Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, February 3, 2017

Quizzes Feb 7, 9

T 7 - Democritus and the Sophists, DR 8-9. Add your quiz & discussion questions from the latter half of today's chapters

1. How was Democritus remembered after his death, and why?

2. Why did early Christians oppose atomism?

3. Name two other early atomists.

4. What idea did Democritus take over from Leucippus?

5. When did ancient atomism become a mature scientific view?

6. What ability was most valued in Periclean Athens?

7. For whom was the term sophistes, Sophists, reserved in the time of Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, et al, and what subjects did they teach?

8. What were Plato's & Aristotle's stated objections to the Sophists?

9. What playwright satirized Socrates and the Sophists indiscriminately?

10. Which Sophist embraced subjectivity and said "Man is the measure of all things"?



DQ
  • If everything is composed of atoms, does it follow that there is no life after death? (100)
  • Does atomism "liberate [us] from superstition, fear of death, and the tyranny of priests"?
  • If thought consists in the motion of mind-atoms, can we freely think our own thoughts? Or are we passive spectators of "our" minds?
  • What difference does it make, if particles are inseparable from forces and fields and bundles of energy and thus cannot be proved to be "unsplittable" (as the ancient atomists said)?
  • Is it "reasonable to suppose that every sort of world crop[s] up somewhere"? (109)
  • Comment on Dawkins' "selfish gene" statement about meaning and design. (110)
  • What do you think of Democritus's view of children (112)?
  • What do you think of Democritus's "preaching"? (112)
  • By Pericles' definition, do we have a democracy? (115)
  • Was Socrates a Sophist? 
  • Was Protagoras a relativist?
  • [Add yours]
==
Th 9 - Socrates and the Socratics, DR 10. Also recommended: LISTEN M.M. McCabe on Socratic Method

1. What was Socrates' "faith"?

2. How does Gottlieb account for Socrates' appeal to the "high society" of Athens, given his humble background and poverty?

3. What did Alcibiades see in Socrates?

4. with what request did Socrates typically commence a philosophical conversation? What was his method called?

5. Why were the defenders of Athenian democracy uneasy about Socrates?

6. In what way did the Oracle mean that Socrates was wise? Did Socrates accept the Oracle's authority at face value?

7. What was Socrates' basic motive for philosophizing?

8. Why did Socrates say it's unwise to fear death?

9. In what different ways were Socrates and Plato "unworldly"?

10. What form of life did Socrates say is not worth living? OR, Do the "authentically Socratic" dialogues usually settle on a final conclusion?

DQ

  • Do you agree with Socrates' conception of philosophy as "an intimate and collaborative activity" requiring "discussions among small groups of people"? (150) What part should reflecting and writing play in this activity?
  • Is devotion to reason accurately characterized as a form of faith? How do you define faith? Is it the same as belief?
  • How do you personally rank the importance of making money, having a comfortable home, achieving vocational or social status, helping others, ...?
  • Do you try to see beyond superficial qualities in friends and acquaintances, in assessing their attractiveness, or do you tend to judge by appearances? (If the latter, does that make you a shallow person?)
  • Must a good teacher always have some specific doctrine or factual content to teach?
  • Do you think Socrates really heard the voice of an inner "guardian spirit" or daimon? Or was he talking about what we might call the voice of conscience or reason?
  • Do you think you'd have found Socrates' arguments persuasive, if you'd been a member of his jury? (145)
  • Should everyone philosophize? Or are some just "called" to that vocation? How do Socrates and Plato differ on this point?
  • Socrates says "goodness brings wealth and every other blessing"... (148) What would he say about people who achieve wealth and success by behaving badly? (Tom Brady maybe, for instance?) What would he say about our society, and those who value money-making above all? Would he agree with Wm James regarding "success"? (See sidebar quote...)
  • How do you rank the virtues? (152)
  • What's your response to the Euthyphro question? (158)
  • What role do you think your early environment, including the music and stories you heard, played in the formation of your character? (161)
  • Was Diogenes "Socrates gone mad"? (169) Is it a mistake to accept and follow the conventions of your community? Should a philosopher flout convention and live like a dog (who's not been trained)?





...Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow
few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that only those who had thought about
issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote. We have forgotten this distinction
between an intellectual democracy and a democracy by birthright. We have given the vote to all without connecting it to wisdom. And Socrates knew exactly where that would lead: to a system the Greeks feared above all, demagoguery.
Ancient Athens had painful experience of demagogues, for example, the louche figure of Alcibiades,a rich, charismatic, smooth-talking wealthy man who eroded basic freedoms and helped to push Athens to its disastrous military adventures in Sicily. Socrates knew how easily people seeking election could exploit our desire for easy answers. He asked us to imagine an election debate between two candidates, one who was like a doctor and the other who was like a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner would say of his rival: Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will. Socrates asks us to consider the audience response: Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – ‘I cause you trouble, and go against you desires in order to help you’ would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think? We have forgotten all about Socrates’s salient warnings against democracy. We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good – rather than as something that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it. As a result, we have elected many sweet shop owners, and very few doctors.
==
From Russell's History-
CHAPTER IX The Atomists THE founders of atomism were two, Leucippus and Democritus. It is difficult to disentangle them, because they are generally mentioned together, and apparently some of the works of Leucippus were subsequently attributed to Democritus. Leucippus, who seems to have flourished about 440 B.C., * came from Miletus, and carried on the scientific rationalist philosophy associated with that city. He was much influenced by Parmenides and Zeno. So little is known of him that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence altogether, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textual quotations) would have occurred if he had been merely a myth. Democritus is a much more definite figure. He was a native of Abdera in Thrace; as for his date, he stated that he was young when Anaxagoras was old, say about 432 B.C., and he is taken to have flourished about 420 B.C. He travelled widely in southern and eastern lands in search of knowledge; he perhaps spent a considerable time in Egypt, and he certainly visited Persia. He then returned to Abdera, where he remained. Zeller calls him "superior to all earlier and contemporary philosophers in wealth of knowledge, and to most in acuteness and logical correctness of thinking." Democritus was a contemporary of Socrates and the Sophists, and should, on purely chronological grounds, be treated somewhat later in our history. The difficulty is that he is so hard to separate from Leucippus...

CHAPTER X Protagoras THE great pre-Socratic systems that we have been considering were confronted, in the latter half of the fifth century, by a sceptical movement, in which the most important figure was Protagoras, chief of the Sophists. The word "Sophist" had originally no bad connotation; it meant, as nearly as may be, what we mean by "professor." A Sophist was a man who made his living by teaching young men certain things that, it was thought, would be useful to them -73- in practical life. As there was no public provision for such education, the Sophists taught only those who had private means, or whose parents had. This tended to give them a certain class bias, which was increased by the political circumstances of the time. In Athens and many other cities, democracy was politically triumphant, but nothing had been done to diminish the wealth of those who belonged to the old aristocratic families. It was, in the main, the rich who embodied what appears to us as Hellenic culture: they had education and leisure, travel had taken the edge off their traditional prejudices, and the time that they spent in discussion sharpened their wits. What was called democracy did not touch the institution of slavery, which enabled the rich to enjoy their wealth without oppressing free citizens. In many cities, however, and especially in Athens, the poorer citizens had towards the rich a double hostility, that of envy, and that of traditionalism. The rich were supposed--often with justice--to be impious and immoral; they were subverting ancient beliefs, and probably trying to destroy democracy. It thus happened that political democracy was associated with cultural conservatism, while those who were cultural innovators tended to be political reactionaries. Somewhat the same situation exists in modern America, where Tammany, as a mainly Catholic organization, is engaged in defending traditional theological and ethical dogmas against the assaults of enlightenment. But the enlightened are politically weaker in America than they were in Athens, because they have failed to make common cause with the plutocracy. There is, however, one important and highly intellectual class which is concerned with the fence of the plutocracy, namely the class of corporation lawyers. In some respects, their functions are similar to those that were performed in Athens by the Sophists. Athenian democracy, though it had the grave limitation of not including slaves or women, was in some respects more democratic than any modern system. Judges and most executive officers were chosen by lot, and served for short periods; they were thus average citizens, like our jurymen, with the prejudices and lack of professionalism characteristic of average citizens. In general, there were a large number of judges to hear each case...

