"Then, Thrasymachus, will a soul ever accomplish its work well if deprived of its virtue, or is that impossible?"
"Impossible"
"Then a bad soul necessarily rules and manages badly while a good one does all these things well".
Socrates goes on to say, "Then the just soul and the just man will have a good life, and the unjust man a bad one". Thrasymacus says that it is more profitable to live an unjust life. This is true depending on what definition you give to profitable. Is it only wealth and power? Or is it your soul's virtues? To describe this a little further, say a man has stolen money from his business partner all the years they have been in business, he lives a wealthier life on earth while his partner who would be the more just man lives a less wealthy life because he has less money than he actually earned. In this situation it is more profitable to be unjust. However it would not be more profitable if the just man were to find out that his partner was stealing the money. If a person only views profitability as wealth and power then does justive even have a place in that situation? Because if that is a person's only measure of 'good life' then gaining by dishonesty would not be considered wrong. Much of the time it tends to be unjust actions that brings power to people. Those people in power tend to come up a lot in Socrates' arguments. At the beginning I quoted that a bad soul rules badly and a good soul rules well. It seems true that a good soul would have a better shot at ruling well, while a bad soul would do unjust acts towards his people and rule badly because of that, but in the world of politics, can a just man get and maintain power? What Thrasymacus says about it being more profitable to be unjust seems true, but if we go back and look at the very beginning when Socrates was talking to Cephalus about old age we see that maybe it is only profitable for a short time. Cephalus says that "when a man comes near to the realization that he will be making an end, fear and care enter him for things to which he gave no thought before. The tales told about what is in Hade--that the one who has done unjust deeds here must pay the penalty there..."

It may be true that justive is one of those virtues that cannot be taught. In thinking about this, i started wondering if maybe some ideas are born inside of us from the very beginning. I dont know of anyone that is happier when they acquired something unjustly. At the time that someone commits an unjust act and receives fortune from it they may be content fr a time, but at some point it is human nature to fear what will happen when we die or fear that we will lose what we have gotten. At the same time, not all people are the same. Some people have no feelings or knowledge of right or wrong or very different ideas than everybody else has. Some people are taight by their familes to hate and harm others. Some are taight that whatever you have to do to get ahead is ok. So, whether justice can be taught or not, the opposite definitely can be taught.

Can We Figure This Out?

The question that comes to mind while reading book II and beginning book III, is whether or not Socrates' city is going to make answering our question any easier. While I understand the principle behind what he is trying to do, I wonder if in reality it is going to make our situation any better. By adding all of the layers and parts of the city, we are supposed to gain insight into what is better, justice or injustice? But I am afraid that it is only going to make things less certain and a little more fuzzy.

Now I don't want to complain without suggesting a better way of doing things. So what I think we need to answer Glaucon's question, is a more definite answer of what justice actually is. While we are moving forward with some ruff understanding of what justice is and what injustice is, I don't think a concrete definition of either term has been given. And so how are we to know which is better, when we don't really know what either is. Perhaps I am the only person with this uncertainty, but maybe someone else does too.

And so I come to the part of the post where I really don't know where to go. Sometimes I think we should attack justice in the same way that virtue was attacked in Meno. But that still did not answer the original question that was posed. Or maybe we should continue on with the city, but I really am unsure where it is going. And I begin to think that Socrates is more serious than I first thought when he claimed that he did not know anyone who could tell what virtue is, or could tell what justice was and where it comes from. These are very difficult questions, and it is hard to tell where the answers are.

Justice and the Self

Much of Book II in The Republic is spent addressing the topic of justice on the personal level. Often times, the word is colloquially defined by examples; we saw this occur much in the same way on the subject of virtue in Meno. While this method is not a formally acceptable way of defining virtue, justice, or any other idea, for that matter, that does not mean that the examples bear no meaning in the discussion of the topic. When Glaucon asks Socrates to prove to him that justice is not only practical due to its consequences, but also for its own sake, Socrates turns to yet another analogy: the city. During class, we began to debate whether or not this is an acceptable analogy. After all, a city is built of many parts, and whether or not that can be said of the soul is going to require much attention. However, without reaching that argument just yet, we must postpone it for two reasons.

