Why we can't be good at everything!

In Book II, Chapter 1 Aristotle states that not everyone is born with the ability to be good at everything. Aristotle wants us to realize that we can't always be good at the things that we wish we were. We sometimes must let the people that are skilled in that certain area take over. There is a reason that we aren't all great teachers because there would be no one to teach. We are not all great homebuilders because there would not be anyone that was good at designing the interior. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place because each individual would not feel special. They would not be different from anyone else and would no longer feel a need for themselves. I personally feel that we were given our talents for a reason and the talents were God given. You do have the ability to improve at a certain task, but you will never be as good as someone who has the talent originally.

Nicomachean Ethics--Book I

“But then ought one to call no other human being happy either who is still alive, and is it necessary, as Solon said, to look at the end?” 1100a

Socrates is proposing the question of whether any human being can be completely happy while alive, and if, there is worth in looking at the end of happiness. Happiness is a universal pursuit. We are made to chase after happiness and, therefore, are always chasing… always chasing, but never fully satisfied. I believe that we can call a human being happy, and it may be so, but it is only true for a moment. I do not believe that we can call a human being happy in the sense that his or her life is happy. We can only say, “You are happy in this moment.” Happiness must spring from the Good, something we cannot fully know until our spirits are free from our flesh. It would make sense that the Good would let us taste a bi-product (happiness), momentarily, throughout our lives. Because, by this, we come to know that what we are chasing is worth chasing. Now, if happiness is incomplete now, but we, by nature, chase its entirety our whole lives, we, by nature, do not crave something that doesn’t come into existence eventually. This being true, it is eternally important to set our gaze at “the end.”

Nic. Ethics Book I

"...since the young are apt to follow their impulses, they would hear such discourses without purpose or benefit, since their end is not knowing but action. And it makes no difference whether one is young in age or immature in character, for the deficiency doesn't come from the time, but from living in accord with feeling and following every impulse" (1095a lines 5-9). I found this especially interesting because it's something I've never took time to think about in the way Aristotle puts it. Those that are given everything in life without ever having to work for what they get are much more inept to act on impulse because they don't know how hard it is to get there in the event that it's not just given. People of this sort are of any age and don't make decisions in a way that Aristotle finds to be an honorable and highest form of decision-making. Aristotle feels that "the human good comes to be disclosed as a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with virtue" (1098a 16-17). One that lives their life in impulse is not capable of living a "good" life unless they change their discourse at some point to follow virtue.

Nic. Ethics I

"Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good..." (1094a); however, there is no such thing as the common or universal good. As rational beings, we all aim at what we consider good for ourselves and find ourselves basing the "good" on one of three things: enjoyment, honor, or knowledge. But at what does is this good? Why do we so avidly seek what is good? Good is our rationality that makes us distinct from animals or plants...but it's more than that. It's acting out that rationality in "accordance with virtue" (1098a16-17). For many of this, this equates to happiness: our end-all-be-all. That is for which the good aims.

Happiness. Virtuous. For many, these words are synonymous and the way we judge a person and their life. The ones who, in the face of misfortune, persevere without loosing their original virtuous disposition are considered, after their death, to have lead a "happy life." The entire picture of their life is taken into consideration when we judge them; however, while the image of the deceased may be altered by their descendants, there isn't, in the end, any affect on the soul that has gone on. The descendants may neglect pieces of the soul's life and focus solely on a year or a specific period of time during life. The two are completely separate and, I feel, have no effect on one another.

Book X

I know we're onto Nic Ethics now, but I wrote this last week and am only now uploading, so here it is...

Is it possible for the painter to paint the idea? Or do we presume his knowledge of the couch consists solely of that which the carpenter has crafted? If the carpenter is building a couch based on the idea, could not the painter do the same? Could not the painter build a picture of the "nature-begetter?"

598 c "Therefore, imitation is surely far from the truth; and, as it seems, it is due to this that it produces everything - because it lays hold of a certain small part of each thing, and that part is itself only a phantom. For example, the painter, we say, will paint for us a shoe-maker, a carpenter, and the other craftsmen, although he doesn't understand the arts of any one of them. But, nevertheless, if he is a good painter, by painting a carpenter and displaying him from far off, he would deceive children and foolish human beings into thinking that it is truly a carpenter."