CHAPTER XI Socrates SOCRATES is a very difficult subject for the historian. There are many men concerning whom it is certain that very little is known, and other men concerning whom it is certain that a great deal is known; but in the case of Socrates the uncertainty is as to whether we know very little or a great deal. He was undoubtedly an Athenian citizen of moderate means, who spent his time in disputation, and taught philosophy to the young, but not for money, like the Sophists. He was certainly tried, condemned to death, and executed in 399 B. C., at about the age of seventy. He was unquestionably a well-known figure in Athens, since Aristophanes caricatured him in The Clouds. But beyond this point we become involved in controversy. Two of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato, wrote voluminously about him, but they said very different things. Even when they agree, it has been suggested by Burnet that Xenophon is copying Plato. Where they disagree, some believe the one, some the other, some neither. In such a dangerous dispute, I shall not venture to take sides, but I will set out briefly the various points of view. Let us begin with Xenophon, a military man, not very liberally endowed with brains, and on the whole conventional in his outlook. Xenophon is pained that Socrates should have been accused of impiety and of corrupting the youth; he contends that, on the contrary, Socrates was eminently pious and had a thoroughly wholesome effect upon those who came under his influence. His ideas, it appears, so -82- far from being subversive, were rather dull and commonplace. This defence goes too far, since it leaves the hostility to Socrates unexplained. As Burnet says ( Thales to Plato, p. 149): "Xenophon's defence of Socrates is too successful. He would never have been put to death if he had been like that." There has been a tendency to think that everything Xenophon says must be true, because he had not the wits to think of anything untrue. This is a very invalid line of argument. A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand. I would rather be reported by my bitterest enemy among philosophers than by a friend innocent of philosophy. We cannot therefore accept what Xenophon says if it either involves any difficult point in philosophy or is part of an argument to prove that Socrates was unjustly condemned. Nevertheless, some of Xenophon's reminiscences are very convincing. He tells (as Plato also does) how Socrates was continually occupied with the problem of getting competent men into positions of power. He would ask such questions as: "If I wanted a shoe mended, whom should I employ?" To which some ingenuous youth would answer: "A shoemaker, O Socrates." He would go on to carpenters, coppersmiths, etc., and finally ask some such question as "who should mend the Ship of State?" When he fell into conflict with the Thirty Tyrants, Critias, their chief, who knew his ways from having studied under him, forbade him to continue teaching the young, and added: "You had better be done with your shoemakers, carpenters, and coppersmiths. These must be pretty well trodden out at heel by this time, considering the circulation you have given them" ( Xenophon, Memorabilia, Bk. I, Chap. II). This happened during the brief oligarchic government established by the Spartans at the end of the Peloponnesian War. But at most times Athens was democratic, so much so that even generals were elected or chosen by lot. Socrates came across a young man who wished to become a general, and persuaded him that it would be well to know something of the art of war. The young man accordingly went away and took a brief course in tactics. When he returned, Socrates, after some satirical praise, sent him back for further instruction (ib. Bk. III, Chap I). Another young man he set to learning the principles of -83- finance. He tried the same sort of plan on many people, including the war minister; but it was decided that it was easier to silence him by means of the hemlock than to cure the evils of which he complained. With Plato's account of Socrates, the difficulty is quite a different one from what it is in the case of Xenophon, namely, that it is very hard to judge how far Plato means to portray the historical Socrates, and how far he intends the person called "Socrates" in his dialogues to be merely the mouthpiece of his own opinions. Plato, in addition to being a philosopher, is an imaginative writer of great genius and charm. No one supposes, and he himself does not seriously pretend, that the conversations in his dialogues took place just as he records them. Nevertheless, at any rate in the earlier dialogues, the conversation is completely natural and the characters quite convincing. It is the excellence of Plato as a writer of fiction that throws doubt on him as a historian. His Socrates is a consistent and extraordinarily interesting character, far beyond the power of most men to invent; but I think Platocould have invented him. Whether he did so is of course another question... (continues)
==
==
An old post-

Socrates & Plato

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) in Symposium. Angie 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. 

