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 and explain why for each of them. This would be a good place to refine your ideas about Socrates.
350 words minimum. Due Monday, Dec. 11 by class. Please post your blog here and not on your blog.
Socrates is obviously a very interesting individual to study. He had a lot of unique ideas and thoughts concerning philosophy and is now a well known philosopher for his work. Although Socrates may be praised by today’s society, one author, Dr. Emily Wilson criticizes Socrates and absolutely tears him down and even shamed him. She argues against many of his philosophical ideas and criticizes him as a person, a father, and a husband, as well as being too superstitious.
ReplyDeleteHer first criticism was that Socrates was an ameauture who prided himself in not being paid. I actually agree with Dr. Wilson because priding yourself in something that is unsustainable and will not allow you to be successful is a difficult thing for me to understand. I agree with the author’s conclusion that not being paid makes him an ameauture because it creates a sense that he may not have been accomplished enough or successful enough in his line of work to succeed. It also doesn’t allow him to support himself or his family which leads to her second point; he left his wife and two children behind. This is an incredibly irresponsible decision and Dr. Wilson attacks Socrates on a personal level. I completely agree with this criticism mainly because in my opinion there is no good excuse to leaving your family behind. The author argues that Socrates is psychologically naive, another statement I agree with, I have not studied psychology all that much but i know his statement “nobody does wrong willingly” is just wrong. There are cases in which people do wrong things all the time. Socrates believed in the goodness of people maybe a little too much. At the same time he is also superstitious and listens to the voice in his head. For a philosopher I personally don’t believe this is a bad quality. This idea that he listens to his conscious or some sort of crazy voice in his head is actually very interesting and is probably the reason for his out of world ideas and philosophies. Socrates doesn’t deserve all the criticism he received although a lot of it is well placed.
I do with Socrates that very few people are able to run a government properly as it is very hard to govern a community. But, I disagree with him with the idea just because very few people are able to run a government properly, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any laws or regulations. Without laws and regulations, people can and will commit heinous crimes because they know nothing will stop in. This will lead to the destruction of a functioning society and cause complete chaos.
ReplyDeleteI definitely disagree with Socrates’ point on there is very few things to learn outside of Athens itself. I think this can be applied to any situation anywhere where someone views there is little to learn outside their community. The world is filled with beautiful and scary things and staying in one place would no doubt limit one’s ability to see all of it. Staying in one area could lead to a bias perspective on the world too because you may think the world outside of your community is the same as the inside of your community. Staying in one place will limit the ability to grow as an individual tremendously.
I disagree with him on nobody does wrong willingly. I think the majority of crimes/wrong doings are committed willingly. Yes, maybe they did not think about the full impact of their actions, but I do believe there is a thing called free will and if they didn’t want to go negatively impact something/someone, they most definitely had the option to do that. I think serial killers are a perfect example of those who do wrong willingly, especially since they commit their crime over and over again. Everyone has the power to do bad, but at the end of the day it matters whether you choose to act on this possibility.
I do agree acting straight out of rational can be toxic, and without emotions, we actually can lose the ability to solve some issues. Because sometimes emotions can cause a more positive result than acting purely out of rational. But, I think people act more out of emotion than rational in a dangerous way today. A example of this would be murder out of anger. Most people are so wrapped up in their anger they don’t even think about the consequences of their actions and how worth killing someone is until after they commit the crime.
-Gabby Atkinson
4) Wilson states that Socrates was psychologically naive because of statements like “nobody does wrong willingly.” This is a statement, that along with Wilson, I totally disagree with. I believe that some people don't think they are doing something wrong, but I think that a majority of the time, people know they are doing something wrong and they just don't care. A Lot of people are really only sorry if they get caught. Although I disagree with this statement made by Socrates, I don't know if I would go as far to call him “psychologically naive”. He might have been misunderstanding some important psychological concepts, or general human behaviors but the phrase “psychologically naive” makes him sound like he doesn't really know anything.
