Money

In Book I of the Republic, Socrates states on 330 c "For the most part, those who do not make money themselves are that way. Those who do make it are twice as attached to it as the others. For just as poets are fond of their poems and fathers of their children, so money-makers too are serious about money - as their own product; and they also are serious about it for the same reason other men are - for it's use. They are, therefore, hard even to be with because they are willing to praise nothing but wealth."

While this seems to be correct at face value, a more careful examination of it can say otherwise. People who inherit money can either not be attached to it because they didn't earn it, or they can become spoiled thanks to it. I've been able to observe many of these people thanks to attending not only a rich, private university, but a rich, private school too. And more often than not, people who grow up in rich households and inherit lots of wealth tend to be spoiled. It's the only way of life they know, where many things are given to them. When dealing with people who make money; Socrates' assumption is correct in a way. Look no further than to Wall St. and out current financial crises. However, there are those who make money and use it not to please themselves (like Bernie Madoff did), but to please others. My Grandfather grew up in the Great Depression and worked his way up to a financial advisor. He is now a millionaire - but you wouldn't know it. This is because he praises other things such as family, faith, and friends way above wealth. It's people like this that earn their wealth not for themselves, but for others. All this to say, when dealing with large amounts of money (be it through inheritance or work) it is best to have a reason (other than getting rich and pleasing yourself) behind it all. This could be a spiritual reason (i.e. Church offering), humanitarian reason (i.e. donating for Haiti's recovery), or for a family member (i.e. helping them financially with their education, real estate, etc.). Earning money for those reasons will prevent you from becoming hard and only praising wealth - as Socrates states.

What is harm?

Socrates in many areas of the book talks about harm to enemies. Sometimes it is discussed as good, sometimes it is discussed as bad. Sometime just necessary. But what really is harm? Does he mean physical harm, or just permanent mental harm? I believe in this situation he means permanent mental harm. That might come through physical harm, but i believe he means having a lasting negative affect on a person.

Soul and the City

Socrates believes cities arise because no one is self-sufficient and everyone has a certain skill to contribute to help each other survive. He compares it to a soul because no soul can thrive alone without engaging in another. I believe “the city of utmost necessity” symbolizes justice and when the luxury items are introduced by Glaucon the injustice becomes visible. Individuals begin to try to be better than the other, making the city and the soul suffer. The soul strives for what it needs which are the just characteristics but when they all are met the soul starts to look for more. When the people of the community start becoming greedy and prideful it can lead to war. War for the soul is an evaluation of what are just actions and what are unjust actions and which ones make the soul content.

Educating Guardians

In book 2 of Plato when they are talking about educating the children to be guardians, they talk about how they think they should modify some of the stories about the Gods. As much as this angered me at first while reading it, it no longer angers me because I feel like I’m starting to understand. They feel as if the Gods are good and therefore the stories that contradict that God may be good are false and poorly written. They think because they are false and poorly written then they must modify them for the children who are learning to be guardians because these are the examples that are set for the children and they want them to be morally sound and aware. I think that the stories that homer and other famous intellectuals wrote at that time were really common and even though they were common that doesn’t mean that the people believed they were true. At first I thought that they were just telling their children untrue stories about the Gods they believed in but in actuality I think they didn’t fully believe those stories and they were in fact being true with their children. I can’t help but let this intertwine with my beliefs in that I believe my God is all mighty and all good. One day when I have a family and I raise my children in a Christian home, I think it will be vital to their beliefs to educate them on all the love and goodness that God provides. I would want to shape my children into beautiful and amazing Christian people and I would want to provide them with as much information that I could that would set the perfect example of this. Of course I’m going to teach my children to rely and depend on God for examples and for a way of living because there is no other image of perfect and there is no other image of love that is greater. I wouldn’t want them to think they have to be exactly like God because no one will ever be as perfect but I would want them to want to be more like God in that he is all loving and of good doing. I would never tell them of stories that were untrue of God doing evil acts because I don’t believe that God is capable of being evil. If I’m following the story correctly, which I very well might be lost, but if I am then I completely agree with and understand why they wanted the guardians of their state to be educated morally and in wholly goodness.