31 comments:

  1. 8
    Alternative Quiz Questions
    1. Was Protagoras an impressive polymath?
    2.What did Protagoras even write a treaty on?
    3.What was Hippias prepared to teach about?
    4.Where did Plato say Hippias appeared?
    5.What did Plato say that Hippias made at the Olympic Games?
    6.Why did Hippias appear at the Olympic Games?
    7.What was Hippias prepared to do in public appearances?
    8.Did Plato say that Hippias learning was more deep or wide?
    9.What reasonably important thing did Hippias discover in geometry?
    10.What did Antiphons surviving words express?
    11.What were the subject of the handbooks that Gorgias wrote?
    12.Gorgias was a renowned what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Yes he was.
      2. Wrote a treaty on wrestling.
      4. Olympic (Olympian) Games
      5. Cloaks, shoes, tunics, rings, and brushes
      6. To recite and share his poems with others
      5.

      Delete
  2. ** 8 **
    1. Yes.
    2. Wrestling.
    3. Practically anything at all.
    4. Olympian Games.
    5. He made his own shoes, cloak, tunic, girdle and rings, as well as a brush and oil-flask.
    6. To recite some of his poems.
    7. Both to deliver prepared orations and to take questions from all comers.
    8. It was much less deep than it was wide.
    9. A Curve.
    10. A weary pessimism.
    11. Rhetoric.
    12. He was a renowned orator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Heather Deal9:36 PM CST

    Section 9
    Alternative Quiz Questions
    1. What were the six primary qualities that Robert Boyle termed as tools to explain the phenomena of nature?
    2. What three ingredients are needed for a healthy society?
    3. Who wrote that the worst thing of all is indulgence in the schooling of the young?
    4. Who regarded Sophists as cynical tricksters who abused the art of intellectual argument?
    5. Who referred to Gladstone as 'a sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity'?
    6. Much of the impetus for modern relativism be traced to whom?
    7. What group of American philosophers tried to develop the idea that the important thing about beliefs is their general usefulness and the role they play in life?
    8. Who says that acting in accordance with the law may turn out to be against one's own best interests?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. section 8
      1. size, shape, order, texture, solidity and motion of particles
      2. stability, moderation, and orders
      3. Democritus
      4. Plato
      5. Disraeli
      6. Kant
      7.Pragmatists
      8. Antiphon

      Delete
    2. 1. Shape, Order, Texture, Size, Solidity, and motion of particles
      2. Stability, moderation, and orders
      3. Democritus
      4. Plato
      5. Disraeli
      6. Kant
      7. Pragmatists
      8. Antiphon

      Delete
  4. Maddy Russell
    10 DQ 7
    His view on children is a little distorted to say the least. He thinks that for a man to experience children he should go through friends, because if you have your own child you don't know what they will be like.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Discussion question responses:
    1. There is life after death for the atoms (if you could call it life) but the mind would not carry on in a way that you would ever know you were alive. Your energy would transfer into the earth just like when everything else dies.
    2. I wouldn't say it liberates us from fear of death. Fear from eternal pain (hell) possibly. But death, no. Because your life is still coming to an end and there really is no way of knowing if your mind and thoughts will somehow carry on.
    3. I would like to think (ha) that we can think our own thoughts, but it really wouldn't surprise me if we were just going along with a script already written for us and we are simply watching our minds think from the outside? There is something to say about the unconscious mind and how quickly we can think/assume something, yet other times we really evaluate and dissect what our thoughts are telling us.
    4. Does this mean that these particles were always here? How can you create something indestructible? If it is the smallest particle what is it made of and how did it come about? Energy cannot be created or destroyed???

    Alternate discussion question:
    1. Say we are not actually in control of our own thoughts and simply watching them play unfold, are we stuck within whatever mental capacity is given to us at birth? Is it possible to expand our own minds/thoughts if we do not necessarily control them?

    Alternative quiz question:
    1. Later in Plato's life he became extremely hostile towards the Sophists, he described them as cynical tricksters who abused the art of what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dalis de la Mothe2:42 PM CST

      Alternative quiz question 1: Teaching.

      Delete
  6. 10

    1. atoms are not living things so when someone dies there atoms continue to persist, but there presence does not mean that someone is still living.