ReplyDelete9) Wilson also claims that Socrates is superstitious, and makes it sound like a negative, but being superstitious, even talking to yourself isn't a totally bad thing. I've heard the phrase multiple times, “The smartest people talk to themselves”. Even if Socrates seemed a little “loony” I'm sure that was part of the method to his madness. He was able to think outside the box and look at things in a way that no one else ever did before his time. So even if he was a little crazy, I don't necessarily think that's a negative because it worked for him.
3) Wilson also calls Socrates a “chatterbox”. She criticized him for talking too much and I don't necessarily agree with this. However, I do believe that you should listen more than you speak but talking alot is a bad thing. If Socrates talked all the time and never let anyone else have a chance to speak, then I can see how this might be a problem. I think in this case though, Socrates talking a lot was probably just his way of being creative and spreading his ideas. Obviously he has a lot of theories and ideas about the world and he probably just wanted to share everything he could with those around him.
6) Socrates was also criticized with being anti-political, in which case he held the belief that humans were not smart enough to run a government. I don't agree with this idea because even though we have made a lot of mistakes within our government systems throughout history, government is definitely needed to control chaos and mayhem in our society. Government puts a set of rules and boundaries in place to make this world as ethical and fair as possible. Without a government system, who knows what our world would be like today?
Gio|
ReplyDeleteI understand the complaint about amateurism, but I have some reservations. I think that Socrates might have been on to something when he said that teachers should not be paid. If you think that education is unattainable without some money, like it is in our society, then why wouldn’t you want education to be free. Now I am not suggesting we make anyone who is enough of a bleeding heart to teach for free live on the streets, but if there was no barrier between education, literally everyone could have some form of education. I think there would have to be a program in place to keep teachers in a similar or higher economic standing as the are in our society, maybe teachers have a governmental fund and publically funded housing. I think the author interpreted his ideas wrong, I don’t think he wanted all teachers to be panhandling in their free time, I think he wanted everyone to have some way to get any form of education even if they are making $0 a day.
The one about him being a chatter box offended me when I was readin gthe tite, then when I dove into the section I realized what it actually meant, and to that I would complain again. I think that he was rather profound with his philosophy on what one doesn’t know. If you know that you don’t know certain things you then have the ability to attempt to learn and eventually know that thing. If all you are worried about is results then you have missed the point already. His idea is that if you don’t know something, don’t act like you do, and try your dardest to figure it out.. Though even if you don’t reach a conclusion you have done what a good citizen should do.
I don’t think his contempt for social conventions means he has contempt for others’ feelings. I do think that he is lives his life in the purest of way ( in his own eyes). So when he ecounters others with different social convetions, he is puzzled and reverts back to his own more personal and less socially acceptable conventions. Him being intentionally poor and liking it that way doesn’t make him a bad person either, look at Jesus, he did the same thing and people aren’t bashing him for it. I think that his deliberate poverty shows what his ideal world would look like, everyone has nothing but the necessities, and likes it that way.
There are pleanty of admirable people who don’t have time for people’s emotions, and don’t have a need for so many people in their life. I think even though Socrates didn’t pander or pay attention to the emotions of others could have been beneficial to his philisophical quest, if he had wasted his time on the trivial emotions of others he wouldn’t have enough time to give us all fo the important things that he did. I maintain this of all of the other arguments against him, none of who he is as a person takes away from the accomplinshments and genius ideas that he gave to us.
The four points I’ve picked are. Some of them I agree with, but some I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteThe first one I picked was Socrates is an ameature.
This statement is true, Socrates did not accept payment for his teaching, which technically makes him an ameature. But let’s say I ask Michael Phelps to help me with swimming. He agrees to help, but says he won’t let me pay him. This technically makes him an amature in what he just did. He didn’t get paid. But do we see him as ameature? Would we if he was never paid to do any swimming. If he went to the olympics, with no sponsors or money of any kind, and won all his 23 gold medals, would we consider him an ameature? He wasn’t paid for what he did, so he can’t be a professional. This is how I imagine people saw Socrates. He wouldn’t accept pay, but he was highly educated. The author gives her opinion about how this would work these days, and I agree. If we didn’t pay our teachers, education would be more scarce. Taught only by the ones who could spare the time.