How is the painter different from the carpenter? Could not the carpenter build a farm based on a picture painted of the original idea of a farm? Does painting, poetry, and indeed all art not have perhaps a better grasp on the intangible things that are than those things which we physically touch (couches)? Words and art and songs, I would argue, reach further for the idea of the couch than the physical one crafted by the carpenter. What the carpenter builds is a certain couch, but what a melody and rhythm and even lyrics evoke seem far closer to me to the idea of the couch than a certain one. The certain couch build by the carpenter is confined to it's weight, mass, and other physical qualities, but art, much like form or idea, is not. With painting, and even poetry to some extent, it is easy to argue that the picture on the wall is of certain angle of a certain couch, though I would suggest that was not necessarily the artist's intent, but with music especially it is difficult to assume that a melody and rhythm and orchestration (all those qualities that make a song) come together as an imitation of a certain thing. Rather, this musical art in particular, even without words, searches for truth, and in its own way is almost philosophical in that search.

That said, I understand that Socrates' accusation is focused on the specifically imitative side of art, and that he admits not all art is imitative. I think his couch analogy is a bad one, as I have just argued, but I do not think his argument is necessarily. The just city filters everything through the Noble Lie (except for the philosopher kings), so why not art too? I don't think Socrates is suggesting anything new to us here, but rather reiterating his previous point. In the city, his argument works, especially if we are focusing on the city as an analogy for the soul. In pursuit of justice, we filter everything through calculation before it has a chance to overwhelm our spirit or desire. So art too should be approached with caution.

Who is more Knowledgeable?

As I was reading Book X, the part about the three arts caught my attention. The text says that there are three arts for each thing: one that will use, one that will make, and one that will imitate. It goes on to say "the man who uses each thing will be most experienced and he will report to the maker what are the good or bad points in actual use of the instrument he uses . . . doesn't the man who knows report about good and bad flutes, and won't the other, trusting him, make them?" (601d and 601e) I was a little bothered by this reasoning because I don't feel like it rings true in every situation. When you think about it, it could go either way, but I would argue that the maker knows more than the user. A person who builds computers undoubtedly knows way more about how they work and what constitutes a good computer versus a bad one, while an end user can simply know how to turn it on and access limited functions. In this scenario, how would the user be more knowledgeable?

I agree with Socrates that the imitator has to trust one of the other two when he paints (or whatever his form of imitation is), but I feel that it's more of a give and take between the maker and the user, a mutually beneficial relationship that leads to the best possible outcome. The maker receives feedback from the user and turns it into knowledge of why something doesn't work properly and then can therefore craft it differently to solve the problem. Without the user's feedback, the maker couldn't fix the problem, but without the maker knowing HOW to fix the problem, then the user's critique is of no use.

What I have brought up may seem like a small aspect of the chapter, but I think it is a valid point to consider when going on to discuss who has the knowledge of fair and right, and who else is just following orders.

Couches--Book X

I would like to adress the three types of couches that Socrates discusses. They are as follows: the painter, the couchmaker, and the god (597b). The couch is obviously a symbol for truth. Therefore, the god (or God) produces truth. Then, we have the couchmaker. This is someone who has knowledge of the truth, but not full knowledge. Finally, we have the painter--or the imitator. This person can paint a picture of truth, but lacks the actual substance of truth itself.

I think we can find that each person is either a couchmaker an imitator (this includes the apathetic).

Although couchmakers aren't fully knowledgeable, they are still knowledgable enough to teach someone else how to make a couch so they can start making couches for themselves. They can offer the "structure" for a couch, but ultimately it is up to the other person to be wise, recieve, and follow through with their desire to learn about the couch.

Although an imitator can have the apperance of being knowledgable, what it seperates him is the fact that he has nothing to give away that comes from himself. Everything he says is adopted. However, this is not to say that when he DOES find truth, it will be the same truth that other men have found. Asking someone not what they believe in, but why they believe in it, most almost always reveals whether they are a couchmaker or an imitator. At least, that's what I've found.

The Myth of Er

In Book X there is a very interesting interpretation of what happens once you pass away. As we read Er was sent to observe what actually happened in the afterlife and then to come back and report what he found. He found out that people are reward on virtues on rather or not they get to go to Heaven or Hell. This happens over a period of 1000 years. After they have served their time in Heaven or Hell they are brought into a common area. This is where they decide if they want to be a human or an animal in their next life.

I really thought this was an interesting portrayal because until I read this I had never heard of the idea of a common area. You do not stay in Heaven or Hell for eternity, but once you have spent your time then you are sent to a common area. I found it interesting that depending on if you choose to be an animal or a human depended on if you had a good afterlife. As Bloom wrote in his interpretive essay, "The myth attributes full responsibility to men for what happens to them and thus teaches that there is no sin but ignorance."

Does the Soul Live Forever?

The death of a soul, no matter how metaphorical that may sound, is something that i believe happens and something doesn't belong under the logical rules of the way people look at the death of something else.