    2. atomism is what composes everything that we know of, but even with this in mind many people still continue to fear certain aspects of life and death.

    3. That comes down to as what do you define as free. Our mental processes are based off genetic contributions from our parents. Does that mean genetics restricts are ability to think freely? Our minds produce our thoughts, and our thoughts are based on how we perceive stimuli. People can choose how they feel about something so in that sense we have some freedom, but not complete freedom. More like privileges.

    4. It was not proved that atoms could be split, we would not have learned just how powerful it is and the concepts behind it to allow us to grow from.

    5. it is reasonable to think that there are other worlds out there with how many planets, and galaxies there are.

    6. His idea about the "selfish gene" seems like a rational possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 8 2/9 Alternative Quiz Questions
    1.What one thing led Plato to the mysterious Forms?
    2.What words were above Platos academy
    3.What did Aristotle complain about Platos followers?
    4.What struck Plato about the objects dealt with in mathematics?
    5.What is Euthyphro about to prosecute his own father for?
    6.Which two men meet outside the law courts?
    7.What does Socrates wonder about Euthyphro
    8.What does Socrates get Euthyphro to see?
    9.What question occurred to Socrates on page 159?
    10. Does Euthyphro understand Socrates question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. his fascination with mathematics
      2. ‘No one ignorant of geometry admitted here’
      3. ‘Mathematics has come to be the whole of philosophy’
      4. they are ideal, eternal, unchanging and pleasingly independent of earthly, visible things
      5. causing the death of a slave who had himself murdered another slave

      Delete
  8. Clayton Thomas (10)2:21 PM CST

    2-7: DQ

    1. If everything is composed of atoms, then at the time of death those atoms will continue to persist in this world as a dead body; however, there is no 'person' occupying that body. Which brings up the question are the mind and body separate or one entity?

    2. Although atomism is only a set of beliefs about the how one can perceive the world, it does not liberate us from emotional connections to life experiences, such as death and superstition.

    3. I would say both to an extent. Why? Based solely on personal experience, sometimes i find myself sitting around with randomness floating around in my head when I'm not controlling my thoughts and other times it's very concrete, and straightforward what I am thinking when I am controlling my thoughts.

    4. Well as an atomist, if you cannot prove your own theory or at the least some inferential data to back up your theory, then how could you spread your ideas? Plus, if they did find proof it probably would've ended up pretty deadly so let's be glad that they couldn't prove it.

    5. It is reasonable, but it also depends on your definition of world. A world could be a garage to a car mechanic, or it could be a theme park for a thrill seeker. But, all of these worlds had to come from somewhere right?

    6. I feel like Dawkins' has a a good argument with sound logic, just that his argument is based on fallacies. Sure it's true that "If a group of atoms falls into a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way", but it still doesn't explain the answer why that happened? Chemically we can understand exactly why that happened, but in a holistic view it's hard to answer that question with an exact answer.

    7. I feel like there is truth in what he says, but also some moral conflictions. Sure, someone could just go pick out the perfect child from someone else, but then it's not really your child. It takes away from the bond that forms between parent and child and I personally think it will put this idea in the parents head that "their" child should be perfect because they were selected.

    8. I kind of agree with Democritus's "preaching" here. The non-religious moral idea that virtue is a matter of self-interest could lead to a path of amoral selfishness, always doing what's in their best interest to be virtuous, or non-virtuous, and just pushing everything else out of the way could lead to a self-destructive path amongst your community and within yourself.

    9. Pericles defines democracy as "[...] power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. [...] what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability with which the man posses." Going by this definition, I could give one perfect example of why we do not have a democracy based on this definition is President Donald Trump, or the lady he wants to promote to be our Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos (whom has no qualifications whatsoever to be the Secretary of Education).