The second one I picked is that socrates denies pain
Pain is a huge part of what build us. Whether it's relationships that cause the pain, physically working out, or our mistakes, each one teaches us lessons. They all help show us what we did right and what we did wrong. Pain is one of our biggest educators, so I Have no clue why Socrates would deny that pain matters. He argues that the only thing that makes us unhappy is doing wrong. But are you always in the wrong?
The third point I picked is that Socrates is a rationalist.
The author describes Socrates as someone who doesn't care about anyone. He left his family, he’s flirtatious, but not caring or charitable. I agree with this. I think some of the things that Socrates believed in took him over, and led him on a selfish path. He only cared about what he wanted in his life, and if he didn’t want it, that thing became irrelevant. He thinks everything comes from the mind, and no emotion should exist.
The fourth point I picked was that Socrates was a chatterbox
He believed talk was better than action, and some think this limits the view of what a good life entails. We always talk about actions, what do you wanna do before you die, but we rarely talk about what we wanna say before we die. In some situations, words are more powerful than actions.
2) Socrates is irresponsible
ReplyDeleteSocrates prided himself on choosing not to make a living. Some may see this as him doing what he thinks is his true path just for the passion, but I agree that really he was being careless and thinking only of himself. Socrates had a wife and two kids, so instead of being responsible for his decisions he made the choice to not make a living for his own image without thinking of a family to support. It was selfish of Socrates because he put his personal preferences and morals above his family’s well being. If Socrates was only responsible for himself, then his choice would’ve been more admirable. In times when women couldn’t work for the family because of social constrictions, it was Socrates’s duty to help his family, but he put his image before them.
4) Socrates is psychologically naive
I agree that Socrates is psychologically naive. Socrates fails to acknowledge the possibility that we can be driven by something other than our own will. He doesn’t think we can act due to motives or impulses, even though they are proven. He denies habit and believes you are always in control, even though a lot of the time you aren’t.
5) Socrates Denies that pain matters
I agree because Socrates said he had no fear of death, because to him he’s living the life of a good man in his own definition. If only sin or doing wrong will make you unhappy, he’s rejecting pain and death’s value. This idea is radical because when applied to many situations, it values the damage to the person doing something wrong’s life over the victim. If true pain and unhappiness can only be felt when you do something wrong, what if someone else does something bad to you? Is your pain simply not valid according to Socrates?
8) Socrates is arrogant
I agree that Socrates is arrogant. Socrates’s decision to live a very frugal life is one he constantly flaunts. He sees his simplicity, devotion to philosophy, knowledge, and insisting he knows nothing as him being above everyone else. Ditching basic kindness and social norms does not make you above everyone else, even if Socrates’s practicing it gave the illusion that it did. His lack of empathy is not a sign of his devotion to his own path of thought, it is a display of his overwhelming sense of self-importance.
Sara Seid
ReplyDeleteFor my first argument, I think that Socrates isn’t an amateur. By definition, a sophist is a paid teacher of philosophy. According to Plato, Socrates is not one. I fail to understand how a teacher of philosophy during that time could be considered an amateur just by making a salary or not. If Socrates believes professionalism and commodification taint the education process, then that implies he doesn’t want a salary anyway. But her argument about a Socratic approach would be to close down schools and universities, doesn’t back up Socrates beliefs. I disagrees with her that he prides himself on not getting paid. I think he just enjoys teaching and getting paid would be a benefit
For my second argument, I agree with Wilson that it was irresponsible of him to leave his wife and children. He chose death, which was his right. However, if he had the ability to escape and return to his family and help them stay out of poverty, then he was incredibly selfish not to choose to escape. His death and the suffering of his family aren’t equivalent. They could be if his family was suffering due to his death, which was not implied. His moral philosophy in this situation was skewed.
Thirdly, I disagree that he’s a chatterbox. I personally think that someone should only talk about the things they know. But I also see the logic in Socrates philosophy of talking about philosophy if no conclusions are reached. Its better than pretending to know something that you don’t.
