Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Quiz W31/Th1

Socrates/Plato, HP 82-107; PG Prologue

1.  Of what was Socrates accused, and what was the formal charge against him in court?

2. Why did Socrates say fear of death is not wisdom?

3. What close connection is characteristic of Socrates and Plato?

4. Wisdom consists in what, for Plato (acc'ing to Russell)?

5. What, acc'ing to Goldstein, marks Plato's thinking as a pivotal stage in humanity? 

6. What "singularity" created the conditions for philosophy in ancient Greece?

7. Plato often betrays a horror of what?

8. What did Plato insist on, rather than final answers?

  • Does it matter, philosophically, whether Plato's portrayal of Socrates is historically accurate or if he's just using Socrates as a "mouthpiece of his own opinions"?  84
  • Do you think Socrates was wise? Why or why not? 86
  • Who plays the role of Socratic "gadfly" in our time, if anyone? 
  • Do you think a university education should "corrupt the youth"? (Bear in mind the etymology of the word: from cor-‘altogether’ + rumpere ‘to break.’)
  • Are you persuaded by Socrates that "those who think death is an evil are in error," and that "clear thinking is the most important requisite for right living"? 89
  • What do you think Socrates meant by his inner divine "voice"? 90
  • Given the description of Socrates' physical appearance and indifference to the elements, would he be taken in our time for a vagrant? Should we pay more attention to the vagrants among us now?
  • Socrates said he had "nothing to do with physical speculations," being more concerned with how to live ethically and well. Should philosophers leave physical speculations entirely to credentialed physicists?
  • What do you think of Goldstein's Ethos of the Extraordinary? 8
  • Do you agree with the ancient Greeks that a lasting reputation is "the only kind of immortality for which we may hope"? 
  • COMMENT:  "to philosophize is to prepare to die." 13 (See below *)
Also recommended: LISTEN M.M. McCabe on Socratic Method&Angie Hobbs on Plato on Erotic Love (PB); WATCH: Know ThyselfDiotima's Ladder: From Lust to MoralityPlato(SoL)

Little Histories (@LittleHistoryof)
'Snub-nosed, podgy, shabby, and a bit strange, #Socrates did not fit in' – @philosophybites ow.ly/rNIK303zo76pic.twitter.com/MxlhPLBDIa

From an old post-

Quiz on Little History of Philosophy-"The Man Who Asked Questions" (no need to take this quiz, but feel free to comment on any of the discussion questions)

1. (T/F) For Socrates, a conversation that ended in everyone realizing how little they knew was a failure.

2. (T/F) For Socrates, wisdom consists in knowing lots of facts.

3. Plato's parable of the cave was intended to illustrate the distinction between appearance and reality, and to introduce his Theory of ______.

4. Was Plato's utopia democratic, by modern standards?

5. What were Meletus's charges against Socrates?

6. Why did Socrates question everything?

BONUS QUESTIONS from PB podcasts:

  • Does M.M.McCabe prefer to teach by lecturing Socratically?
  • Who said Eros is the search for your other half? 
  • What's good about Plato's concept of Eros as contemplation of the Form of Beauty, according to Angie Hobbs? OR, What's bad about it? 
1. Do you think the point of conversation is mainly to demonstrate that you already know what you're talking about, or that someone or other in the discussion does? How else might it be possible to think about philosophical conversations?

(If you're discussing politics, religion, ethics, metaphysics, science-vs.-superstition, or some other Big Question, do you presume that one of you is right and everyone else is wrong? Do you consider that you all may be partly right and partly wrong? Do you expect to gain from such conversations or do you shun them? What would Socrates say?)

2. Can an ignorant person be wise? Can a knowledgeable person be ignorant?

3. Do you think ordinary life is a misleading appearance, and reality something most of us fail to perceive? Why or why not? How should we go about seeking to discover reality, if it is in fact elusive?

4. Do you like sitting and listening to long speeches, sermons, and lectures? Do you get more out of them than you do from conversations with your peers? What do you see as the benefit or the deficiency of Socratic dialogue?

5. What's your definition of love? Are you looking for your perfect match? What makes for a good marriage or relationship?