First, Socrates has already told us that only after his examination of the city's justice will he endeavor to show that this justice and personal justice are analogous. To be able to compare the two, we must first have a clear view of both the city and the individual. While both are complex, the city can be constructed using layers of complexity that promote understanding. This is why Socrates turned to this example in the first place. As individuals, being able to connect the concepts presented in the city will be easier than to examine it from the other direction. Second, we must look at the aforementioned examples which come to mind when justice is mentioned; Helping the elderly, treating others with kindness and respect, and defending your family are a few examples among many. Nearly every example of justice, though, has one central theme: interaction among others. This is why every attempt at examining the nature of justice thus far has led to less than ideal conclusions. By attempting to remove this idea from the argument, they have faltered, and as Socrates begins to examine this subject from a new angle, we stumble across another integral component of justice: Religion.

A Response

I apologize that i do not remember your name, but in class you brought up an awesome question that i would like to address.

You asked about how God can be "just" when in Exodus in the Bible, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." (Exodus 4-9). One response to this is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and "made him sin" in order to accomplish a larger, more important purpose: to glorify Himself in the end. This seems very selfish, but in my humble opinion, if God did not glorify Himself, he would not be the highest being in the universe and not worthy of our worship. But besides that point, I would say that--and this is not my idea, but a thought that i have gathered from Biblical scholars i have read on this issue--God did not directly harden Pharaoh's heart, but that Pharaoh was already against God by his own will and because of his own opinions of God. One scholar put it this way: “God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh's free but stubborn action…” (http://bit.ly/9xztSn)

So i would conclude by saying that God is just; he made us in his image and is the ultimate judge, so it is hard for us to fully understand his purposes and why He does what He does. But, the best explanation i have seen is this logical argument above. And this makes sense because we have seen people in our world who are turned off by God and would make a similar decision if they were in Pharaoh's shoes. As would most of us...including myself.

Feel free, anyone, to respond :-)

The "G" Word

God.

As i read The Republic and hear what these philosophers have to say, all i can do--because it is my worldview--is think about if what they are saying is true in Christianity or if i can somehow use what their secular mouths are saying and help strengthen the argument for God's existence and power. Sorry if this offends anyone, but i feel so unbelievably motivated to write about this that i feel that i must. As they argue about what justice is, if justice or injustice is better, and how to be just, i can't help but wonder why they are asking these questions. Well, of course they are looking for answers, but they must feel a need to be just even though they desire to be unjust and selfish. It seems that this is a human characteristic and they seem to be checking with someone who seems to have the answers to life to see if they are allowed to be selfish. For me, as i see these people so long ago asking similar questions to what our culture asks today, i see that this must be a good question--an important one. And from my Christian worldview, Jesus asks us to take care of the poor and care for them. The Bible says that "...the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor" (Ps 140:12). Justice in a social sense, in a personal sense, and in a worldly sense seem to be very important in God's eyes.

Today, we see many people who perform injustices, but we see a number of people who perform justices. And it's usually these people who we see and love. We feel drawn to these types of people and sometimes wish we could be as "good" as they are. This is proof to me that we are all wired to be just people. I feel that God made us to be just towards one another. I feel that there is a government in place to keep justice and peace because that is when people are happiest.

There are many definitions of justice, but whenever it is the word "injustice" or "unjust," there are not normally positive associations. As a human race, we are made in the image of God, who is just.

These are just my thoughts on The Republic so far.

Specialization - Book II

Does it seem odd to anyone else that China does the sort of thing Socrates talks about in Book II? Not as much as they used to, but they certainly train their olympic teams from birth. I think Socrates' idea to build the perfect city is a good one, but it sounds to me like he's making it up on the spot, which I suppose it true, but his argument just seems weak, especially when he begins to explain Guardians. I understand he is explaining the impossible, but it seems he has a somewhat difficult time doing so.

Regardless of that (thank you for letting me vent my frustration), I like the idea of building a city on specialization. It sort of reminds me of communism, but again we are talking in ideals here so let's entertain the idea. I honestly question why we (Americans) insist on educating everyone formally. Why not have a process for determining one's skills/talents/passions and put him in a training program at an early age? Perfection is impossible, but I imagine that the bar of potential would be raised for achievements in all vocations.