Lastly, I agree with Wilsons statement that Socrates is psychologically naive. Moral failures can’t all be blamed on ignorance. I’m sure in some instances they can be but not collectively. I agree with her that we are sometimes driven by subconscious motives. His statement seems ignorant as well. I think plenty of people choose to do wrong just for the sake of it.
Emily Wilson’s first point was that Socrates was ‘An amateur and prided himself in not getting paid’. While he was alive, there were the sophists’ which were basically the ‘smart’ people, he didn’t want to be like them, he wanted to be different and I think part of that was him not getting paid for his teachings. I do not however necessarily agree with Wilson, I think that him not getting paid showed that what he did, teaching, was for a real purpose and not just for money. He really believed what he had to say had significance and a greater purpose, so he put that on the line.
ReplyDeleteReading in her second point that he left his wife and two children, I agree that is irresponsible of him, but I think it also shows how important this was to him. I think he could have tried to fight harder and maybe expressed his thoughts differently so he wouldn’t have to be executed, but this shows how much he valued his ideas.
Wilsons fifth point against him was that Socrates thought 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 disagree with Socrates to some extent as well, if you were harmed, you are going to feel hurt in the process. Although I do agree the person that did the harming would have a guilt and have to live with that, the person that was harmed is ultimately going to have the most effect. If you assume someone harmed someone on purpose and it wasn’t an accident, then I think they chose that and wouldn’t be as affected as the person it was done to.
Emily Wilson’s tenth point was that he was a rationalist and left no room for emotion. I do not agree with Wilson on this. In Sophie’s world it said that Socrates thought no one could be happy if they acted against their better judgement; there is emotion involved in all of that belief. He was saying you need to use your instinct in what is right or wrong and if you do what you feel is right you will be happy. I think that he left room for emotion in many aspects.
I agree with the claim Socrates was psychologically naive. He states “nobody willingly does wrong.” That every time someone does something wrong, they are actually just ignorant. At first this intrigued me. Every action we take we think is right which is why we do it. For example, when I am taking a test, I fill in every answer thinking they are correct. Once I get that test back I usually see that I didn’t get all of the questions correct. I didn’t intentionally put the wrong answer down, I didn’t know the right answer and went with my best guess. I took that action because I thought it was right. But according to Socrates, I am just ignorant. The article also states “maybe if everyone knew and understood what we were supposed to do, then we would do it right.” This shows Socrates was psychologically naive because this is an impossible action to take. There is no way of knowing what we are supposed to do. It is inevitable to make a mistake and Socrates is forgetting that no one is perfect.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the claim that pain doesn’t matter. Socrates thinks that pain only happens to bad people and “to the good man, no harm will come.” Socrates was psychologically naive because he also thinks that pain is made up. Everything revolves around pain. Pain tells us when to eat, when to sleep, and when we have to pee. If I were to break a baby’s arm, they would cry. This is an indicator that they feel pain. But babies have never done anything wrong. They have never spoke or hurt anyone, so according to Socrates they would be considered a good person.
I agree with Socrates that few are smart enough to run a government. In a modern perspective, we have seen some intelligent people in office who make good decisions. But we have also seen a lot more people who probably shouldn’t be in charge of America. Overall, some people are better than others but it is necessary to have a government.
I disagree with Socrates that there would be little to learn outside of Athens. This is very close minded thinking, especially for a philosopher. Socrates didn’t have a job so he would walk around Athens and talk to people. From his experience he believes that he has met everyone and has been exposed to every different viewpoint. Although you could find many perspectives in one city, there are still many things to learn in other parts of the world.
Jackie Sullivan
The first criticism of Socrates in the article What is Wrong with Socrates? By Emily Wilson that I agree with is that he is “a chatter-box”, or values talk over action. Socrates’s conclusion that spending one’s life talking about philosophy is the moral ideal seems absurd, especially when he denies value in any other achievement. The first problem I have with Socrates here is that he rejects the worth in other achievement, like a doctor saving lives, a teacher teaching students, or a scientist discovering a cure for a disease. These all hold value to them, and should be seen as achievements by contributing to the overall good. Also, a life talking about philosophy, despite if conclusions are reached or not, does not seem like the moral ideal. Answers should be desired, as they shape our individual morals and make us who we are, based on our thinking and ideology. Saying that it is a moral ideal for everyone is also wrong because not everyone agrees what the moral ideal is, and it is up to each person to decide that for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe second criticism that I agree with is that Socrates is Parochial. As a philosopher, having a narrow, close minded outlook is almost contradictory. When one is trying to find answers to philosophical questions, having or looking at multiple perspectives is a great advantage. Also, believing that other cultures and people outside of Athens have nothing to teach him is like saying he is absolutely smarter than them, but in fact it is not the smart thing to claim that you have nothing to learn when you really don’t know.