6. Do you like Plato's concept of Eros as Perfect Disembodied Love? Why or why not?

Western philosophy began well before Socrates, but we'll leave the pre-Socratics to themselves for now and pretend that Socrates was indeed the first (western) philosopher. We'll also soft-pedal Bertrand Russell's judgment (later shared by Izzy Stone) that the Platonic Socrates is "dishonest and sophistical in argument... smug and unctuous... not scientific in his thinking... [guilty of] treachery to truth" and so on. If the esteemed Socrates-as-paragon and personification of intellectual integrity ("I'd rather die than give up my philosophy" etc.) didn't exist we'd have had to invent him. Perhaps Plato did.

In the southern part of Europe is a little country called Greece… the Greeks have lived in it for more than three thousand years. In olden times they believed that before they came to the land it was the home of the gods, and they used to tell wonderful stories

And then Socrates came along to challenge some of those stories. (There actually were some important pre-Socratics like Thales and Democritus already challenging what everybody knew, but we’re jumping ahead in our Little History.) And that’s why, from a western philosopher’s point of view, the Greeks matter.

The old Parthenon must have been lovely, but I think ours is prettier nowadays. And btw, our Parthenon's city ("The Athens of the South") is hot (as in cool) lately. 

[There's a new theory about the old Parthenon, btw. "Horses and riders, youths and elders, men and women, animals being led to sacrifice: What is the Parthenon’s frieze telling us?"... more]

Socrates, from Alopece, near Athens, asked a lot of questions. Like Gilda Radner's Roseanne Roseannadanna. Like Bertrand Russell:

Bertrand Russell ‏@B_RussellQuotesJan 31

In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.

Did curiosity kill the philosopher? No, a narrow plurality of 500 jurors did. (His unrepentant attitude during sentencing didn't help, either.) They convicted him of "impiety" (atheism) and corrupting the youth of Athens. One more reason I'm lucky to live in the 21st century: I don't like hemlock. I'm like Woody Allen, that way. (But if shocking new allegations are true, hemlock may be too good for him.) Steve Martin (did I mention that he was a philosophy major?) had a go at it too. Here's a good Discussion Question: what would you do, in Socrates' cell?

He was “snub-nosed, podgy, shabby and a bit strange,” says our text. "He was ugly," says podcastee Mary McCabe. But brilliant and charismatic too, as gadflies go. Said he had nothing to teach, but those around him (including young Plato) said they learned plenty from him, especially how 

to discuss with others in this open-minded, open-ended way that allows them to reflect on what they think and us to reflect on what we think, without dictating, without dogma, without insistence, and without imperative... to be true to themselves: to be sincere about their beliefs and to be honest... and to have some respect for their companion.

If that's not good teaching, what is? 

The annotated and hyperlinked Last Days of Socrates is a gripping and inspiring tale, whether or not its hero was really as heroic through all the days of his life as Plato and his other admirers would have us believe. The honored pedestal version of this gadfly remains a worthy ideal for philosophy.

"Plato, they say, could stick it away..." -they being Monty Python. And the late great Hitch sang it too, sorta. But Plato was a serious and sober fellow, in Reality, usually capitalizing that word to distinguish it from mere appearance. The everyday world is not at all what it appears to be, he said. If you want Truth and Reality and the Good, get out of your cave and go behold the Forms. He seemed to think that’s what his hero Socrates had done. I’m not so sure. But read the relevant Platonic dialogues telling the tragic and inspiring story of the last days of Socrates and see what you think.

He also had interesting thoughts about love and eros, as expressed through his constant dialogue character "Socrates" (who may or may not have spoken faithfully for his martyred namesake) inSymposiumAngie Hobbs says Plato rejected Aristophanes' mythic notion that we all have one unique other "half," formerly parts of our hermaphroditic spherical selves, that would complete us and make us happy. But he defended a view some of us find equally implausible, the idea that the true and highest love spurns (or spins upward from) particular persons and embraces the Form of Beauty.

The Form of Beauty "is always going to be there for you," but on the other hand "it's never going to love you back." Unrequited affection is hardly what most of us think of as Perfect Love. There's a myth for you. This really was an early foreshadowing of the phenomenon recently deplored in the Stone, our modern turn to abstraction and virtual experience in lieu of immediacy and reality and touch. ("Losing Our Touch", nyt). Reminds me, too, of Rebecca Goldstein's Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away.

We romantics (as Angie Hobbs pronounces herself, and as I confess to being too) should know better than to seek a perfect match. We should know better than to think that any enduring relationship can be wholly free of "pain, fragility, and transience." Those are inevitable parts of the story and the glory of human (as against Ideal, Platonic, Perfect) love, no? Just ask Cecil the Butler about Sidney Poitier.

