Pre-socratic philosophy includes all of the founders of philosophy up to Socrates. Philosophers like Zeno, Leucippus, Democritus, and Pythagorus became some of the founders of philosophy in Greece and came up with many ideas we still use today.
“Conscience is a man’s compass” – Vincent van Gogh
Euthyphro's dilemma
What is the Euthyphro dilemma in your own words? The Euthyphro dilemma is a three part problem. The first question asked is about justice. If you kill a murderer are you just as bad as them or are you better because you killed a “bad” person. The second part of the dilemma is whether or not family comes before justice. There are two sides of this argument, that you should always stay by your family's side, or that you need to do the “right” thing and turn them in. But either way I think this question borders on being orwellian. Do you sell out your friends and family in the name of the law because the law and government should always come first? Or do you allow horrible things to happen and turn a blind eye in the name of kinship? The last part of this dilemma has to do with the meaning of justice and holiness. What is justice? What is holiness? Do we define holiness based on what is right? Do the gods?
What are at least 3 of the definitions of holiness that Euthyphro gives? Euthyphro defines holiness as being divine and from the gods, but also relating to the law, and what is morally good and evil. Euthyphro argues that holiness is what is agreeable to the gods and that is how it should be defined. However the gods often quarrel, so what is disagreeable and agreeable?
In your opinion, do any of the definitions satisfy? What is your view of "holiness"? I think many of Euthyphro’s definitions of holiness are arbitrary to what the people are feeling at any given time, or how the god’s will is going to be interpreted by any specific person. Holiness is tricky because there is no universal definition or universal set of beliefs. This makes it very difficult to define holiness or by what set of laws we should be governed.
Why does the question of holiness matter in our modern/postmodern world? I believe this topic is very relevant today as we live in a society with many many different cultures and religions and beliefs. Which is a beautiful thing in itself. Because the world is always changing and progressing, many religions find they are left behind in these changing times where self expression and the human identity are becoming more and more important. A sort of mini-renaissance if you will. As society changes, so does the definition of justice.
(Picture is from My friends short film about a boy named milo who has to decide whether his possessions are worth dying for and if eternal life is any sort of life at all)
What is worth dying for?
(Picture is from My friends short film about a boy named milo who has to decide whether his posessions are worth dying for and if eternal life is any sort of life at all)
In Athens Socrates was charged with the crimes of corrupting the youth, introducing new gods, and refusing to acknowledge the states gods. This is dangerous because the Athenians are deeply traditional and religious. So Socrates dilemma can be considered a battle of wills. The will of the Athenians is to obey the gods and to honor them. In the mind of the people this is their duty and their job as Athenians. The will of Socrates is to continue to examine the world around him and to analyze the Athenians and the great city he lives in. Socrates will is to challenge the world and stand up for his cause. And the Athenians will is to honor and obey the gods. They are both willing to die for their causes, but why? And does passion equal correctness?
I think in life, if you are loud and passionate, people will believe and listen to you. But does a passionate stance equal a just one? If we are passionate about our *insert country, school, city, sports team, etc. here* does that mean that we are correct just because we believe we are? And at what point does passion and dedication become stubbornness and empty headedness? Are politics or sports teams worth dying for or are we wasting our breath? When you boil it down the only thing worth defending should be life, and preservation. The only thing worth dying for is life. Was Socrates being stubborn and hardheaded just for the sake of argument or because he believed with every fiber of his being that his cause was just? Were the Athenians being pig headed and ignorant to value their ideas over a human life?
Part Two: Getting out of the boat In life I feel like I am willing to get out of the boat for human rights itself, but specifically the improvement of the education system. Like socrates I think the thing most important to me is education and understanding of the world around us. Socrates died for his cause of spreading philosophy and elevated thinking. Since our education system is so deeply flawed I feel this is something I could wholly devote myself to fixing. The betterment of the education system could help with the saving of the environment, equality, acceptance, and justice. I would be willing to get off the boat for a better and more effective education system in the United States.
Phaedo: life, death, the soul, and art.
1. Do you think that the body and mind are in conflict or in harmony? How do you explain Socrates' quote: "the philosopher's occupation consists precisely in the freeing and separation of soul from body" p. 129
I think the goals of many people’s lives it to find harmony between the mind and the body. I guess it could be argued that many problems come from a lack of harmony between the mind and body. I think when you have a disharmony between your body and your mind problems like anxiety and dysmorphia arise. I think the only place we can have true harmony is after we die. I don't think it is possible to achieve harmony on earth because of all the conflicts that go on around us. The mind and the body are constantly at odds with each other. In the Bible when it talks about fleshly desires, i think this is a part of the struggle between your mind (your morals) and your body (your desires). So the only way to have true harmony is after we leave the Earth.
