Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer?
I think some people would want to censor homer because he talks about how the gods picked sides. If they pick sides they are then they are technically fighting with each other and that makes them 'bad'.
[READ PAGES 76-85]
According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Plato said that poetry that states that bad thing s about the afterlife or 'questionable' statements about the gods should be banned from poetry.
What should poetry “teach” and why?
I didn't catch what Plato said poetry should 'teach', i will ask what he said tomorrow in class.
If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
1. If I were talking to Plato i would argue with him about why he thinks that people should write about what they want, weather it be moral or immoral. I mean you should have the write to talk about what you think is write, and if you know what u are saying it is false simply label as a 'fictional' piece of writing'.
2. I do not agree with Plato's ideas at all, i think i like free speech too much to think about anyone else's argument.
3. I do not think that writing should be put to the purposes that Plato says it should be because it kills the idea of free speech that i treasure so much.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
DUE TUE 3/27 Republic Assignment
Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I am not 100% sure why he would want to censor Hesiod. But I do have a general guess of why he would. I think that the Hesiod witting is either supports ideas of the gods that not everyone agrees on and/or it supports immoral ideas like the book: "how to be a hitman" That is the best I can come up with on why someone would want to ban or censor that book.
What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
They wrote false stories about how the gods fought with each other.
What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
I am not quite sure what the two main characteristics of 'god' are but i think these quotes are what I'm supposed to be looking for:
1. "Zeus has two jars standing on the floor of his palace, full of fates, good in one and evil one and evil in the other"
2. "God implants a fault in man, when he wishes to destroy a house utterly."
3. I think the laws of story telling is to have a false and true story, and that you always start with something false. I'm positive either one or both of these answers are wrong because the question ask why these are related.
Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I was pretty close. I wrote that Hesiod's work would want to be censored because it sopported ideas that not every one agreed on about the gods and that is exactly what Plato wrote in his writing.
I am not 100% sure why he would want to censor Hesiod. But I do have a general guess of why he would. I think that the Hesiod witting is either supports ideas of the gods that not everyone agrees on and/or it supports immoral ideas like the book: "how to be a hitman" That is the best I can come up with on why someone would want to ban or censor that book.
What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
They wrote false stories about how the gods fought with each other.
What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
I am not quite sure what the two main characteristics of 'god' are but i think these quotes are what I'm supposed to be looking for:
1. "Zeus has two jars standing on the floor of his palace, full of fates, good in one and evil one and evil in the other"
2. "God implants a fault in man, when he wishes to destroy a house utterly."
3. I think the laws of story telling is to have a false and true story, and that you always start with something false. I'm positive either one or both of these answers are wrong because the question ask why these are related.
Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I was pretty close. I wrote that Hesiod's work would want to be censored because it sopported ideas that not every one agreed on about the gods and that is exactly what Plato wrote in his writing.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Q:
Who is right, Socrates or Thrasymaschus? Why?
A:
I think Socrates is right and Thrasymaschus is wrong. Thrasymaschus is wrong because he never takes into account simple things like mistakes people make. He also never specifically defines anything like who the 'strong' are. Socrates on the other hand specifically details what certain definitions are like who the strong are and he explains why the strong can change. Something else he mentions is that people can make mistakes and that the strong are so not always do what is right for other people.
Who is right, Socrates or Thrasymaschus? Why?
A:
I think Socrates is right and Thrasymaschus is wrong. Thrasymaschus is wrong because he never takes into account simple things like mistakes people make. He also never specifically defines anything like who the 'strong' are. Socrates on the other hand specifically details what certain definitions are like who the strong are and he explains why the strong can change. Something else he mentions is that people can make mistakes and that the strong are so not always do what is right for other people.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
DUE WED 3/21 Republic Assignment
Q:
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
A:
I think acting 'right' is doing what you personally think is appropriate and ethical. Not everyone thinks that 'right' is a certain thing, for instance you have Republicans and Democrats; they think that each others ideas are 'wrong' and that their ideas are 'right'. I think happiness is similar to my previous idea. Happiness is what you as an individual know brings you pleasure/excitement/contentment. i.e: Somebody could think that sports are really fun and somebody else thinks that computers are fun. If you told the computer guy to play sports and vise versa they would think their new activity is boring and would therefore be unhappy.