One more thing about Plato, that will be important for understanding how his pupil Aristotle came to differ from his teacher: the famous Allegory of the Cave from Book VII of Plato's Republic.

* On the theme of philosophy as preparation for dying, see this recent Stone essay:

Why We Never Die

Gabriel Rockhill

THE STONE AUG. 29, 2016

As a child, I was terrified of death. It was often in the twilight hours, between the moment of lying down and the imperceptible instant of slipping off to sleep, that the terror would arise. The thought of vanishing completely from the world, of being engulfed in ineradicable darkness, would seize upon me and crush with it the very existence of the world. It was not simply that I would no longer be there. It was that reality itself would collapse, devoid of any point of apprehension. Petrified before a void so vast that it could not be contained within thought, let alone a thinking being, it was impossible to know how long it would take to drift off into the abyss that silently beckoned me.

Religion and spirituality were of little or no solace. Even to my young mind, they struck me as fantasies that had been elaborately constructed and forcefully imposed in order to stave off the horror. Their power paled in comparison with the groundless vacuum that they sought to mask, and my restless mind would have nothing of consolation. As I grew older, the appeal of philosophy was that it opened vantage points to stare into the vertiginous face of death, and to ponder the meaning of living in an uncertain world precariously perched on the absolute certainty of death.

Experience added material realities to these unsettling thoughts. I remember attending my first open-casket funeral and peering down on the docile, lifeless body of Everett, an old farmer whose summer straw scent and peaceful demeanor had left a distinct impression on my inexperienced mind. Then there were stories of others dying around me, and the profound sadness that accompanied them, ranging from Russian roulette suicides to horrific explosions of propane gas.

Growing up on a farm brought with it, moreover, the omnipresence of death, from raccoon and coyote attacks to trips to the slaughterhouse, or winter diseases that had my brother and I chiseling shallow graves for animals into frozen earth as young children. I still recall watching my baby sister holding the lifeless body of a newborn lamb under warm, running water with the confused hope of somehow bringing it back from the precipice. Life was imbued with death.

Today, my eldest child, at the age of 6, has fallen prey to these same fears. With two fingers lodged in his mouth, he pulls down on his lower jaw as if he were trying to hold onto some self-supporting ledge of meaning. He looks up at me from bed in the twilight and asks if everyone will die someday. He wants to know when the scientists will develop a potion that will allow us to live forever. I tell him that I am not certain that it will happen, but I cannot help but subtly acquiesce to the consolation it brings him to imagine one day drinking from an enchanted glass and sharing it with the entire family. Yet the fears are still there, and he senses my uncertainty. He tries to calculate with his rudimentary arithmetic how many years he will have before he dies. Then he interjects that even his awkward sums might not add up because there could be an accident causing him to die before me... (continues)


  1. DO I think university education should corrupt the youth? If by corrupting you mean some deliberate level of political/religious indoctrination than no. If by corruption you mean it makes them question a lot of the things they have previously been taught, forcing them to examine them again and decide what is true, what is partially true, and what is false? than yes.

    1. I agree completely with you, Bryce. A university education corrupting the youth as political/religious indoctrination, then no, it should not corrupt the youth, but if it is in a way to make us think for ourselves and seek out the truths, then yes, a university education should corrupt the youth.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I think every university has some deliberate level of political/religious indoctrination. If it claims that all political and religious views are welcome and equal, then it's attempting to indoctrinate its students with that view. I think it's impossible for an university to not have an agenda; its whole purpose is to try to mold their idea of the ideal student.

      I agree that universities are meant to teach us to think critically and logically, being careful to understand what and why we believe and what we think.

    4. I'm in H1. I'm sure the suspense was killing.

    5. H02 I agree with you, Bryce. The education system is meant to make young minds curious and question things- make them want to learn.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Arieanne (Arie) Yates H17:58 PM CDT

    I’m not sure what you mean by “If by corrupting you mean some deliberate level of political/religious indoctrination than no.” A professor discussing religious/political views would be the only form of ‘indoctrination’ I can think of. I don’t think that discussing religion or politics is wrong, or brainwashing; I think that all views should be discussed so that everyone can decide for themselves what they believe. It’s the same kind of thing when a religious person becomes offended or angry when a professor introduces Atheistic views in class because they don’t know how to defend their own faith, or a professor who is a democrat introducing their views and a republican student becoming offended because once again they don’t know what they believe. I feel like anyone who doesn’t know what they believe or stand for will become offended, feel like someone is trying to indoctrinate them, or feel attacked. I think this is exactly what we need, to be questioned in all areas of our life, so that we know why we believe or don’t believe something.