Another criticism of Socrates that I believe is right is that he is a rationalist. One should have at least some emotion when living their life, especially in the relationships they build throughout their lives. Not having a desire to be kind to your friends, love your significant other, or care for your children seems like such a detached, uneventful way to live. Also sometimes decisions made out of pure rationality can be worse than decisions that are a compromise considering emotions and logic.
The final criticism that I actually disagree with is that Socrates is psychologically naive. At least to some extent, Socrates has a point in the idea that moral failures may be attributed to ignorance. When someone steals from a store or someone else because they want something they don’t have and don’t want to pay for, they may not realize the consequences of their actions if they steal. Two of the consequences are the unhappiness they are causing the original owner, and the other consequence is that the thief is not keeping themselves in check, and in turn increasing the amount of things stolen in the world, whereas if everybody kept themselves in check, there would be near no stealing.
Lindsay H
ReplyDelete1. The first criticism I don’t agree with is when Emily Wilson talked about how Socrates was irresponsible. I feel like her argument in saying what’s wrong with Socrates is more of an emotional argument instead of philosophical argument, so to me that kind of invalidates the basis of her position. Getting married and having kids is a normal human thing to do and desire. For some people, choosing death over prison makes sense. They wouldn’t want to spend the rest of their life living in conditions like that, and had Socrates escaped, he might have had to leave behind Athens, his home, and live in fear of repercussion.
2. I don’t agree with Wilson’s criticism of Socrates being psychologically naïve. Part of this is because Wilson claims that Socrates denies that people can be driven by subconscious motives. It seems like she is kind of looking at his beliefs and criticizing them based on what we know now and scientific research that we only discovered recently. Of course people back then could have known some of that stuff but definitely not as much as we know now, and it wouldn’t have been backed up or reinforced by research like it is today. (I didn’t do a very good job explaining this one, sorry)
3. The author’s criticism of Socrates being a chatterbox is the one part that seems valid to me. While I think that talking and having discussions is very important, I also believe that taking action and doing something about issues needs to happen. Sometimes a clear conclusion isn’t reached and that’s okay but when at least try. What’s the point of talking if there’s nowhere to aspire to? However, the way Wilson says he’s a “chatterbox” seems kind of immature and it’s hard to take her seriously when she uses that kind of wording.
4. The last criticism I don’t necessarily agree with is the one where she is describing Socrates as an amateur. What she says in this bit makes sense with regards to no one being paid for teaching is a problem, the quality of education declining, and only the wealthy people could afford to teach. I also agree with the part where intellectual life would remain available to only “upper-class, childless, wealthy men.” My issue with this criticism is that I don’t really see how this makes him an amateur. Refusing pay an having problematic opinions with these things doesn’t mean that he’s inexperienced or unwise.