Socrates would agree with me for the most part. I think he wouldn't agree with my definitions for 'happiness', yet he would agree with my examples and everything else. I think 'homie T' wouldn't agree with everything. (once again i do not know enough about these 2 characters to properly guage what they would say.)
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
A:
I think acting 'right' is doing what you personally think is appropriate and ethical. Not everyone thinks that 'right' is a certain thing, for instance you have Republicans and Democrats; they think that each others ideas are 'wrong' and that their ideas are 'right'. I think happiness is similar to my previous idea. Happiness is what you as an individual know brings you pleasure/excitement/contentment. i.e: Somebody could think that sports are really fun and somebody else thinks that computers are fun. If you told the computer guy to play sports and vise versa they would think their new activity is boring and would therefore be unhappy.
Socrates would agree with me for the most part. I think he wouldn't agree with my definitions for 'happiness', yet he would agree with my examples and everything else. I think 'homie T' wouldn't agree with everything. (once again i do not know enough about these 2 characters to properly guage what they would say.)
Monday, March 19, 2007
Due Tuesday, 3/20 Republic Assignment
Q1: Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
A1: Socrates main points are the fact that the strong is not specific enough (who are the strong), the strong make mistakes, and that their are different governmental societies.
Q2: In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ main points in response?
A2: I'm not that sure on what the last few pages are about. I couldn't figure out why Thrasymahcus was referring to nurses, sheep and shepherds.
Q3: In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
A3: I do not think it is right to harm somebody. In todays world that will never be reality, but it would be nice. I think it is not right to harm something simply because it causes complications like: "Hey, he hurt me... can I hurt him back?" I think Thrasymachus would agree with me. Socrates ooin the other hand would try to argue over the little points that are just annoying to listen to and only Socrates would care about. He would never even make up his own point, just disargee with me. (I havn't read enough of plato to really know what he would do but thats what I am assuming now.)
A1: Socrates main points are the fact that the strong is not specific enough (who are the strong), the strong make mistakes, and that their are different governmental societies.
Q2: In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ main points in response?
A2: I'm not that sure on what the last few pages are about. I couldn't figure out why Thrasymahcus was referring to nurses, sheep and shepherds.
Q3: In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
A3: I do not think it is right to harm somebody. In todays world that will never be reality, but it would be nice. I think it is not right to harm something simply because it causes complications like: "Hey, he hurt me... can I hurt him back?" I think Thrasymachus would agree with me. Socrates ooin the other hand would try to argue over the little points that are just annoying to listen to and only Socrates would care about. He would never even make up his own point, just disargee with me. (I havn't read enough of plato to really know what he would do but thats what I am assuming now.)
Friday, March 16, 2007
DUE FRI 3/16 Personal Reflection and Plato Assignment
Personal Reflection:
good friend:
A good friend is someone who you hang out with and have fun. At least that it what I think of. Some people say it is someone you can trust, others say it someone you have known for a long time. You define what a friend is and what makes them 'good'. I have a good friend and I can't trust him. Some people say that doesn't make him my friend, but I hang out with him and have a fun time so thats all that matters for me. (can any of you guess who he is?)
bad friend:
A bad friend is someone you don't have fun with because their annoying and/or a jerk. You may be able to trust them but that doesn't make them a good friend. I mean what kind of friend is hard to be around and have fun with?
======================
Q:
Amongst other things, Socrates strategy includes an attempt to define a friend (Section 334c-335b) and a critique of the idea that a just man can do harm (Section 335b-336a). Why did he start this line of questioning? What questions does he ask and what responses does he get that leads him to win the argument?Are his points valid and convincing?
A:
Socrates started that line of questioning so he could prove Polemarchus wrong. He asks specific questions like can you punish someone who seems bad, or only if they are bad. Polemarchus keeps agreeing with Socrates untill he gets his point. I think that Socrates points are valid except when he cherry picks around stuff just to make his point.
Q:
List 3-5 of the questions that Socrates asks that you think are the most useful in arguing against Polemarchus. Why are these questions useful for Socrates purposes?
A:
1. "But which do you reckon are a mans friends or enemies? Those he thinks good, honest men and the reverse, or those who really are even though he may not think so?"
2. "If we harm a horse do we make it better or worse?"
3. "Worse, that is, by the standard of excellence by which we judge horses, not dogs?"