  4. (H3) Much like Bryce's above response to the corruption of youth through a university sponsored eduction, there are two ways to approach the question. I believe if the end result is a cult-like setting, comprised of those who can't or are not allowed to think for themselves and those who believe only one path is the right path, then university eduction should not be allowed to "corrupt the youth". It would be doing a disservice to the progression of society and the individual. However, if the corruption is similar to that of how Socrates saw his "teachings", in that it encourages the individual to redefine what he or she believes and why he or she believes that way, then I am all for university corruption. I hope this is what is happening within my education. My general biology teacher has actually made a point to tell the class that his job is to give us the truth and allow us to reevaluate what we have been taught thus far. I also hope this enlightening effect spreads throughout all of my courses.

  5. (H3) In response to you DQ number 1, when I first read the question I was adamant that there was a difference of the portrayal was historically accurate or not. But after a short deliberation, I realized it really doesn't matter, philosophically, whether it was Plato portraying Socrates ideas or Plato using Socrates to portray his ideas, wow that was confusing. I guess the question Then becomes, does it matter, in philosophy, who asked the question as long as the question was asked? In my understanding of philosophy, it is less about the person and more about the ideas and the spreading of those ideas and questions. As the initial idea spreads, it generates more questions creating this beautiful web of unanswered questions.

    1. I agree to certain extent, it doesn’t matter who asked the question as long as the question is answered and the idea is spread. But on the other hand, who asked the question is important because that’s where credit is due because without their questioning there would never be an answer or further exploration of the ideas or questions. So it’s almost like taking credit where credit isn’t due. I guess in a way it does matter how accurately Plato portrays Socrates because if he portrays him only as a “mouthpiece of his own opinions” then he could be misrepresenting Socrates and potentially contradicting Socrates philosophies.

  6. (H3) Goldstein's ethos of the extraordinary states that "only by making oneself extraordinary that one can keep from disappearing without a trace". This is what many struggle with, how to stand out in the crowd, to make your mark. No one truly wants to be ordinary because no one remembers the ordinary; they don't stick out in one's mind. This idea explains why scientists rush to discover something new and don't usually cooperate with each other and share ideas. No one wants to be left in the dust while others claim their fame. This question goes along with next DQ, "is a lasting reputation the only kind of immortailityfor which we may hope?" I agree with this statement for many reasons. When it says lasting reputation, one could say that equates to the impression we leave on loved ones, colleagues, etc. It could also describe one's legacy: children, discoveries, ideas, etc. When our bodies have decomposed and our souls have left for elsewhere, all that is left is the ideas we shared and the work we accomplished and passed down to the next generation; in truth, it doesn't sound as bleak as many initially suppose.

  7. (H3) In regard to Socrate's appearance I believe he would have been considered a vagrant or at least an outcast in today's society. I don't think this at all means we should pay closer attention to the ideas of vagrants in society right now. They are two very different times and the lifestyle Socrates lived was more a choice than that of the "vagrants" today.

    1. I agree, in our time today, one who would dress as socrates did would be considered a vagrant and even though that is true, i do not think that we should pay any closer attention to our vagrants because the time difference is vast between Socrates's world and ours, where most everything has changed

  8. (H3), In response to Socrates's physical appearance, Socrates chose to dress the way he did. He was surrounded by the rich elite, "teaching" and conversing with them. If he wanted to he could have made money to buy appropriate clothing. He was not ignorant or lazy. It was simply because he did not care; he didn't put value in the material and focused all of his time on fostering and provoking ideas. A vagrant, today, is usually someone out of a job, begging for money. They arguably did not chose the life they have, to live in rags. Maybe we should pay attention to the vagrants among us; at the very least we would encounter a perspective different from our own. Perhaps, we would appreciate our own circumstances more if we understood the vagrants in our world. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't believe that being a vagrant means you are more philosophically inclined than anyone else.