The City of Socrates and the Soul

Socrates builds his city on the premise that a man is not self-sufficient and is in need of his fellow man to survive. This much is true; while it is possible for a single man to be self-sufficient, it is human nature to seek companionship of some sort and the necessities of life are certainly easier to come by when one is living within a community. So Socrates and Adeimantus establish the city of necessities and end up with a surprisingly adept analogy for the nature of justice in the human soul. The city represents the soul, and if every member of the community is working towards what is just (i.e. what is beneficial for not only themselves but for the rest of the community), then the community thrives, just as the soul does when it is truly just. But if a member of community acts out of injustice, such as the homemaker creating inadequate homes or the tradesmen cheating his clients, then the community suffers. It is in the same way that the soul suffers from injustice; if any part of the soul commits an injustice, then the rest of the soul suffers. Of course, there is the possibility for remorse and rehabilitation for acts of injustice. If only on member of the community is unjust, then the rest of the community can come together and either replace him or make sure he only takes actions that are just. This is also true for the soul. If a just person commits an act of injustice, they can recognize their injustice and attempt to rectify it. But if the act of injustice goes unchecked, whether in the city or the soul, then all that remains just stands the chance of becoming unjust.

Once the city Socrates creates has all of its necessities taken care of, they start to create luxuries. This is when injustice appears within the community. Once the community starts seeking out luxuries that are beyond its means, it must expand. "[We must] cut off a piece of our neighbors' land, if we are going to have sufficient for pasture and tillage," explains Socrates (373d). This, he says, is the "origin of war". Once the city moves past its necessities to luxuries, it starts committing acts of injustice against other communities to sustain itself. This is where injustice emanates in the soul. Once a man has (or even witnesses) the luxuries of the just, then they are more inclined to obtain more luxuries, and it is easier to obtain luxuries through acts of injustice than justice (the city had to work to provide its own necessities before it could obtain luxuries, but once they had those luxuries another city maybe feel inclined to come take the luxuries for themselves). This, I believe, is the origin of evil; when a man recognizes the luxuries of another and attempts to obtain them through unjust means.

Understanding ancient thought process?

On line 365 d of Book II Adeimantus’ discussion of the god’s involvement in just and unjust things struck an interest for me. He states “But it surely isn’t possible to get away from the gods or overpower them. But, if there are no gods, or if they have no care for human things, why should we care at all about getting away…” Later in the book Socrates then presents the idea of ignoring the work of famous author’s like Homer and also discusses the status of the gods and how they are. The ideas of ignoring famous literature and discussing the gods in such certain terms was shocking for me. Reading this it does not surprise me that Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, given the nature of the times. What I have taken from these passages so far may seem a little strange as they are not the obvious points of discussion and may not be strong philosophical questions. For me I could not hope to understand the message that these ancient men were trying to convey unless I first understood the way that they thought about certain aspects of faith and society. Reading the way that Socrates and the other men speak of the gods, as if they know them personally, is much different than I would think of a god today. I could not hope to derive understanding for their ideas of knowledge, virtue, or justice without first understanding the way they thought of society. And that is what I took as most valuable so far in my readings, the attempt to understand the ancient poeple's thought processes on various issues.

Meno.....

Hey guys, I am sorry this post from Meno last week is so late, I had issues getting the blog to work but here it is finally........

Toward the end of class on Thursday, we were discussing Meno's attitude and thoughts following his dialogue with Socrates. The conversation begins with Meno asking a forceful, perfectly posed, confident question on how one comes to have virtue. Meno lists Socrates a list of optional answers to his question. Instead of answering with one, Socrates begins posing questions to Meno. The whole latter part of the conversation pretty much consists of Socrates asking questions or making statements and Meno typically agrees with him using statements like "Certainly," "That's my opinion, at any rate," and "Yes, absolutely." These short and concise answers gave me the impression that Meno is disinterested in Socrates' statements. It appears to me that Meno is simply agreeing with Socrates so he would hush. I would think that if Meno truly agreed and understood what Socrates was saying, he would have much more to say. He would have asked more questions and tried to gain more understanding.

Also, while I was reading the end of Meno, I was actually very curious as to why Socrates says to Meno, "As for you, persuade Anytus here, your guest-friend, of the same things that you yourself have been persuaded of, so that he may be gentler.If you do persuade him, there is a certain benefit you'll render to the Athenians as well." I was completely unaware that Anytus was one of Socrates' persecutors. This now makes complete sense as to why Socrates would ask this of Meno. I feel that this is a huge clue of how Meno felt about the dialogue with Socrates. As we learned in class, Anytus was obviously not convinced by Meno since Socrates was put to death. Meno was not compelled to convince Anytus. Is this an indicator of his disintrest? Is it an indicator that he did not understand enough to converse with Anytus?