    ReplyDelete
  9. 10
    Alternative quiz questions
    Athenians' thought the sophist had opened what box?
    Who wrote "Selfish Gene"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dalis de la Mothe2:44 PM CST

      Who wrote "Selfish Gene"?
      *Richard Dawkins

      Delete
    2. -Athenians thought the sophists had opened a Pandora's box.
      -Richard Dawkins

      Delete
  10. Dalis de la Mothe2:33 PM CST

    If everything is composed of atoms, does it follow that there is no life after death?
    *I don't think it matters, but I don't see how the two connect in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dalis de la Mothe2:35 PM CST

    Does atomism "liberate [us] from superstition, fear of death, and the tyranny of priests"?
    *Obviously not. Religion is still one of the strongest belief systems in our world. People are just going to believe what they want to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dalis de la Mothe2:39 PM CST

    If thought consists in the motion of mind-atoms, can we freely think our own thoughts? Or are we passive spectators of "our" minds?
    *I mean, I don't think so considering that it seems we each have free control of our thoughts. However, people with certain mental disorders do not as they experience, so one could argue that those specific people do not have complete control over their mental state. Then again who does, as we a re semi products of the environment we are placed in.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Section 8
    Quiz Questions
    1. While Socrates believed that unjust laws were meant to be disobeyed, what course of action did he believe in taking if caught?

    2. What, according to Plato, were one of Socrates’ reasons for not making an escape from Athens before his execution?

    3. How does Gottlieb describe Socrates’ attitude towards religion and morality?

    4. Why are we left to rely on the witness accounts of Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle to learn about Socrates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Submitting to punishment

      2. He felt a moral obligation to the legitimate authority of the city and the due process of law; he also loved Athens and did not wish to live anywhere else

      3. ultra-democratic

      4. Because philosophy was and intimate and collaborative series of discussions for Socrates. He did not write anything down.

      Delete
  14. Section 8
    Discussion Questions

    5. I do think Socrates heard a voice, much like we all do, you can call it your conscience, the voice of reason, or a guardian angel. It's the private , and often real-est you, that no one else can hear, see or judge. It reminds me of the hypothesis from psychology - bicameralism - (yes, thanks Westworld). Bicameralism "argues that the human mind once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind."
    Julian Jaynes first coined the term in 1976 with his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind.
    Check it out here: http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf

    6. I do think I would have found his arguments persuasive if I had been a member of the jury. I really enjoy logic problems, and I have enjoyed reading about some of his thoughts and ideas, and of course arguments, of logic. Really fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alexus Uqdah 8

    DQ:

    I personally don't try to rank money or things of that nature higher than interaction with people and experiences. However, I do think that they are pretty important things in my life. In this society it is important to have things of that nature. I don't think any person would turn down a warm home and more money. I do know that I don't want to continue to work my whole life for those things and never just get to enjoy experiences, if that makes sense.


    ReplyDelete
  16. 10- D.Q.

    3.) Money is an important thing in life but is not higher than that of helping other around you. Money is not needed to live a good live and we see that with Socratese, although it can make your life more comfortable and easier at times. Socratese felt that he was obligated to teach through philosophizing and made it his only priority, aside from making money, being of high status, or living a comfortable life.

    4.) I tend to look at what is in a person rather than their physical attributes and appearances. A person's values and personality is who they truly are, that whats on the inside, good or bad, is far more superior than whats on the outside.

    5.) I don't believe a good teacher has to have a specific doctrine or factual content to teach well. A good teacher has the ability to teach well with what is available at hand.

    6.) I do not believe that Socratese actually heard an inner guardian spirit, that rather he was talking about the voice of his conscience in reasoning.

    7.)I really think I would have found Socratese argument persuasive due to his tactics in conversing. That he would ask for an enlightened definition an play off his counterpart's thoughts as he began to persuade using the definition given to defend his arguement with use of dialectic.

    8.) Some people seem to fit the philosopher status and calling far more than others due, with different ways going about it as well as we see in Socratese and Plato. Where Socratese believed it was his obligation, Plato was not as straight forward and always had an eye on what was further beyond, that he was ahead of everyone, that he seemed, to me, to be more for self satisfaction in intriguing matters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 10

    DQ

    1. I don't think that you have to be in a small group to participate in the act of philosophizing.

    2. Faith is believing in something based on hope, not on actual supporting evidence.

    3. Achieving a reasonable goal seems to be the most important aspect of living a healthy life. Everyone has priorities that are wrapped around their goals in life. Some people are willing to sacrifice making money and having a comfortable life, because to them, going out of their way to achieve their goals makes these sacrifices worth it.

