10. Socrates definitely avoided emotion he more so lacked emotion if anything. He didn’t allow any emotion in his crazed philosophies only reason. This led her to believe he avoided critical thinking because emotion involves critical thinking. I don’t agree with Socrates I believe you should think rationally and have emotion, its apart of life.
7. I think if Socrates thought outside of the walls of Athens he might not have been so narrowed minded and had the crazy philosophies he had, but instead thought logically and been more open-minded. Socrates would listen to other people but wouldn’t tolerate the idea that there are other ways to do things or other ways to think. He was very closed-minded and complacent and also seemed to have somewhat a prejudice against other cultures who were different or had different views. I do agree with Dr. Wilson.
8. I can attest to Dr. Wilson and see where she is coming from when she says Socrates was ill-mannered and inconsiderate, but I don’t know if arrogant is the correct term. I would say Socrates is ignorant then arrogant. Yes he was inconsiderate and self-righteous but in my opinion that doesn’t make him ignorant. I believe its because he believed Athens was the way to the go, like it was the way of life and there wasn’t another way. You can’t blame him for being closed-minded or ignorant when that’s all he knew. He never went outside of his culture and took the time to experience other things and other people point of view. So for that reason I wouldn’t call him arrogant but ignorant.
Alyssa.Thompson
5th Hour
Blog#28
3,4,1,6
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the things that this author said about Socrates, unlike most of the class. When reading Plato’s republic in honors literary humanities last week I was not supportive of them. I think that Socrates thinks he is better than everyone else and just proves that with all his statements. He just sat with all the other guardians and talked rather than acted. I do think his ideas had substance but he didn’t know what to do with them rather than just talk about controlling them. I do think he was psychologically naïve to an extent. I do believe that somebody had to say something and I respect him for that but I don’t agree with the way he acted about it. I however, don’t agree with the fact that leaving his wife and children behind was wrong. He felt it was what he had to do to make his ideas and life justified to anyone that reads his work. He talked about how nobody had the ability to run government but this is exactly what he was doing. He contradicts himself here and once again put himself above everyone else. He and all the other guardians are that political figure.
I disagree with the accusation that Socrates was an amateur. I think it is reasonable and actually commendable that he didn’t collect fees for his teaching. I do not know if I agree or disagree with the statement that schools would be dominated by wealthy if teachers were not paid. I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, most people get jobs to get paid but on the other hand, passionate teachers will teach regardless of the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Socrates may have been psychologically naïve. I strongly disagree with Socrates declaration that “nobody willingly does wrong”. People are aware that when they are doing something if this action is correct or not. Murderers know killing is frowned upon, no one is that ignorant.
I agree that he was anti-political. He doubted human wisdom and that no one is truly qualified to run a government. I believe government is crucial to society and Socrates was against all types of government.
I do not think that it is a big deal that Socrates was a rationalist. I truthfully think that there should be a higher value placed on reasoning than emotion. If you make decisions based on emotion, you could end up making a rash conclusion. The mind should be separate from the heart. The one thing I do disagree with Socrates on this issue is that people have emotions and sympathy for others and I think that’s okay, those feelings just need to be controlled sometimes.
Alyse Yashinsky
2) I disagree with leaving his wife and two children behind. It is selfish to choose to save yourself and not the ones you love. In any similar type of situation, any family member should try to do everything they can to save their loved ones. Choosing death over saving his family is irresponsible. Putting himself before his family and taking the easy way out is wrong.
ReplyDelete3) I agree with the talk over action. Although Socrates didn’t solve anything himself by talking, he influenced others to. He gave people insight and helped them. His constant talking worked. Because Socrates never wrote anything down, constantly speaking helped him remember what he had said. When you say things a lot, it helps you memorize what you are saying. So instead of writing, it was his way of remembering.