2. How do you explain the idea of eternal life and the soul independently from the revelation of the Bible? Use the arguments from Phaedo (you can reference the video or the text).
Some of Plato’s hypothesis about the soul come from the idea of opposites. i.e if a soul comes from a living man, when he dies the soul must go somewhere. In Plato’s example the underworld. His second argument is that if learning is recollection this means the soul must learn these concepts of equals and beauty and justice before it enters the body. Plato’s next argument is that the soul isn't physical therefore it is indestructible and cannot die. Which supports the idea of the soul traveling somewhere after death.
Although these were just hypothesis of plato I really like some of this ideas. His idea of souls existing in a different realm before they enter our bodies is very interesting to me. I think it explains how we know some concepts like death, perfection, beauty, and justice, while also not being able to obtain them. In my mind these bring up interesting questions like when the soul enters the body, and if a body dies before it is truly alive (before birth, or during birth) does it still get a soul or is the body just meant to shape the life of the family? I think Phaedo inspires some very interesting questions about life, death, and the soul, no matter what religion you look at it through.
The Ring of Gyges
If you had an invisible ring, what would you do, and why?
I’ve thought laboriously over what I would do if I had a ring that made me invisible, and I havent come to a real conclusion yet. On one hand I think if i had the ring I would use it to get out of doing things I don't want to do, or go places I shouldn't, or things of that nature, but as I continue to think about it I’m not sure it would be possible anyways. Since the things I do or don't do would still have consequences if i was visible or now I begin to wonder how useful the ring would really be. Say I wanted to go somewhere I am not allowed, or skip class or school. My parents would know where I am because my phone shows them my location, and my school would call my parents to tell them I wasn't there. This is the consequentialist view on the subject. Which leads me to think that instead of doing things I shouldn't, maybe I could enhance my daily life or career with a ring that makes me invisible. If I had the gift of invisibility, I could be the world's greatest photographer or journalist. I could be a great detective, or secret agent. Sure, it’s possible I could use the ring to sneak out of my house late at night. But I could also use it to be the greatest candid photographer the worlds ever known.
What is the connection between the "Just Man" and Christ as foreshadowed in Isaiah?
Socrates ‘just man’ closely resembles the christian idea of Jesus told in the Bible. It’s interesting how closely these resemble each other since they’re stories told hundreds of years apart. The Just man is the idea of a perfectly perfect person who people believe to be wicked, he is beaten, whipped, and crucified before it is revealed that he is a truly just and good man. This almost perfectly resembles the story of Jesus in the Bible. A man who was perfect in every way but was despised and killed because he was hated. It’s very interesting that these stories align so well, and it could be argued that Socrates is predicting the coming of Christ.
Plato's Nuclear Family
Plato’s ideas about breeding and group mating would be difficult to implement in a real society because humans tend to be very emotion driven and defiant. Maybe for the first few generations the system would work well enough, but as utopias age they tend to fall apart and turn into dystopian societies, which is what Plato’s society sounds a lot like. The problem with Utopias and managing the family system is that injustice usually arises, or there needs to be a way to contain the population, like harsh punishments. Anytime there is an attempt to control or micromanage human “breeding” humans usually prefer to have free choice over their love and sex.
I can't pretend to know what the perfect or “traditional” family is, but I know what the perfect family isn't. I am a big believer in “found family” or the family you make yourself with your friends and mentors. There’s a reason that these bonds are usually closer than the bond you have with the family you're born into. The people you choose to surround yourself with will relate to you better that the people you live with, often times. Where else would the saying "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," come from unless this was true. Recently there's been so much buzz over what the “traditional” family should be that parents are forgetting what family is about. Family shouldn't disown family or turn their children,nieces,nephews, or cousins away because they are different or don't fit the perfect “traditional” family. Why do we care so much about having a perfect family in the eyes of society when we should really be focusing on loving the people close to us? Who gives a crap about what “traditional” is, when the best way to raise a family is with love. The rest is just extra noise. Whether it’s one parent or two, one gender or two, the only thing that matters is raising a child in a safe, supporting and loving home.