    4. I try to see beyond superficial qualities, because how a person looks doesn't really define their character.

    5. A teacher should be in the profession of educating. If you are giving teachings based only on your own beliefs and opinions. Then those students are not receiving a quality education.


    6. I would think that he was talking about his conscience.

    7. He sounded somewhat conceited when he was in the court. I do not find that to be a persuasive character trait. I would not condone him to punishment or death for it though because that's unreasonable.

    8. I think everyone should philosophize.

    12. A child's early environment is very influential to their mental and physical development. Therefore an early environment is influential on a child's character.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Clayton Thomas (10)12:53 PM CST

    1. I think Socrates was on to something with this idea. For one, it's hard to process information in large groups with multiple people pitching their ideas and also the larger the group gets the harder a true discussion becomes, rather it would probably break into small conversations anyways. I think writing and reflecting should be the personal aspect of that, if you want to record everything on paper then that is your prerogative to do so.

    2. I would devotion in anything is showing some form of faith, in order to be considered true devotion someone would have to put in a lot of time and with that much time and effort put into something you have become faithful to that idea system. Now that's not to say you believe in something because someone could be devoted to disproving an idea. Thus, the are faithful in their idea that someone else's idea is wrong.

    3. Personally, my importance ranking is making in order to live a comfortable life, remaining true to who I am and retaining elf-worth, helping others, high social status.

    4. At first glance, I'm judging by appearances because I have no idea who this person is. However, after affirming the friendship it definitely matters who they are as a person. I could care what you look like as long as you are there to be a good friend then that's all that matters.

    5. A good teacher does not necessarily have to teach factual information (although that would be preferred to false or skewed information), in my eyes, a good teacher just has to be willing to connect with their students in some way or no one will be intrigued long enough to hear what they have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Section 9
    DQ's
    1.yes i agree with Socrates in his idea of philosophy it is to be discussed and shared. After it is collaborated however i feel that those ideas should be reflected upon and written down.
    2.No, devotion to reason is faith. faith is like belief in something that you can't give hard evidence for.
    3.Making money and living comfortably would both probably be high up there with helping others being shortly under that. However social status i don't really care about.
    4.With friends i tend not to look at their physical attributes. Not so much with acquaintances,but i don't feel that makes me shallow that's just human nature.
    5.Some of the best teachers teach concepts or ideas so no i don't think that they always have to have factual content to teach
    6.I believe he was probably talking about his conscience.
    Socrates seems very persuasive so, most likely
    8.I believe everyone should philosophize, while some people are better at it than others everyone should.
    9.I feel that Socrates would be very happy with bad people succeeding as other people of this generation are that believe the same thing. However that's just how today's society works.
    10.justice,wisdom,moderation,courage,piety
    11.Something is holy because the gods deem it as holy
    12.yes what you grew up with definitely mold your character, and is very important
    13.Yes Diogenes was crazy. No, if you want to fit in with society you might want to accept most of common society laws. no to live like a dog is crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dalis de la Mothe2:14 PM CST

    Is devotion to reason accurately characterized as a form of faith? How do you define faith? Is it the same as belief?
    *If said person considers it their faith then I'm not going to tell them that it's not. Faith is a state of believing that does not require any empirical evidence. A belief however is the state of acknowledging something as real and apparent. Beliefs and faiths intertwine but they are two different things. I believe that cats exist because they do.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 10
    Alternative Quiz Questions
    Who wrote "Apology"?
    What as the Thirty Tyrants?
    What impact did the Thirty Tyrants have on the trial of Socrates?
    What was the charges brought against Socrates?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 10
    Alternative Quiz Questions
    Who were two en with Socrates when he dies?
    In "Apology", what is the most important thing in life?
    What did Socrates say about his own uncertainty and inquiries?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 10
    DQ 1 and 3
    1. I agree with Socrates that philosophizing works best in a group of people. When you ask questions it is better to ask other people not just yourself, and having discussions with people is more helpful than talking with yourself.
    3. I personally put helping others and having a comfortable life above having money and social status.

    ReplyDelete