5) I disagree with this. If the good man were to get the abuse and torture, it does not necessarily mean the perpetrator would be tormented. No one knows what the sinner would feel if the good man got the torture. If no action is taken towards the perpetrator, then they won’t learn how it feels to be at the other end. That is why people go to jail for their wrong doing. It’s a way of punishment that is needed for the world to be a safe place.
9) I agree. Being superstitious is not a bad thing. To me, it means that he listened to his conscious and your conscious is usually telling you to do the right thing. Most people have a good conscious, and if he was following it and listening to what his mind told him, then it was probably the best decision. Socrates is not “crazy” or “loony” for listening to the voices in his ear. This simply means he is being true to himself and that’s all that should matter.
Hilary S.
2. I would agree with Wilson's opinion that Socrates is irresponsible. He decides to not only end his life, but to also ruin the future of his childrens' and wife's lives. He knows that if he dies that his children and wife will become impoverished and not be able to support themselves and probably end up dying. Not only is it irresponsible, I believe it is murder.
ReplyDelete3. I also agree when Wilson says that Socrates is a chatter-box. It says he valued talk over action, which isn't a good value to have. He also says the moral value of life is to pursue knowledge - even if you reach no conclusions - which is absurd because then you will have wasted your life and have nothing to show for it. Talk may be important but you cannot completely disregard action.
4. I agree with Wilson when she says that Socrates is psychologically naive. Socrates believed that no one willingly does anything wrong but that people are just ignorant. I disagree with him because I have willingly done wrong before. His argument for this was that we aren't rational sometimes, which is true, but that doesn't mean we don't willingly do wrong ever.
8. I agree with Wilson when she says that Socrates is arrogant. Not only does he not give a crap about what other people think of him, but he also tells people that not only does he know nothing, but neither does anyone else, which comes off as hypocritical when he has said how he believed he was the wisest man in Athens. He comes off as an arrogant snob to me.
3. I completely disagree with Wilson on this point. Socrates was a philosopher and talking and debating and ultimately teaching other people was his job. Wilson seems to think that it is wasted time explaining things philosophically, and that his philosophies are useless because solid conclusions were not made on some topics, but he was a teacher, and got people to think differently.
ReplyDelete5. I interpreted the statement “to the good man no harm can come” to be religious, in that bad things may happen to good people, but they won’t be affected because they will be rewarded in the afterlife possibly. Wilson makes the claim that it is dangerous, especially if it was adopted by governments, but it is purely a philosophical ideal I think, something to aspire to, and above all, open for many interpretations.
8. I agree that Socrates was arrogant in priding himself on his poverty and being a “bubble-popper”, but how he acted and dressed did not make him arrogant. He was normal in how he dressed during that time, and he acted differently because he was wise and philosophical. As for social conventions, he was very social, more so than the norm.
9. I agree with Wilson that Socrates was a rationalist and that makes his philosophies less acceptable and limited. Philosophies on religion especially should take emotion into account, because that is what they appeal to for the most part. Not taking emotions into account probably changed his philosophies, for better or worse.
Claire Holton
5th hour h. philosophy
1) Socrates in an amateur.
ReplyDeleteSocrates would not accept regular fees for a service. To Plato, this is a sign of Socrates’ moral superiority. Wilson believes that the lack of a fee for his teachings makes Socrates an amateur. I disagree with this assertion, seeing that the day and age that Socrates was alive in was less monetarily dominated. Money was not a necessity. Because of that, it was reasonable to not collect funds. Education should be readily available to all of those who are willing to learn.
4) Socrates is psychologically Naïve.
Socrates stated that nobody willingly does wrong. I doubt that everyone who does wrong does it out of ignorance. Malicious acts are carried out by immoral people every day, and every act cannot be attributed to ignorance.
5) Socrates denies that pain matters.
Socrates says that pain does not matter to the good man. This is untrue. A good man who is tortured for his beliefs enough will succumb to the pain and eventually break. The human mind can be broken. With a broken mind, the good man will not be an individual, which is virtuous. Socrates also believes that death should not be feared. That is a ridiculous suggestion. People have no idea what happens to our minds – should we die – and this naturally causes fear in people. Humans fear the unknown. Also, if one is so fearless of death, this can lead the person to be distracted from their real life.