-Mr. Carter

Book II- A Common Goal

At 369c Socrates says, "So, then, when one man takes on another for one need and another for another need, and, since many things are needed, many men gather in one settlement as partners and helpers, to this common settlement we give the name city, don't we?" Each man has a given gift and has certain skills. Some men are good at engineering while others are great farmers. Each man contributes his own skills to make the city. If everyman was the same then the city would not have much potential to grow. When they put their skills together, they can accomplish great things.

In a city each man must add his own skills for the common goal. If each man is working against each other then the city will fail. This is the reason that every individual is not good at everything. If everyone could do everything then we wouldn't be able to split the work between the most talented people and provide the best work. A city has the main goal of bring people together and creating one force.

Is justice good? Plato's Republic, Book II

A phrase that stuck out to me right from the beginning (one that I feel puts the whole chapter into layman's terms) is when Glaucon says "is there in your opinion a kind of good that we would choose to have not because we desire its consequences, but because we delight in it for its own sake ... leave no after effects other than the enjoyment in having them?" (357b) I do not think everything in this world is done because there is a desired end result that benefits the doer. Often times this is the case, but I have seen many cases of the opposite. For this reason, I am in agreement with Socrates.

Having said that, Glaucon is of the mindset that everything is done for a selfish end result. He says, "and this, then, is the genesis and being of justice; it is a mean between what is best--doing injustice without paying the penalty--and what is worst--suffering injustice without being able to avenge oneself. The just is in the middle between these two, cared for not because it is good but because it is honored due to a want of vigor in doing injustice." (359a) According to him, we all naturally want what is better for ourselves and in wanting this we are all secretly striving for injustice. To be honest, I could see this argument because I think in any normal, non-suicidal human being, there is the immediate reaction to save oneself from danger, even if that person decides to not act upon it and save others, that immediate desire was there. But who's to say that wanting to live is unjust? Is our purpose in life to make sure everyone around us is served first, or is that just common courtesy?

Admeimantus comes in to defend his brother and makes the argument that what is important is being unjust but having a reputation of being just, i.e. doing what is wrong and shrouding it in "right" in order to get away with it. He even mentions that the gods would prefer us to do wrong and then shower them with gifts and praises in an attempt to get back into their good graces. (I can't remember the line number for this one) This alone contradicts any sort of image I had of the higher power because my God would rather be do the right thing in the first place as opposed to doing wrong and then later asking for forgiveness. But I suppose that we are dealing with different gods.

Socrates really puts everything into perspective with his example of building a city. The end point of that example was to say that it is better to 1) be able to do one thing very good instead of many things moderately good and 2) that working together, not just as a city, but as a group of cities, as a society is much more beneficial, maybe even absolutely necessary to survival. And once we have established that notion, it is safe to say that we have to strive what is best for everyone if we can even think of what is best for ourselves because no one can survive all on their own. One man cannot survive alone in city, and one city cannot survive alone among all the cities. (all of 374) Using this example, I completely agree. Before we can even think of ourselves we have to think of the "greater good," which means we have to strive to be just and that is it more beneficial to even ourselves to look out for the good of everyone because you need that backup, that support--you cannot do it alone.

Admeimantus and Glaucon make some interesting arguments for opposing what I have always been taught was good and moral (justice), but thus far I am still in agreement with Socrates that justice is better and more beneficial than injustice.


EDIT: By the way, this is Raven...

The Argument of the Two Men

I realize that this argument is at the center of Book two of The Republic but i would like to discuss one specific piece of the argument that i find interesting. The story is purposed by Glaucon in 359d when a shepherd finds a ring that has the potential to make him invisible. He then uses this new found ability to take advantage of the king's wife and take over the thrown by murdering the king himself. Then he changes the situation in saying that now there are two rings that do the same thing, but one is given to a just man and the other is given to an unjust man. Now Glaucon assumes that both would be just with their new found ability because now they would be compelled to act justly by the knowledge of the other individual. This is where i have a problem with the argument of Glaucon. I think that it is very pessimistic to believe that no single individual would have the power to resist the desire to take advantage of their new found ability. Yes, there is an advantage to accountability in the fact that it will hold people true to their word but i completely disagree that no one on earth would be able to resist their desires and temptations simply because they knew that they would receive no repercussions for their actions.

Meno

In this past week, our class discussions have revolved primarily around teaching, knowledge, understanding, and virtue. We discussed whether it was possible to accurately define what each of these words were and whether we would ever be able to come to a conclusion. Although my opinions differ from many others i presume, here is my best attempt at defining what each are.