Often credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, Socrates has gained notoriety as the “personal, political and philosophical good guy.” Emily Wilson, however, offers a multitude of criticisms of Socrates’ character and behavior in her article titled “What is Wrong with Socrates?” Wilson states that Socrates is psychologically naïve in his belief that all moral failures can be ascribed to ignorance. Wilson brings up an excellent point. Socrates seems unaware that people can be driven by their subconscious motives; we may know what is right, but choose to indulge ourselves instead. Take, for example, a fabulously wealthy couple deciding what to do with a large sum of their money; they could donate it to charity (which is clearly the “right” thing to do) or they could buy themselves another house. Things become infinitely more complicated when you consider that many choose to do wrong, even though it contradicts their knowledge of what is right. Wilson also criticizes Socrates’ ambiguous declaration that he has no fear of death, because “to the good man no harm can come.” This could mean that bad things (pain, grief, poverty, etc.) are either not harmful at all to good people or they cannot make a fundamental change in the value of a good person’s life. Wilson explains that either interpretation is reckless and inhumane. I wholeheartedly agree with Wilson. If everyone felt that crimes were primarily damaging to the perpetrators, then the victims would receive no support - they might endure a life of pain and unhappiness because of their perpetrator’s wrongdoings; nobody would help them, because according to Socrates, their happiness does not depend on their physical state, but instead their moral fiber. Wilson also points out how close-minded Socrates was in his ideas about how life should be examined. Not only is he unreceptive to alternative methods (such as poetry, physics, or philology), he also never admits the possibility that other cultures/groups might have some valuable insight. Socrates contradicts his own belief that we should aspire towards wisdom and knowledge, because he is not embracing the wisdom of that which he does not know. He is simply operating in a field that he is familiar with.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with much of what Wilson writes, I can’t help but question her criticism of Socrates’ deliberate choice to endure his execution. If he had chosen to run away and disobey the laws of the city, he would be considered a hypocrite and his teachings would not be taken seriously. Although he abandoned his wife and young sons, Socrates stayed true to his teachings. Besides, he wasn’t providing them much support before his death anyway.
For the first part, I think it’s a little silly to pride yourself in not getting paid. I understand that you want to get people to get int insight from within and it’s more of a conversation than a lecture but you have a family. You’re going to need money or some sort of way to to support and take care of them. If he wasn’t doing this then I question who was the breadwinner in that household assuming that this was the only thing he did. Furthermore, just because you’re good doesn’t mean you don’t feel some sort of pain that the wrongdoer inflicted upon you. If that wrongdoer swung a brick alongside your head I guarantee that you’ll feel that. Now I do agree that sometimes the wrongdoer may be going through some conflict at that present time or further down the road that may equal or be even greater that what they put you through but sometimes that’s not the case. Some people may not feel remorse for the wrong that they’ve done. I feel the thought of only a certain few can run a government is true. Certain people are able to be leaders and naturally be able handle a situation better than others but no one is perfect. As the masses, depending on the type of government, we have to choose the person who’s best fit to run the country, city-state, or any land that needs to be governed. Also with them comes an advisory team that help make decisions so it’s more than just one person’s perspective and to keep the head of the government informed on new subjects. I feel as if Socrates would not be good at running anything political in a governmental sense. He doesn't give off the leader of a nation vibe to me personally but he does give the advisor vibe and that role in a government would be a nice fit for him as he’s always trying to learn and inform others. Finally, being emotionless isn’t such a good idea. For it’s those emotions that show us as a people that we care about the things we do. We wouldn’t be the same as a society if we gave up on the emotional part of us. Somethings can’t be truly explained at this day and age but we can a feeling that gives us some sort of idea of what something may be. There’s nothing wrong about being rational but interactions and thinking must have some emotion that comes with it. Rational thinking sometimes isn’t what needs to present at that very moment. Emotions is how you react to things but, of course, keeping your emotions in check is also a necessity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first point Wilson made and that is Socrates was an amateur. In this case Socrates doesn’t really have a platform to be respected for if he wasn’t paid to do it or wasn’t experienced. It’s hard to trust someone when they don’t have much knowledge or you aren’t paying for them, as it can lead to inherited knowledge that is flawed.I don’t necessarily disagree with Wilson on the point of Socrates being irresponsible, but I do find it an invalid reason as to why we shouldn’t take his ideas into consideration. What he did doesn’t exactly relate to how he philosophised and his ideas. I feel that the author only put in this part for the purpose of ridiculing him on his lifestyle rather than what he believed. In terms of philosophy we should criticize the flaws in their thinking and not their own personal life. Just because a person may not make the best choices, they may make some reasonable points worth noting. However, I do agree with the author describing Socrates as “parochial”. Only believing what you hear in your comfort zone leads to ignorance and doubt in ideas that may challenge you. Instead of trying to accept new ideas Socrates continued to only listen to the ones he wanted to hear. As a philosopher himself it would be practically hypocritical to ignore what others have to say that may contradict what you already know. To take these ideas and put them into your own consideration in order to form your own view is one of the main aspects of philosophy, and Socrates fails to do that. Another fault of Socrates that I agree with is his anti-political view. Socrates makes no sense by claiming nobody is suited for running a government or a city. Yet, if nobody can do it then would we be better off without a government? Without a government we wouldn’t have a society, and without a society what would we be left with? We cannot live without some sort of organization and form. Humans require social interaction and living under rules creates a society in which we can do so. In that case, why does Socrates say nobody is suited for government? Obviously nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean those mistakes should hinder us. Socrates once again displays ignorance by claiming how nobody is suited for anything. With that logic, why should we listen to Socrates? If he can’t provide all the definite answers, what’s the point? Well, although he may have certain flaws that hinder him as a philosopher, that doesn’t mean we should simply ignore him. Socrates still makes some good points and we should take those into consideration more than his flawed ones.