Socrates gives these questions to find loopholes or week undefined points in Polemarchus's definition of justice. I think this helped Socrates change the definiton of justice a lot.
Q:
What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not? Short answer response.
A:
I thin khe might be trying to prove that all though they are father and son that they do not agree with eachother. Im not so sure if this is right but its all I could think of.
good friend:
A good friend is someone who you hang out with and have fun. At least that it what I think of. Some people say it is someone you can trust, others say it someone you have known for a long time. You define what a friend is and what makes them 'good'. I have a good friend and I can't trust him. Some people say that doesn't make him my friend, but I hang out with him and have a fun time so thats all that matters for me. (can any of you guess who he is?)
bad friend:
A bad friend is someone you don't have fun with because their annoying and/or a jerk. You may be able to trust them but that doesn't make them a good friend. I mean what kind of friend is hard to be around and have fun with?
======================
Q:
Amongst other things, Socrates strategy includes an attempt to define a friend (Section 334c-335b) and a critique of the idea that a just man can do harm (Section 335b-336a). Why did he start this line of questioning? What questions does he ask and what responses does he get that leads him to win the argument?Are his points valid and convincing?
A:
Socrates started that line of questioning so he could prove Polemarchus wrong. He asks specific questions like can you punish someone who seems bad, or only if they are bad. Polemarchus keeps agreeing with Socrates untill he gets his point. I think that Socrates points are valid except when he cherry picks around stuff just to make his point.
Q:
List 3-5 of the questions that Socrates asks that you think are the most useful in arguing against Polemarchus. Why are these questions useful for Socrates purposes?
A:
1. "But which do you reckon are a mans friends or enemies? Those he thinks good, honest men and the reverse, or those who really are even though he may not think so?"
2. "If we harm a horse do we make it better or worse?"
3. "Worse, that is, by the standard of excellence by which we judge horses, not dogs?"
Socrates gives these questions to find loopholes or week undefined points in Polemarchus's definition of justice. I think this helped Socrates change the definiton of justice a lot.
Q:
What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not? Short answer response.
A:
I thin khe might be trying to prove that all though they are father and son that they do not agree with eachother. Im not so sure if this is right but its all I could think of.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
DUE FRI, 3/16 Republic Assignment
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks that justice is doing what is right and owning up to your debts.
What is Socrates response?
His response was that you coudn't define what was right and that if your friend lent you a gun and then he went insane and asked for it back, common sense would tell you not too but then you would breaking the laws of 'Justice'
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Im not sure but I think he was saying that as physical activity goes down your mental staus goes up because you have more time to sit and think.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was sitting in an easy chair because he had just sacrificed in the courtyard.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
I guess i got this wrong because I thought that he inherited money and then invested it. (and hes father stole it, or abused it?)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cephalus is an old rich guy. Polemarchus... I must admit i dont know who he is (I am absalutly the worst possible person to remmeber peoples names in a story). I think these eople were talking to eaxch other most of the pelude.
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I am confused. Because someones reason not to accept the other persons understanding of 'justice' doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how simply saying that you wouldn't give a crazy guy his gun back is a loop whole in 'paying back your debt'. I will bring this up in class because I am having a hard time explaining this here.
He thinks that justice is doing what is right and owning up to your debts.
What is Socrates response?
His response was that you coudn't define what was right and that if your friend lent you a gun and then he went insane and asked for it back, common sense would tell you not too but then you would breaking the laws of 'Justice'
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
Im not sure but I think he was saying that as physical activity goes down your mental staus goes up because you have more time to sit and think.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
Cephalus was sitting in an easy chair because he had just sacrificed in the courtyard.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
I guess i got this wrong because I thought that he inherited money and then invested it. (and hes father stole it, or abused it?)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Cephalus is an old rich guy. Polemarchus... I must admit i dont know who he is (I am absalutly the worst possible person to remmeber peoples names in a story). I think these eople were talking to eaxch other most of the pelude.
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I am confused. Because someones reason not to accept the other persons understanding of 'justice' doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how simply saying that you wouldn't give a crazy guy his gun back is a loop whole in 'paying back your debt'. I will bring this up in class because I am having a hard time explaining this here.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Q: Compare and contrast what Socrates says in “The Simile of the Cave” with Fahrenheit 451. How are characters like Mildred similar to characters in “Simile of the Cave”?
