Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, January 29, 2015

H01 Group 3-2 Peripatetic Discussion

Our group spent the majority of our walk pondering the question of whether or not we still "kill Socrates" in the world of today. We believe that ,any people who ask questions like he did are often silenced in today's society. We decided that normally we label these people as "conspiracy theorists" and disregard what they have to say. Also, we came to the conclusion that just as in Socrates's day, most people don't like admitting that they are wrong or that they do not know anything. In the end we said that acceptance of widespread belief is generally considered more important in the world of today than search for the truth.

7 comments:

  1. In addition to this, we discussed the similarities between a few modern instances to that of Socrates. For example, we discussed the case of Edward Snowden. Since he "blew the whistle", the United States government has been continuously been trying to silence him. Somewhat like a modern day Socrates, his actions raised questions about the ethicality of the post 9-11 actions of the U.S. government, questions the the government obviously doesn't want their citizens pondering. Whether or not his actions were actually the right ones is an other matter entirely.
    After our walk, I started thinking about the recent Charlie Hebdo shootings. Although the magazine is not specifically a philosophy magazine, their comics can present images that raise questions, and can sometimes make the viewers begin to ponder the subject matter. In this way I think that the magazine writers are somewhat like a modern Socrates. Although their medium is not traditional in a sense, it can attain the same effect, and for raising these questions, the creators were targeted and killed. These are the reasons that I compare Charlie Hebdo to Socrates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the comparison with Edward Snowden. We don't like hearing the truth if it contradicts our beliefs or if we may be wrong. One could then go into the debate of whether his action was "moral": he may have breached political security and laws of today's government, but is this justified by the fact that he shared information we as Americans deserve to know? In my opinion, yes, it is completely justifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Victoria Lay7:07 PM CST

    Possible FQs for Tuesday:

    How does the First Cause Argument contradict itself?

    How did Aristotle think we should live?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rebecca Clippard9:49 AM CST

    Our peripatetic walk led us into an interesting direction. I hadn't before considered the idea that Socrates today would be treated the same as in ancient times. But I had to consider that I would dislike someone randomly asking me difficult questions while I shopped. Because this would be loitering, Socrates have probably adapted, but the concept remains the same. The internet is always a good source of people questioning everything, but rather than use Socrates's methods, many discussions turn into conspiracy theories. Or so it seems.

    Possible FQ: What was strongest argument against the Watchmaker analogy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evan Conley2:22 PM CST

      I definitely think that there's a great deal of truth to what you said about the internet being a good place for people to discuss different ideas that might contradict popular beliefs. Though in many cases, individuals who believe differently than the general populace may be ostracized from their communities, I believe that the modern day Socrates would find refuge in online forums and boards. Through the internet, wild ideas can be discussed behind the safety of a computer, and though people may still be attacked for their beliefs online, there are a great many more people that would be willing to have legitimate conversation on controversial topics.

      One thing that I'm not sure about is how readily those who have ideas that contradict the status quo are grouped with conspiracy theorists. Though this is a bit idealistic, I believe each individual argument should be given a fair listen so long as the information within can be validated. Though the line may be fine, I do think that there is a definite line between the people wearing tin foil on their heads to block mind-readers and the people that don't trust the government.

      Delete
  5. DQ Can you think of any examples in your life that have lead you to a conclusion or lack of one about whether or not A higher power exists?

    ReplyDelete
  6. FQ Which argument can be used both for and against the existence of a god.

    ReplyDelete