ReplyDeleteSocrates was praised for his philosophies and is very highly regarded by most. Many see Socrates’ philosophies as the basis of western philosophy. However, some believe that Socrates is much more controversial and believe that he is wrongly admired. A few things that some have found wrong with Socrates include him being a chatterbox, psychologically naive, superstitious, and a rationalist.
ReplyDeleteSocrates was known to be quite the chatterbox. Socrates was big on talking things out, he would look for anyone to talk to anytime. However, some see this as a weakness when talk becomes more valued over action. I agree that this is one downfall to Socrates. It’s true that philosophy is much a mental field. It is for the brain to think about, but ultimately use what one believes and apply it in their life. Socrates only completed half of this by only thinking instead of also acting. His admittance that he does not think he knows what he does not know makes it impossible for him to ever reach a set belief. Instead, Socrates spends his time talking in circles with little action.
Another flaw some have found with Socrates is that he is psychologically naive. One of his famous quotes is, “Nobody willingly does wrong”. Socrates believed the only reason people did wrong was because they did not know any better. There are a lot of conflicts with this reasoning. First of all, many people do wrong against their better judgement. Peer pressure and falling into bad habits have people continually making bad decisions even when they know better. This shows that either Socrates did not believe in social pressures, or simply thought that humans were completely rational beings. Either way, it is a huge misjudgment of human nature.
Some have complained that Socrates was too superstitious. Socrates talked about hearing a voice in his head that told him when he was doing something wrong. Some people believe that this discredits him and makes him a bit crazy. However, Socrates claimed that the voice was of a divine nature. It seems similar to how we would describe a conscience that sets your morals. Through this voice, Socrates has access to his god and makes his religion much more personal and individual. I disagree that this voice makes Socrates any less credible. Many people have different takes on religion and his idea of a conscience does not seem that far fetched.
Finally, Socrates was a strict rationalist. He valued the mind above all else, thought over emotion. While placing slightly more importance on the mind may be considered acceptable, if it becomes too extreme issues occur. Socrates did not care much for emotions and because of this he was greatly mislead. A human is not a human with just thought, but it is also not human with just emotions. You need a blend of both and the two work hand in hand. Emotion affects the brain and vice versa. I believe that due to his over rational thinking and his, starkly wrong, belief that humans are rational beings made much of his philosophy one sided and inapplicable.
4) Yes. Socrates was a chatterbox. He talked a lot about philosophy even if he did not reach a conclusion to his speech. From experience, I have learned that talking instead on listening does not make for an educated individual. If all Socrates did was talk about how he did not know things then I would agree with the article that stated it as a philosophical failing. However, if Socrates talked so much to ask questions and ignite thinking then I would have to disagree because philosophy is based on asking questions and attempting to answer them.
ReplyDelete2) I do not believe that Socrates willing left his wife and children behind. As a man who studies philosophy and attempts to follow the rules of them, he simply was allowing himself to undergo the repercussions that came with his actions. The article claims that Socrates is irresponsible because of this but he is actually the opposite. He takes responsibility for his actions by allowing himself to die. He simply valued his wife and children at a lower value than others might have.