Meno

I never really considered virtue a complicated idea until we read this dialogue between Meno and Socrates. The concept of virtue to me was simply the goodness of people. However, after further reading and discussion in class, I realize that “good” can be defined in many different ways depending on the individual, which has completely confused my understanding of what virtue actually is. In the conclusion of “Meno,” Socrates decides that since we aren’t sure what virtue is, it isn’t teachable, and it isn’t natural, it must be a gift from the divine. I don’t really see any other conclusion that is possible when it comes to the question of virtue. I don’t believe in the same divine beings as Socrates, but I believe in the Christian God and His definition of good. Although I am not quite sure if virtue is just a gift that we get randomly from God, I do think that we can obtain virtue through believing and learning about life through our Faith.

Meno

In the conclusion of Meno, it was decided that virtue could not be taught or practiced, but was instead divinely given to us. If this is the case, then when is virtue allotted to us? It does not necessarily occur at birth, because virtue would then be considered part of our nature. The notion of virtue may be subconsciously present in us, but in order for us to act on the idea of seeking out virtue, one must first have a sort of spiritual consciousness. In order for a person to access their own virtue, they must come to a realization of the higher powers that bestowed said virtue on them. This may not always occur simultaneously with a religious conversion. But, a person must first become morally aware of one’s conscience and spiritual beings before embracing virtue.

Meno

After their elongated conversation we just read, we come to understand that Meno is merely disappointed with the final idea that Socrates has left him with. Socrates tells Meno that he feels virtue is a gift from the gods or from the divine. I partially agree with this; I feel that the true goodness and virtue comes from the Christian God. Virtue is something that takes habit and skill and also is something that leads to the greater good. I remember in class that we talked a little bit about bad people seeking what they think to be “good things”. And I’m not saying that you cannot be a moral or virtuous if you are not a Christian, but I feel that they are not filling their souls with what they think are good. I feel that they are just falling into temptations and those things are not what God has intended. Socrates stated that he wanted to find a universal meaning of the word virtue that was true for everyone, so I do not necessarily think that we will ever find that, because it might be that it varies between the different cultures and ethnicities that share a common ground.

the source of virtue

As we already discussed in class it is hard to imagine the Greeks gods as role models for virtue, but we recognize the fact that the Gods of mt. Olympus are false Idols. However, applying Socrates view on source of virtue, it is easier to see a figure such as Jesus Christ might be the source of virtue for he is believed by many including myself to be perfect, but just like virtue what people have different views of perfection and beliefs about God change from person to person and generation to generation. This in mind maybe defining virtue in terms of divine is just as difficult as any other in creating a one fits all definition. Perhaps, Socrates should have said virtue is something that is currently beyond human understanding but what we as responsible beings should ultimately strive for.

Meno

At one point in the dialogue, Socrates suggests to Meno that two things can lead a human being on the correct path: “true opinion and knowledge” (99a). A person can accidently end up in the correct destination if he follows a random path or he can have knowledge of the way and end up in the same place. In the same way, just because I shoot a 3-pointer in basketball and make it doesn’t mean I’m a basketball player. It was a lucky shot. For that moment, it appears that I am but when I actually practice and devote all my time and efforts into the game, then I can consistently make good shots. Similarly, virtuous-looking actions may not stem from virtue itself. But doesn’t there have to be some way to distinguish between the two?

Everyone is born with the sense of right and wrong, good and bad, this is in our nature. But what if virtue was the ability to choose between the two? Yes, some may say that what seems good to some is not the same to another person, that morality, ethics, and truths are all relative, but if humans are born with this sense, it must have come from somewhere.

Isn’t virtue (whatever it may be) the same way? We have this sense of morals instilled in us just like I had the potential to be good at basketball but one needs to constantly seek out the good as a way of life. Then one becomes so trained in this way of life. If it can’t be taught and its not in our nature than what if what Socrates is suggesting is that we are born with this sense of morality, or given this gift by the gods, this ability to follow the correct path, and virtue, or to be virtuous, is to seek out this moral life for the right reasons?

Virtue and Teachability

We were unable to discuss this subject in class so I thought it would be an appropriate topic to visit here. I take issue with Socrates' evidence in "Meno" that virtue cannot be taught. Note I am not arguing that it can or cannot be. I just think that the topic needs to be analyzed more thoroughly before we accept Socrates' assertion.

Socrates made two points to prove that virtue is unteachable. First, he states that he has seen no teachers of virtue and that a topic without teachers cannot be taught (89e). Second, he showed that even good fathers who teach virtue to their sons sometimes have bad sons (93c-94b).