Teaching is telling someone how to do something. Knowledge is actually knowing how to do it. Understanding is taking your knowledge and applying it. And virtue is the pursuit of what is good. Although I somewhat disagree with what I just said, based on the fact that I believe that it is hard to accurately define what each of those ideas are, it is necessary to have a basis on which I form the rest of my opinions.

First comes teaching. Say you were to follow someone while hiking in the woods. You had no experience hiking, while the person you were following was an eagle scout. He tore down a few branches and began making a fire with a piece of flint that he had in his back pack. Although he never said a word to you, You now know how to make a fire. This is teaching, leading through experience. This is what each teacher does, have and experience with a thing or idea, and then presenting it to the student. Then the student knows the idea, but until they actually apply it, they have no true understanding of it.

As far as teaching goes, I do believe that there are things that cannot be taught. I believe that things created by man (i.e. a way to record time, the words we use to describe things, etc.) can be taught. For example, knowing that 12 p.m. means that the sun is high in the sky was taught to us. We did not know that before it was presented to us. At the same time, things that were not created by man (i.e. virtue) cannot be taught. Man did not create virtue. It is something that has always existed and that man has always wanted to achieve. However, it can not be taught. It must be obtained, or rather given to someone.

Plato: Book 1

When Socrates is finished discussing with Cephalus how to endure old age with mild trouble, he inquires of Cephalus that “it is not due to character that you bear old age so easily but due to possessing great substance. They say that for the rich there are many consolations.” (329e) He is pointing out that some accusers believe that Cephalus has become a happy old man simply because he is rich and well off and not due to his character. Cephalus concedes that this is partially true, but he makes the point that if someone in poverty is discontented with old age he would still be discontented with old age if he had wealth. I did not expect this answer from Cephalus, I rather expected him to completely defend himself by saying that he came across his contentment through his own intellectual means because he later on asserts that “wealth is very useful to an intelligent man.” (331b) and explains that the possession of wealth serves as a moral barrier that protects a man from certain temptations. I wish Cephalus had elaborated further on his answer to Socrates because I liked his earlier explanation on how he obtained peace in his old age.

"Meno"--Recollection v. Learning

At first in our reading of "Meno" on virtue and whether it can be taught, I was stuck on Socrates' claim that, "searching and learning as a whole are recollection" (81d); and later when Meno asks Socrates to teach him how this is so, Socrates' response, "I just now said, Meno, that you are a rascal, and now you're asking if I can teach you-I who assert that there is no learning but only recollection" (82a). The reason I couldn't get past this claim was because my definition of teaching was not parrallel to Socrates' use of the word. Since there is no learning there would be no teaching, and this did not make sense to me. My definition of teaching was to give one knowledge with the intention that they would learn from the knowledge you were giving them. Both "teaching" and "learning" are used in my definition. However, Socrates use of teaching is without the variable of "learning" altogether. His would go something like, teaching is guiding someone to gain knowledge through their own discovery; recollection being the middle point between no knowledge and some knowledge. This definition of teaching causes the student to be more active because surely you can't just give someone knowledge, they have to "recollect" it through self-discovery and application.

Socrates also states that these tools of self-discovery and some knowledge itself are already embedded within us whether from a previous life or inherently in our souls, "So if the truth about the beings is always present for us in the soul, would the soul be immortal such that, with respect to what you now happen not to know-and this is what you don't remember-you should be confident in attemption to inquire into it and recollect it?" (86b). I love that line because it shows that if one believes that either they know something or they don't, but just wait for someone to come and give them knowledge, then they're lazy. If one knows they already have the capabilities then they will be braver to go for discovering what it is that they don't know.

Towards the end of Meno, I was interested in a line in 100b, "on the basis of this calculation, Meno, it's manifest to us that virtue comes to be present, in those in whom it is present, by divine allotment." This line forced me to question whether God could then be considered the teacher and we the students, and within that relationship would we be "recollecting" or "learning"? Learning an option because this quote seems to imply that there is a giving of knowledge involved.