A: Mildred, Clarisse, and Guy (the main characters of F451) are all characters in Fahrenheit 451 that are similar to characters in Simile of the cave. Mildred is Blinded from the world and the media forces to know what she thinks she knows. This is exactly how the people in the caves are like. They think they know what everything is because they only know about the shadows, they don't even accept the idea of their being anything else that easily. Clarisse is like the philosophers in the simile of the cave. Clarisse always asks 'why' and does not sit there to be told 'how'. The philosophers in the simile of the cave's whole life is based on 'why'. In Fahrenheit 451 it seems like Clarisse asks a lot of good questions and realizes things that everyone fails to recognize. Guy always thought burning book was normal and that information forced into him was just a part of his life. Once he was introduced into a new way of thinking he thought that he was previously doing everything wrong and saw how he was corrupted. The 'prisoners' in the cave are like this because they thought the shadows were normal and that they saw shadows. yet once they were free the realized from reverse engineering that they saw light and not shadows; that light casted shadows and they could see the shadows but thats not what made them.
A: Mildred, Clarisse, and Guy (the main characters of F451) are all characters in Fahrenheit 451 that are similar to characters in Simile of the cave. Mildred is Blinded from the world and the media forces to know what she thinks she knows. This is exactly how the people in the caves are like. They think they know what everything is because they only know about the shadows, they don't even accept the idea of their being anything else that easily. Clarisse is like the philosophers in the simile of the cave. Clarisse always asks 'why' and does not sit there to be told 'how'. The philosophers in the simile of the cave's whole life is based on 'why'. In Fahrenheit 451 it seems like Clarisse asks a lot of good questions and realizes things that everyone fails to recognize. Guy always thought burning book was normal and that information forced into him was just a part of his life. Once he was introduced into a new way of thinking he thought that he was previously doing everything wrong and saw how he was corrupted. The 'prisoners' in the cave are like this because they thought the shadows were normal and that they saw shadows. yet once they were free the realized from reverse engineering that they saw light and not shadows; that light casted shadows and they could see the shadows but thats not what made them.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
DUE WED 3/14 - Personal Reflection (Plato)
Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?
A: When I learned that the tooth fairy was not real I wasn't mad or anything. I already assumed she wasn't real because I din't think it was possible with the te fact that she was soposedly. So when I learned she wasn't real it made me think of the people of who got a lot more money then me, or who didn't get that much. I have had a more 'dramatic' experience but I have failed to thin kof one.
A: When I learned that the tooth fairy was not real I wasn't mad or anything. I already assumed she wasn't real because I din't think it was possible with the te fact that she was soposedly. So when I learned she wasn't real it made me think of the people of who got a lot more money then me, or who didn't get that much. I have had a more 'dramatic' experience but I have failed to thin kof one.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
3/2 Personal Reflection
I know this is supposed to be about pride, but I couldn’t think of an example that fit that description. So I am going to write about the time I was having fun but I regretted having fun. I was in the hallway with my laptop with Justin and Cameron like usual. And we were going to go onto Digg, but I decided to play NFS most wanted instead because I thought that the middle school rule were you could play video games before school applied at HTH, but that wasn’t the case; obviously somebody thought it would be too good of an idea to do that. So I was having fun playing NFS and then Mr. Jana and Ben daily come around the corner. Justin, Cameron, and I look up at them and then continue playing. Then Ben daily calmly says to me as if he was simply saying hi to me: “I’m going to have to confiscate that. You can get it from Marcus at the end of the day.” So I gave it too him and Cameron and Justin started talking about why you couldn’t play video games before school if you can play cell phones, iPods, and PSP’s without someone taking it away.
3/2 Iliad Assignment
Summary:
In the beginning Patroclus drives Hector in to back all the way to troy. Then later were we pick up on line 800 a lot more stuff happens. A reference to Hubris and cosmos is made. Patroclus gets knocked of his chariot. Hector and Patroclus fight for a while and neither of them can win. Apollo rips off Achilles armor and then Hector lays the final blow to kill him.
Questions:
At the end of the book Hector tells Patroclus not to come back to the ships, I was wondering what he meant by that because Patroclus is on the verge of death.
I was also wondering if Hector took Achilles sword or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)