The Cave of Conformational Bias
The myth of the cave is an allegory that represents people living in ignorance or lack of knowledge about a topic as living in a cave and misunderstanding the world around them because they have been stuck in one world view for a very long time. One day one of the prisoners of the cave is released and learns many new things about the outside world. He returns to the cave to share his experiences with his friends in the cave but they can not understand the things he speaks of because they have neither the knowledge nor vocabulary to understand these new things.
To me this metaphor sounds a lot like when in a class discussion in some unnamed class my ideas are shot down because my classmates have different perceptions of reality than i do. Even though I have had many life experiences that influence the way I think and feel and the things I KNOW to be true, because my classmates have not had these experiences the things I say to them do not sound correct because they don't fit their previously formed ideas. In psychology this is called a “Conformational Bias” and it is characterized by the sometimes subconscious omission of facts that do not fit a person's previous opinions or beliefs.
Although a bias in itself is not malicious or intentional, the real intent behind ignoring other testimonies, facts, or statistics can be negative when you refuse to listen to science, logic, reason, or any other sort of deep critical thinking in favor of not venturing out of the cave in order to preserve your world views.
Tying all of this into the metaphor, the cave could be your mind, or your friend group, school, class room, ect. It is something that perpetuates one specific way of thinking instead of encouraging new planes of thought. The prisoners are whoever live within this social circle, and the shadows could represent whatever thing this group of people has deemed negative or detrimental to their way of life (politics, equality, forward thinking, logic, facts, etc)
The prisoner set free would represent someone in this social circle, experiencing something new (the sun) and having a paradigm shift as a result. Similarly to the prisoners in the cave, these people would be unable to share the new vision being presented to them and it would cause them to react negatively because they don't understand, and it doesn't align with the things they already know.
Plato's republic : The good, the bad, and the dirty
Plato's sacred triangle is a system that represents three different but connected ideas. At the center of his first analogy, the middle of the triangle is civilization, in order to have a functioning society plato deduces that you must have rulers, protectors, and producers. Thus the myth of the metals is introduced. The guardians or the rulers of the state represent gold because they are a part of the highest class. The second and third classes follow as such, the knights or the auxiliary will protect the civilization, they are the silver class. The bronze class are the producers or the Serfs, the lowest class in this society. The last part of the triangle refers not to society, but the man and the soul. The triangle represents the internal struggle of wisdom vs will and appetite. Man sits at the head and governs the will and appetite of the body but which ever side of the battle he feeds more will win. If we feed our appetites then we let the flesh take over and ignore our wisdom and courage. But if we let our pure will take over we dominate everything with force and wrath. This is why the man rules over the lion and the beast, to keep our will and appetite in check.
"But in the friendship I speak of, they mix and work themselves into one piece, with so universal a mixture, that there is no more sign of the seam by which they were first conjoined."
The Nature of Friendship
The nature of friendship is based on three things. Benefit, companionship, and honesty. The true friend incompasses all of these things, a relationship where both people benefit from each other in some way. Whether they offer some service or there is an exchange between the two that offers some sort of pleasure or happiness, a beneficial friend is like a utility friend where it might not a close bond by itself but you offer something for them and help them with their problems or they help with yours. A companion friend is someone who provides emotional or physical comfort. This is a closer friend who has a more mutual exchange of pleasure or happiness between the both of you. A closer friend is the friend you have a stronger emotional bond with and maybe they also bleed into the beneficial section because you both help and support each other while maintaining a close emotional bond. An honest or true friend is the person who is all three. The benefit you in some way but you also benefit them in a similar or unique way that makes you two depend on each other. The true friend is your companion in a physical and emotional way but in a deeper way that means you hold each other accountable and look out for each others best interest. In this way I think that the true friend is a lot like a romantic relationship. In a true loving relationship all three aspects of the relationship are fulfilled, and it can be through friendship or a relationship. When friendships become bad is when the friendship is only based on utility. This is when you offer something to a person and they keep you around to continue benefiting from that service. In my experience with utility friends I offer them a sort of comfort or place to stay or food to eat, and it makes them want to stay around. But to a utility friend you are quickly expendable and replaceable. Whenever this friend found someone else who could replace me we grew apart, but when they needed me again, they would come back as if nothing had happened. Losing someone who you thought was a friend but was just using you is painful because when someone depends on you, you feel needed and important, but you learn that you were nothing more than a temporary service in their life.
Ethical Code
Lying Is WRONG when
Lying for the purpose of harming, tricking, or taking someone’s right to truth is wrong.
Advertising that is designed to mislead the public or present something as fact when it is not is wrong.