"Meno" -Recollection

One of the questions we spent an amount of time discussing in class was whether virtue can be learned or if it is only recollected. I think that this can be broadened to encase almost all forms of knowledge. Is it learned, or recollected? In 82a Socrates says to Meno, "-I who assert that there is no learning but only recollection-" clearly giving his opinion on the question. However, only shortly before in 81c Socrates says, "Now, since the soul is immortal and has come to be many times and has seen both the things here and those in Hades -- in fact all things -- there isn't anything it hasn't learned." Here Socrates is saying that the soul has learned, though it was in a past life. But even if it was a past life, is it not the same soul? And because this soul has learned things in the past that is why it recollects all of its knowledge. In order for this recollection to take place though the knowledge was previously learned because it has to come from somewhere. As for learning virtue specifically, I believe it can be done by observation and example, but probably not in a traditional classroom-type setting with a teacher.

-Rachel Tidwell

Meno, Recollection, and Knowledge

The work “Meno” raises many questions as to the way in which we perceive, access, and describe our world and ourselves. What I have derived from the text is that knowledge is, in most basic form as true opinion, inherent and innate to, at least, the human soul; however, as Socrates so blatantly points out in passages 81d and 86b, when we believe we know, we cease to look for answers, soon become lazy and diminish our capacity to expound upon the "recollected" knowledge that already exists in our "souls." While it may cause discomfort and the aggravation of perplexity once we have been proved to not know what we supposed we knew, it pushes us in a direction to explore and also gives us to opportunity to find truth for ourselves--our "personal truths" if you will. When we continue to push beyond the boundaries of what we have been given and believe to know, we earn the right to knowledge. The only way to gather this knowledge, however, is not to be fed by those who simply come before and assert that they know but to seek and inquire for oneself. The seeds of past knowledge, in my opinion, dwell within us all as well as the basis of true opinion that, through questioning (85d/86b) and pinning them down through this questioning (98a), becomes knowledge; and while this knowledge lies dormant, it is only provoked and improved through inquiry and a desire to develop these “true opinions.”

-Jessica Spradlin

Meno

Throughout Meno, both Socrates and I arrive at a few conclusions that I find significant. The first is that there is surface-level activity i.e. bravery, and then there is the activity that takes place within a man’s soul i.e. virtue—beneath the surface. Thus, a man’s virtue, or lack thereof, dictates his bravery, decision-making, etc (88b). Another conclusion that I derived from 88c is that virtue is implanted in a man’s soul when he’s created. Virtue merely exists at birth. However, as a man grows, his nature begins to embrace or degrade his virtue. Basically, we get to decide whether we will be virtuous beings. A good analogy for this is the use of a gun. A gun sitting in a room is not bad. It is neutral. What a man does with the gun, rather, is deemed good or bad. And finally, in 97c and 98a, one of the author’s final ideas was produced: true opinion vs. knowledge. Socrates states that “true opinions aren’t willing to stay put for a long time” (132). Having a true opinion means knowing all about a thing, but not actually knowing the thing that you know about. Knowledge, however, fulfills true opinion. A good representation of this concept might be this: there are often people who know all about their religion, but nothing about the God of whom his religion is inspired.

--Brittney Byerley

hmmmm

ok.. this is to try and see if this actually works...

Course and Blog Schedule

Even group posts on EVEN weeks, Odd group posts on ODD weeks.

Reading Schedule:

Tuesday                                                                 Thursday

-----                                                                          J14 Syllabus

EVEN J19 Meno to 82b                                       J21 Finish Meno

ODD  J26 Republic Bk. I                                     J28 Republic Bk. II

EVEN F2 Republic Bk. III                                   F4 Republic Bk. III

ODD  F9 Republic Bk. IV                                    F11Republic Bk. IV

EVEN F16 Republic Bk. V                                   F18 Republic Bk. VI

ODD  F23 Republic Bk. VII                                F25 Republic Bk. VII

EVEN M2 Republic Bk. VIII                               M4 Republic Bk IX

                                Spring Break

ODD M16 Republic Bk. X                                 M18 Republic Bk. X

EVEN  M23 Nic. Ethics Bk. I                           M25 Nic Ethics. II

ODD M30 Nic. Ethics Bk II                             A1 Easter

EVEN  A6 Nic Ethics. Bk. V                            A8  Nic Ethics VII

ODD A13 Nic Ethics Bk. VIII                          A15 Nic Ethics IX

EVEN  A20 Nic Ethics X                                 A22 Meditations 1, 2

ODD Meditations 3, 4                                     A29 Meditations 5, 6

M4 Last Class