6) Socrates is anti-political
Socrates displays anti-democratic tendencies. Wilson criticizes Socrates for being totally anti-political. I don’t agree with these claims, because I feel like its fine to be anti-political, especially if you will never have anything to do with the government.
Jake T.
Marcus Johnson 5th Hour (again i'm sorry for it being late)
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with statement that Socrates was irresponsible for leaving his family behind. I mean, a man as invested in his beliefs as Socrates was has to stick to them even if his life is on the line and his family should understand given they have been living with him for most of their lives. I find it noble that he gave his life for his beliefs and is in no way irresponsible.
3. I feel that Socrates being a Chatterbox isn’t exactly a bad thing. He spoke constantly because he believed so profoundly in his ways that he had to let the world know. And it’s not like he just talked to talk; he walked, talked, and slept his beliefs and there’s nothing wrong in having faith in you beliefs.
5. I disagree Socrates belief that only the sinner is harmed because sometimes there are those extremely messed up people that have no problem hurting another person but instead enjoy it, such as serial killers. In that case the only one in pain is in fact the innocent bystander that just happened to be there. Overall, it is a natural human emotion/ feeling to be hurt regardless if you’re good or evil.
10. I have to agree that in some cases Socrates is a little bit too rational but I also feel that by being a good philosopher one must be overly rational to some degree. By being extremely rational one can gain a better understanding about life and that is exactly what Socrates wanted to do.
7. Close-minded is a phrase rarely associated with famous philosophers, especially wise Socrates. Despite this, Dr. Wilson hit the nail directly on the head by labeling Socrates parochial. He believed that conversation and questioning of his fellow Athenians, and observing the city, was the true path to enlightenment. Does the predator use only its eyes to track its prey? Socrates was conceited enough to believe that nobody else could possibly have it right, unless they spent their lives simply observing society. Unfortunately, only so many conclusions can be made through this method, leaving Socrates with rather weak beliefs. He would not consider the ideas of the peace-loving Buddhists of the East, or the devout followers of God in the Middle East. Religions and philosophies had been formulated by thinkers equally as observant and logical as Socrates (if not more), for many centuries. He would not consider physical sciences, writing, or teachings of the past. The truths he deemed undeniably true about humanity can possibly be seen as naive, and should be thoroughly examined, if they are to be accepted. The unexamined life may not be worth living, but is the poorly examined life cannot be much better.
ReplyDelete8. Socrates’ immense ego also allowed him to justify his treatment of other people. He believed himself to be the most enlightened man in history, and he felt that this gave him the right to talk down to his ‘inferior’ peers. He was rude; he would destroy people’s beliefs, leaving them with issues that normally take people years to confront. His narrow mind and his sharp tongue prevented him from being a member of the society he dreamed of.
9. Socrates may have been radical, rude, and overbearing, but calling him crazy is an uninformed shot in the dark. Dr. Wilson may have been running out of arguments, and attempted to deconstruct the reader’s thoughts concerning the philosopher. Referring to a Divine Voice is most likely a metaphor for mankind’s definition of right and wrong, as a result of their society. While the “Voice” does not come to us audibly, we are able to deem our actions as just or immoral. This “Voice” comes as a separate, secondary thought; it is a reconsideration of our impulses. Socrates most likely gave it a separate entity to represent it in the way we experience it, as if something else is telling use what is the correct action to take.
10. Rationalism is, for the most part, a good idea. It is rather objective; it allows a thinker to look past emotions and other clouds, and elucidate the answers. However, it should not be absent in philosophy. Human nature, human feeling, is as important to philosophy as any other component. When searching for the answers to society’s issues, we cannot ignore the actions and reactions of people. Socrates seems to see them as objects, and probably believes motion and emotion cannot coexist. Of course, the emotions of theoretical societies cannot be predicted, we cannot possibly know if they will even be similar to the emotions of our society. Despite this, Socrates wishes to transform our society, where feelings are rather universal, and does not consider human nature (as we know it).