I disagree with Socrates’ first point since it is inconsistent with other disciplines. I find that even if a topic has no teachers, it could theoretically be taught. Take for example if it were forbidden to open a human body. It would then also be impossible to analyze and teach about human organs. There would, therefore, be no teachers of human biology. Just because there are no teachers does it mean that human biology is “unteachable?” Of course not! Although the subject is not being taught, it does not mean that in some alternate set of circumstances it could not be taught. Development is based upon discovering something and teaching about that discovery. If virtue can be compared to other tangible ideas (as Socrates argues) then it must also follow the pattern that absence does not imply impossibility.

Socrates’ second example is also poor because he does not consider free will as a variable in the human spirit. For example, if person A teaches person B how to build a boat, and B disregards A’s instruction, and B’s boat sinks, does that mean he was not taught? No! It means that either he did not properly follow A’s instruction or A was a poor teacher. The same occurs with virtue. A father can constantly teach his son virtue, but it is still the son’s choice whether or not to follow. Failure, like absence, also does not imply impossibility.

In both cases, Socrates points out the possibility that virtue is unteachable. However, neither example presents a solid case for his argument. Again, I do not claim to know the answer of whether virtue can be taught. I am just unconvinced by Socrates’ “definitive” evidence of unteachability.

Meno

The dialogue between Socrates and Meno ends with Socrates' declaration that, according to their line of reasoning, "virtue would be neither an inborn quality nor taught" but rather "a gift from the gods" (99e-100b). But knowledge of virtue would only be reached once they agree upon a definition of what virtue is. They did agree to say that virtue is either the whole or part of wisdom and that it must be beneficial, but they decided that it was not teachable since there did not seem to be anyone who successfully passed on knowledge of it or claimed to be a teacher of it, and thus concluded that virtue is not knowledge. If it is true that virtue is not knowledge but rather a gift from the gods, could it still not be attained or bestowed in some way? It seems that if virtue is considered a gift from the gods then there may be some way of earning it, but the need for a definition of virtue still prevents us from knowing what it is that we are after. What's more is that the inquiry has, at this point in the reasoning, reached a point where we need knowledge of the divine (not only what virtue is, but also how to communicate or interact with them to receive this gift). Thus it could be that virtue is knowledge, but it must be a type of knowledge (namely divine) that cannot be taught by men.

"Meno"

When reading the "Meno" I began to ask myself what virtue was to me. I was thinking to myself that virtue is acting a certain way under certain principles. For instance: acting under responsibility, loyalty, or even honor. I remember hearing in class people saying that virtue has to do with ethics. In a way I understand and comprehend this point of view. I think that it is impossible to teach someone to be ethical because for one person being ethical is not the same as another person's being ethical. Plus every person has a different mindset of what their morals may be. So if virtue is like ethics as some said and being ethical , I think that you cannot be taught virtue and how to be virtuous because of the fact that one person's response to being virtuous is not the same as another. However, I think that we can discuss among each other what we think virtue or ethical behavior is and by getting all the ideas out on the table for people to see, the person who is trying to establish what virtue is or ethical behavior is can draw their own conclusions using their morals and sense of direction to what they think being ethical or virtuous is. So, basically what I am saying is that you can't learn to be ethical in a certain way or be virtuous in a certain way. You can only figure out what you believe to be true about a virtue or true to be about ethics.

Course and Blog Schedule

Even group posts on EVEN weeks, Odd group posts on ODD weeks.

Reading Schedule:

Tuesday                                                                 Thursday

-----                                                                          J14 Syllabus

EVEN J19 Meno to 82b                                       J21 Finish Meno

ODD  J26 Republic Bk. I                                     J28 Republic Bk. II

EVEN F2 Republic Bk. III                                   F4 Republic Bk. III

ODD  F9 Republic Bk. IV                                    F11Republic Bk. IV

EVEN F16 Republic Bk. V                                   F18 Republic Bk. VI

ODD  F23 Republic Bk. VII                                F25 Republic Bk. VII

EVEN M2 Republic Bk. VIII                               M4 Republic Bk IX

                                Spring Break

ODD M16 Republic Bk. X                                 M18 Republic Bk. X

EVEN  M23 Nic. Ethics Bk. I                           M25 Nic Ethics. II

ODD M30 Nic. Ethics Bk II                             A1 Easter

EVEN  A6 Nic Ethics. Bk. V                            A8  Nic Ethics VII

ODD A13 Nic Ethics Bk. VIII                          A15 Nic Ethics IX

EVEN  A20 Nic Ethics X                                 A22 Meditations 1, 2

ODD Meditations 3, 4                                     A29 Meditations 5, 6

M4 Last Class