Lying for your own advantage or to disadvantage others
Used for manipulation
Lying for revenge
Making false promises
It is used as Cohesion
Withholding truths to perpetuate a false idea or belief
You are cheating
Trying to trick someone into doing something for you or for something you believe is okay or a just purpose
Withholding information in any circumstance but especially in a medical situation
Lying about the consequences of something in order to encourage or discourage someone from doing something
Withholding information from the public
Lying is ACCEPTABLE when
It used for protection or to prevent a tragedy
Used to protect yourself
The information is not necessary to disclose
The truth would be detrimental to someone's mental or physical well being
Children cannot comprehend the truth or it would be painful for them to know
It can improve the happiness or quality of life of someone (rethink)
Stealing is WRONG when
It is for your own benefit or pleasure
Stealing small things that “won’t be missed”
Tricking people or employers out of money
Taking possessions from others
Stealing for revenge
Profiting from others ignorance
Profiting from mistakes on bills or taxes
It is kidnapping, murder or rape
Taking someone’s rights
Wasting someones time and and energy
Stealing is ACCEPTABLE when
The thing being taken is necessary to survival of you or someone else
Funds are being hoarded and not benefiting the public when they are supposed to be
A company is benefiting from harming others
Taking something someone uses for harming themselves or others
Harming is WRONG in all circumstances unless in self defense or to defend someone who cannot defend themselves
Harming animals and children is always wrong
Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good but get the fewest rewards.
I identify more as a Cynic because I agree with the ideas that greed is the root of a lot of suffering, not living according to the norm, living in agreement with nature, striving for virtue, and rejecting judgment from others. I like the ideas Diogenes presents about casting off social norms and not living in a way that is to appease others and live according to social rules and regulations. The ideas of cynicism that revolve around rejecting the old ideas of society and living in nature and virtue is very appealing to me. Cynics tie nicely into the ideas of unconventionalism, and expression. Nature and Art tie into this lifestyle because they help people throw off the shackles of modern life and reject the norm in favor of finding things that help us improve our virtues. I agree with the idea that greed is the root of disharmony and unhappiness in society. When you are greedy you are dissatisfied with your life and this can cause you to lash out in many ways. I think greed and jealousy are the cause of many crimes and injustices in the world because when you envy someone or want to take something from someone else that's when people commit crimes and injustices.
Augustine and the end of the Roman empire
Augustine’s argument against skepticism was that in order to doubt your own existence you must first exist, so that in order to doubt anything you have to be conscious and existing in the first place. His beliefs on whether or not you could doubt anything, including yourself, were centered in the logic that if you're existing to doubt your own existence, you must exist. Augustine was very logic based, but also very religious and used religious principles in all of his philosophies, one of his main ideas was that when you are philosophising theology (revelation) is always primary to philosophy. And you can philosophise on anything, but you must also align it with Biblical truth in order for it to remain true. Plato's ideas of there being a higher power and a realm where everything is perfect which is where we get our ideas of beauty and perfection from fit in nicely with christian ideas of heaven and souls. Likewise most christian philosophy is entered around the ideas that the world is a non perfect constantly decaying and temporary place that is very different from the perfect platonic realm plato describes in his theories about perfection and a higher being.
It's hard for me to say why anyone at all thinks the collapse of Rome is to be blamed on christians in general or the religion of christianity. Historically Rome had a line of weak and paranoid emperors which all contributed to its decline, and then barbarians began invading and ransacking roman villages once the empire was too weak to defend itself. Maybe it is possible that the turmoil of a new major religion being introduced to the empire contributed to the weakening of its government and society. But in general christianity cannot be solely blamed for the fall of such a huge empire.
Modernly, it is possible that christians are blamed for many different things historically and in society. But it is also very true that evil things have been done, and are still being done in the name of christianity, that the church should renounce in order to clear up the confused people who use christianity to defend things like racism, sexism, homophobia, murder, colonialism, ect. Throughout history colonisers commited mass genocide in the name of Jesus and God, completely failing to understand that they were going about things in a very unchristian manor and slaughtering God’s children. Slave owners used christianity to defend the use of humans as livestock and property, and American colonists used christianity as an excuse to seize native land and take control of the rest of the country. So maybe it can be said that while Christianity as a religion is not responsible for horrible things like the witch trials and the spanish inquisition, confused humans were. And christians are often just that, confused humans, who lash out when they're scared like normal humans. And for every one gentile who blames christians for a tragedy in their life, five christians stand pointing their fingers and blaming gay people for the collapse of modern society as we know it.