The argument begins in 608d with socrates proposing that the soul is immortal and can never be destroyed. He uses this statement and the argument behind it to jump into the "myth of Er", Socrates' dramatic climax to all his final argument. The argument that is behind the immortal soul is what i consider now.

Socrates claims that what is evil is what corrupts and destroys everything. Socrates also claims that something cannot be destroyed or corrupted by something that is not of it own or something alien to it. Socrates also purposes that because vices or the evil that belongs a part of the soul doesn't completely destroy it and force it to leave the body, then the soul doesn't die and therefore must live on forever.

This, in my opinion, is where Socrates' argument has a hole. He claims that just because the soul doesn't leave the body when it is brought to the point of death by its interior evil, then it is not dead. The problem is that i do not believe that the soul leaving the body when brought to the point of death is a logical indicator of whether a soul has truly perished. The soul is not something physical, like all the other items that Socrates is comparing it to. The soul doesn't abide by the physical rules that Socrates is supposing it does. I would go even farther in saying that not only does a soul die, but it has the ability to be brought back to life.

The death of a soul can be detected when the will of a person fails to exist. The person no longer wants to do anything or simply live. The dead soul has no concern for anything and this is reflected in its host. The host doesn't perish because the soul is not one of the required organs that allow life. The life of the host will be empty of purpose and desire, but the bodily functions will continue if only by habit.

Poetry: Pros and Cons

As a songwriter, it is difficult for me to set my own personal beliefs aside in regards to poetry. I personally love poetry and art and think it is vital to our existence as humans. It allows us to express ourselves in a way that no other medium is capable of doing. However, in Socrates' perfect city, I do not think some types of poetry should be allowed.

The only way to fully rid the emotional connection that art implies, is to fully eradicate it from the city. This is hard for me to say because I do believe that music IS good, but just like everything else, it can be perverted and made bad and cause people to dwell on negative emotions and thus lead to a regression in attitude and production among the people in the city. Therefore, and music that can lead to emotional connection should be removed.

The remaining poetry and art will be purely calculable. This type of poetry is analyzed and has no emotional connection. I believe this type of poetry is necessary to the city because as we discussed earlier in class, one must know images (thought) before one can know forms (intellection). Poetry would be classified in the image category and thus is necessary to help people to higher "forms" of thinking.

Evoking Emotion: The Ramifications of Poetry

The Republic Book X closes the work in a somewhat unexpected fashion, but the earlier half of the book is still considering a specific law within the city, as Plato has been doing for the majority of the book. This time, the law concerns the banishment of poets. Socrates argues that poetry is, regrettably, a negative influence due to its praising and amplification of the desiring part of the soul. Up until this point, one presumably agrees with Socrates in that calculating part is certainly the best part of the soul, and it is hard to deny that poetry aids the desiring part in usurping the calculating part's power. Why, then, do we find it so difficult to let go of poetry and songwriting in all forms?

We tried to defend its usefulness in class, but I feel as though we cannot entirely justify its place in our society. However, poetry, songwriting, movies, and other forms of art are cornerstones of our culture. We all immerse ourselves in these quite often, despite the fact that they are not logically good for us. Of course, some of these works do have educational merit, but those are often considered the least enjoyable by many. Do works that evoke emotion truly make us more susceptible to letting those emotions rule us? Socrates seems to think so.

Socrates also tells us to do nothing without calculation, though. Is it not possible to read poetry using the calculating part of the soul, as well? Analyzing poetry for its meaning is surely considered to be a worthy endeavor, and this can be applied to the analyzing of songwriting and movies as well. Whether or not one agrees with the content of a poem, attempting to divine the author's meaning is an exercise in and of itself. So long as we approach these mediums with an analytical attitude, there is at least some merit from these works. If we attempt to remove the emotional connection we have with the words, we remove its negative impact upon ourselves.

That's the Beauty of it

"That [which] is connected with something always the same, immortal and true" (585c) is that which is more and is above all else. Here, the simplicity and beauty of the learning-loving life comes to light. It lies within the single possession of that which cannot and will not be changed because it simply is.

While all three levels, the gaining-loving, the victory-loving, and the wisdom-loving souls have all tasted pleasures of different kinds of pleasure, the lover of wisdom alone encompasses all three. It is this soul alone that can connect itself with the “vision of what is” (582c). All three have the evidence of gain, all three have the experience of honor, but the man who takes the greater, riskier leap is the only one that can possibly taste the true pleasure of what is. The further we step away from learning, one of humans’ greatest functions, the further we step down the political ladder. We take a step back from what is and from truth and into the not only shadows but into loneliness and fear. Slowly we depreciate and decimate our being until we are the tyrant, feeling the false sense of pleasure, being only master or slave, fearing for every moment, “killing each other because [we] are insatiable; for [we would not be] filling the part of [ourselves] that is, or can contain anything, with things that are” ( 586b), and living with the phantoms of pleasure.