  9. Martin Davies11:13 AM CDT

    (H3) In response to the DQ, i do think to " philosophize" is to prepare to die. Most people try to avoid ideas about death and the afterlife, and once set on the idea it is very hard to stop. It becomes easy to get wrapped up in the concept until you have a suitable answer. The idea of death can become very obsessive or addictive. And once you have an answer, your thoughts are always looming in the back of your mind. Man's greatest fear is his own mortality.

    1. H1
      I agree. Doing our best to understand our world and our lives, our purposes, fears, and delights, helps us to be able to consider death in a rational light. Instead of thinking of it as the Bogeyman, we can use our philosophy to understand mortality.

  10. Christian Brooks (H3)12:30 PM CDT

    "Who plays the role of Socratic "gadfly" in our time, if anyone? "
    The most appropriate example I can think of is the roll of the internet 'troll.' They spend their time trying to rile up others with nonsense or sarcastic questioning, which is a similarity to how the community viewed some philosophers at the time.

  11. (H3) When Socrates was discussing his inner divine voice, perhaps he was saying he believed God spoke to him and wanted him to accomplish or state. It is made clear that Socrates believed in some sort of God and afterlife. In his testimony he states "God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men". I do not believe that he was insane and actually heard voices, like others who hear one another in a conversation. He was someone who believed he was guided by God, and his actions reflected this belief.

    1. I agree with you! I don't think he heard actual voices either, but maybe it was his subconscious or even God giving him direction and purpose.

  12. what do I think Socrates meant by his inner divine "voice". Well either A. He was hi. B. He was crazy. C. both A and B. D. he had somehow attained a level of enlightenment and realized God. or E. a combination of A, B, C, or D.

  13. (H3) In response to the comment, "to philosophize is to prepare to die", I believe this statement has merit. Some of those who philosophize do so to obtain answers about their future after death. They want solace and peace of mind about their afterlife, however, philosophy doesn't exactly provide concrete answers in that department. They want reassurance that they have lived a worthy life and hope that philosophy will provide a path for them to follow. However, one could argue that to philosophize is to prepare to live. When one gets into the mindset of asking difficult answers and formulating multiple reasonings, they are prepared to go out into the world. They are ready to ask questions and accept no answer simply because someone of authority provided it. They are people that expand the world rather than accept it for how it is. Which statement is correct, I do not have the answer. Perhaps, it is like asking if the glass if half empty or half full.

  14. (H3) I do think Socrates was wise simply because he knew true wisdom was unattainable on this Earth. Much like knowing when you are beaten, Socrates knew that he couldn't possibly have the answers to life's greatest mysteries. He left this knowledge to God and instead concerned himself with question after question, for no other reason then to allow others to share in his enlightenment.

  15. H1
    In response to the DQ: Do you agree with the ancient Greeks that a lasting reputation is "the only kind of immortality for which we may hope"?

    I've always hated that view point. If I'm dead and I'm in heaven, what do I care about what people on earth think of who I was? If I think that there is nothing after death, that it's a void, what does it matter?
    The saying "We live on in the hearts of others" is even more irritating. A memory does not make immortality. Memories fade, and the people that remember us will die too. I know nothing of my great-great-great-great grandmother, and I assume that my great-great-great-great granddaughter will know just as little about me. That has no effect on my afterlife.

  16. I guess I would say that to philosophize is to prepare to die, not necessarily because of everything the author said, but because it’s reaching a terms with what you feel life is. Once you define what life is, you in a way define death as well. I feel like if you define life as being a time to make a difference, an impact, or legacy, then you feel like death is just death and you may die, but what you have left on this earth will in a way keep your spirit alive.

  17. I feel like we always overlook vagrants, but in reality there are tons of talent lost because we didn’t give them a chance. I feel like there should be more offices or shelters or buildings of some kind that work with the homeless and help them get on their feet and put them back into society. Maybe then we won’t overlook people because of the way they look, or their background, or anything else irrelevant in order to see what’s important, which is what they bring to the table.

  18. I agree with Socrates that “those who think death is an evil are in error," because, in my opinion, death is not supposed to be something to fear or become troubled by, but instead something to look forward to. Being a Christian I have no fear in death because whether I’m right or the atheistic view is right I have nothing to lose, therefore I have nothing to fear. I believe that clear thinking, not to be insulting or rude in any way, comes through knowledge of God and who He is. So I suppose that clear thinking is in fact the most important requisite for right living.