3) Socrates was not an amateur for not requiring students to pay for education. Cost does not always equal value. For example, Brown University, and Ivy league institution, is eliminating student loans and replacing them with scholarships soon. Their level of education is extremely high and is not to be questioned because they are offering schooling at a lower price. Socrates thought education was so important that he did not want students to see money as an issue. Also, Socrates would not be as widely known and referenced if his teachings were amateur.
8) I disagree with the insinuation that Socrates was at all arrogant because of the way he dressed and held himself. I have been called arrogant numerous times because I choose to look out windows, go right when people say left, and think my own thought despite others aggressions. Socrates had different things on his mind and prerogatives separate from most people. His attitude was mistaken for arrogance when he really was just confident in himself, his words, and his teachings.
-Derrick Lockhart
Hunter Vainik:
ReplyDeleteSocrates was an ancient Greek philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western Philosophy and is known as the first moral philosopher. He invented some new ideas like the Socratic method but ended up receiving the death penalty for "corrupting the young". Was this actually just though? Was Socrates a guilty man? Well, to start off, he was arrogant. He prided himself about living in poverty, but he chose to live in poverty. When he was on trial he told the jury that "Apollo did not compare me to a god, although he did say that I excelled the rest of humanity." He neglected money-making because he thought that he was too honorable to waste his time with that. That's just downright arrogant. I also agree that he was superstitious. He was critical of paganism but participated in religious ceremonies. The most shocking fact is that he claimed to hear a divine voice in his head that would warn him when he was going to do something wrong. This is mirrored in many crazy people of today. I agree with the fact that he was phychologically naive. He believed that the primary goal of human life was to aspire towards wisdom and knowledge even if this goal was unattainble. He also thought that nobody willingly does wrong and that all moral failures can be attributed to ignorance. That's just a naive thing to say. A terrorist group may be ignorant in your opinion but in their opinion you're the ignorant one. To top it all off, he denies that pain matters. Socrates declares that he has no fear of death, because "to the good man no harm can come". Think of all the good people in history who experienced immense pain and suffering. This thinking is inhumane, arrogant, and proves that he is physcologically naive.
Out of all of Wilson’s critiques of Socrates, a couple really resonate with me, and first among those would have to be his view that talk is valued more than action. To me, that’s just entirely the wrong way to go about life in general, because the way I see it, actions achieve far more than words in nearly every single scenario. Take self-improvement for an example; if someone just talks about how they’re going to start working out, and eating healthy, whoop di doo. Just because they talked about it does not mean that it will happen, or they will reap the benefits. You have to actually eat healthy to get healthy, it’s not going to magically happen just because of the power of good vibes. Another point that chafes with me is his view that nothing of importance could be learned out of Athens. However, that point really bothers me because of the sheer arrogance that one single city-state could have a monopoly on everything of importance. This is especially important when you consider the relative monotony of demographics in Athens. They in large part all had similar experiences, and believed a certain type of ideas, but they had not experience with, for example, how people in the mountains lived or the cultures and philosophies that would result from such an upbringing. However, i have to disagree with Wilson on the point of Socrates’ so-called naivety about how “nobody does harm willingly. Throughout history, the majority of people we considered bad had their own internal reasoning for why what they were doing was good. Very few people view what they are doing voluntarily as wrong, but simply as what must be done. An excellent example of this would be Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward. I can say with a fair measure of confidence that he didn’t set out to kill and starve million of his own people just for shits and giggles, and that he told himself, and maybe believed that his plans would push China forward on the world stage. He was just a powerful man doing what he believed was the best course of action, albeit a misinformed and rather lethal one. Because of examples like this, I believe that by and large, no man believes that he is doing wrong. As for Socrates’ stance on rationalism, I have to agree with Wilson that it is important to include emotion in some issues. Take the issue of love, for instance. Love is inherently rational, and as such does not play by established norms for everyone, and is very subjective. Because of this subjectivity, you can’t really use logic to solve such problems due to the simple fact that circumstances are not constant enough for logic to remain consistent.
ReplyDelete