Jake "Ryan" Pro.
4th
2. I agree with the author when she says Socrates is irresponsible. He put himself above his family and left them destitute when he died. He could have escaped, but insisted on the death penalty. He chose death over taking care of his family, and to me, that is extremely irresponsible. He should have chose prison and escaped. If he really loved his wife, I think he would of chose prison. I think Socrates had a lifeless marriage.
ReplyDelete4. I agree with Emily Wilson when she says Socrates is psychologically naïve because him saying “nobody does wrong willingly” is a false statement. Sure, some may behave badly because other emotions take control, but I believe it is ones responsibility to control your actions, especially around others. Premeditated murders, for example, are an act that is carefully thought out and not an act of impulse. The killers plan to do wrong willingly at the cost of another person’s life.
5. I disagree with Socrates when he says pain doesn’t matter. Whether it is physical or emotional, pain can have a powerful impact on anyone. However, I do believe in the concept of mind over matter, and that you can sometimes control how much you are hurt. I also do not agree with Socrates when he says the wrong-doer will feel more pain than the victim. I, for one, have had personal experiences where I was the victim and the criminal of the crime. I have had incidents where I felt nothing, if not better for doing wrong, and I felt worse when I was the sufferer.
6. I agree that Socrates was parochial and that we could not learn anything from outside the walls of Athens because that is not how we became what we are today. We have learned from other cities, other nations, even from experiences in outer space. Not only have we learned from other locations, but other times as well. History teaches us to learn from our mistakes, and Socrates is very narrow minded when saying we cannot learn from other times and places.
Veronica Washington
ReplyDelete5th hour
5. Felt that pain didn't matter - if you were good, though wrong/harm was done to you, the real harm is in the sinner or the wrongdoer;
I agree and disagree..
i agree with the statement 'the real harm is done to the sinner' because the person who does harm to you is clearly hurting more inside if their intentions were to hurt you purposely(and could supposedly have karma in their future)
But i disagree because i feel as though pain does matter, it makes you stronger, it makes you have tougher skin.
6. Anti-political - he felt that few if any are smart enough to run a government properly, but could he do it? Could anyone? If not, why have gov't in the first place?
I agree he was anti-political but it shouldn't be looked at as a negative on his part.
He was just saying something that no one wanted to admit.
He said he thinks that 'few if any are smart enough to govern' but that doesn't have anything to do with him, he wasn't saying he was the only smart one to do the job. He was saying that from what he saw in the govt, was crap. Same with today in my opinion. THERE HAS NEVER been a moment in society where everyone was satisfied with their government. Only a few SMART, LEVEL MINDED PEOPLE, could run a government and satisfy everyone that needs to be satisfied, which is the people, not a certain group in society.
7. Parochial - there was little that Socrates believed could be learned outside the walls of athens.
The world is what it is. And in that day in time there wasn't a ton of diversity in the way people lived. The only thing that could be learned outside of the walls of Athens was probably a different language or appearance; explaining why he said 'little to know' outside the walls of Athens.
8. Arrogant - when Dr. Wilson says arrogant, apparantly she means ill-mannered and inconsiderate among other things listed in the article;
8. I agree he was arrogant, he never wanted to hear others perspectives, or opinions and so on.. But that's what made him so different and made people listen to his BLUNT opinions and his philosophy on the world.
Socrates’ ego also allowed him to justify his treatment of other people. IN HIS MIND he believed that he was 'the one' with knowledge that no one else could see, so he talked down to his "inferior peers" He was rude,yes and he would destroy people’s beliefs, leaving them with issues that normally take people years to confront. But this took a turn for the worse because his narrow mind and his kanye west ego prevented him from being a member of the society he dreamed of.