  19. In the sense that we mean immortality on this earth, then yes I agree with the ancient Greeks. The way we are remembered is our lasting foot print on society and once we’re gone there is no way we can change the way we are portrayed. If in the sense that immortality means the afterlife, then I once again agree. If there is an afterlife, and our reputation on this Earth determines who we are then it will determine our life after death as well. I guess you could say your reputation in this world will follow you into the next world.

  20. I think that that is a good point, besides idle talk, we really just have conversation to prove that we know something, or to learn something we didn’t know. Philosophical conversations could be looked at as a way to provoke another or put another down.

  21. I believe that an ignorant person by definition cannot be wise, since the definition of ignorant is lacking knowledge. Then again an ignorant person could simply just question everything and end up causing someone else to rethink something and come to another better conclusion, which would be in a sense an act of wisdom. As an ignorant person can be wise, so can a knowledgeable person be ignorant. Someone can be knowledgeable, but not understand how to communicate with others or think outside of the box, then they too have become ignorant.

    1. I think this depends on what you consider the meaning of the words "ignorance" and "wisdom". One of the points of the movie Forest Gump was that intelligence doesn't determine good life choices; Jenny was smart but foolish, constantly making self-destructive decisions. Forest was legitimately unintelligent, but made choices that bettered his life and bettered the people around him.

  22. H1 Reporting from our peripatetic discussion:
    On the matter of the pale blue dot, seeing how small we are can instill a sense of hope. Seeing what we've managed to achieve in the face of our smallness can be inspiring. Yes, we've a difficult task ahead, not messing up the little bit of universe we occupy. But it's easy to look at our progress and think maybe it's possible.
    On the Copernican Revolution, we talked about how more recent discoveries have actually indicated we're no less the center of the universe than anything else in the universe. It's a big idea, but the thought is, everything moves away from everything else. It always has, since the beginning. So there really is no one dead middle point, no still center, of the universe. No matter where you go in the whole wide cosmos, you will witness the growth of the universe in all directions. So we're not the center, but we also kind of are, and that goes for everything. Not sure how well I put that, but the question it raises is, does that make us any more or less special?

  23. Quiz Question (from Russell):

    Who was the first philosopher to invent Dialectic, the method of seeking knowledge through question and answer?

  24. Quiz Question (from Goldstein):

    Why is philosophical progress invisible, unlike scientific progress?

    1. I think philosophical progress is more unnoticed than invisible. It's clearly visible, all over the world, it just goes unnoticed more often than not


  25. (H2)

    Answering DQ: What's your definition of love? Are you looking for your perfect match? What makes for a good marriage or relationship?

    I think love is: being selfless/unconditional and knowing you are not better than anyone. I am not looking for my perfect match, because I believe there isn't such a thing. I believe, though, that you can only get close to perfection, like an Asymptote in calculus. Explaining it clearer, in relationship/marriage you can only hope to find someone that matches most of your criteria, and vise versa for there to be happiness, if that is what you are looking for; to find someone who makes you happy with unconditional love. A good marriage, i believe, is found when both attendees are selfless, open minded and humble, along with being able to love our humanistic imperfections. You will never find "The Perfect" person, but you can find someone who shares most of your values and embraces the values that yall don't share.

  26. (H2)

    A DQ for everyone:

    What do you find in common with Socrates, if anything?
    For me is the unquenchable thirst for knowledge and self perfection of the soul-to-body ratio.

  27. H02
    Do you agree with the ancient Greeks that a lasting reputation is "the only kind of immortality for which we may hope"?

    Answer: No, I do not. I agree with the Pale Blue Dot theory- dust will return to dust.
    However, this is no excuse to not make a difference or change lives for the better.

  28. "Do you think a university education should "corrupt the youth"? (Bear in mind the etymology of the word: from cor-‘altogether’ + rumpere ‘to break.’)"

    If going by the common use of corrupt, then I don't. If going by the roots mentioned above, I do. I see that definition as joining together and breaking the mold- always creating and discovering new things.

  29. Answering DQ: What's your definition of love? Are you looking for your perfect match? What makes for a good marriage or relationship?

    To me love is wanting to put someone else before yourself, and doing it more often than not. I can't say all the time, because sometimes you shouldn't. Love isn't knowing someone, but wanting to know him/her better. Love is being there for him/her despite almost anything.

    I don't believe in a perfect match, but I think everyone still looks for one.