In all respects, the life of the wisdom lovers rises above honor and gain and asserts itself, much like calculation, to be the greatest of the three; however, the distinct problem arises from its singularity and brilliance: so rigorous and challenging the path to this particular soul that few dare or simply can find themselves with the curious, strengthened souls required of this regime. In addition, the lover of learning isn’t used in the same context as we might possibly consider it today. It isn’t someone learning the facts or memorizing for the moment; instead, it’s the understanding of what is and will always be; the unchanging forms that don’t fade in and out of existence. This is the true beauty of learning: the grasp of the lasting through the world of the ephemeral.

Ah, Clarity

For the extent of the book we have read up until book eight, I have struggled to see the point in a lot of this. I didn't understand how the just city was going to help us find justice in the soul and how having debates about one topic for an entire class period or for an entire chapter was going to help us reach our final destination, if that is even our final destination. The reason why I question if it is in fact our final destination is because I am starting to get small things out of this book that are benefiting me without reaching that destination. I would be content as of right now if we stopped reading this book because of what I have learned, but I look hopefully forward to the rest of the book expecting to learn even more.

Clarity came to me as I read book eight. Book eight deals with all the different forms of government. This, in all honesty, would be the last place I would expect to see anything relate to myself because I despise politics, but as I read about these different forms of government and how they would affect the city, I began to see how they would apply to my soul.

For me, one of my greatest personal struggles is balancing out my desires with my morals, or applying my conscience and sense of self-control to my life. When I thought about how tyranny, a timocracy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, a democracy, and other forms of government, I realized that there were pros and cons to these different forms of government--especially when applied to my soul. Out of aristocracy I can pull goodness and justice, but realize my depravity. Out of timocracy I can pull honor, but lack the obsession for it. Out of oligarchy I can pull parsimony, but not let it become my idol or become vengeful. Out of democracy I can pull all of the voices of my heart into one right choice for a decision, but look out for selfishness and conceit.

It takes a blend of these forms of government to guide the soul in the right direction. This list goes on and on. This is one book in The Republic that has had a lot of application for me. I hope it continues to be like this for the rest of The Republic.

The City's Rotation of Politics

I agree with Socrates in that a city will go through phases of politics depending on who's leading. I've definitely seen it in our country. Although we are called a "democracy" through it all, we all know that's not quite the accurate definition of the politics that we are under. Also, as Socrates shows in the book, it's very evident when our political system's priorities change and throughout history I believe we've had a mix of all of these political stages. I have a feeling our founding fathers intended our country to be ruled more as a timocratic-oligarchy if using Socrates' definitions of each. I believe it was intended that our country be run with honor-driven men with appetites towards necessary desires that are in the best interest of our country. However, there are times throughout history that flashes of Socrates' democracy and tyranny have proven to surface. Examples of tyranny with Nixon and Clinton and democracy being amongst different special interest groups such as the focus on global warming and the search for aliens.

I also believe that our country is under a sort of phase that Socrates describes as democratic. I took Socrates' definition of democracy as the necessary desires he mentions in oligarchy, but an over-indulgence of those necessary desires. As Socrates mentions starting with 560 c in regards to children of the oligarchic leaders (being democratic leaders themselves), "they proceed to return insolence, anarchy, wastefulness, and shamelessness from exile, in a blaze of light, crowned and accompanied by a numberous chorus, extolling and flattering them by calling insolence good education; anarchy, freedom; wastefulness, magnificence; and shamelessness, courage. Isn't it in some such way, that a man, when he is young, changes from his rearing in necessary desires to the liberation and unleashing of unnecessary and useless pleasures?" That definition, I think, exactly portrays the mindset of the majority of people in our country and our political system. The desire for money is necessary, but the never-satisfied, greedy desire for more and more money, with the mindset that enough is never enough, is highly unnecessary but highly popular in our country. Also, being hungry and to have food is necessary, but the desire for super-sized meals and gluttonous portions is unnecessary. We see huge plates of food as magnificent, but in all actuality it is wasteful. Also, the highly popular desire for disgustingly expensive clothing, cars, and houses is seen as so magnificent when it really is just a huge waste of money. Especially when there are many alternatives available with the same quality, if not better in some cases, than the designer logo has to offer. A country that is known for its freedom for all, where did the line first get crossed where freedom overlooks the values and beliefs our country was founded on and on which many of us draw our morals from? Today's high schools, ideas of marriage, ideas of family, etc. have all truly turned into separate anarchies. When did the ideal that the in-your-face attitude of so many business executives, stars, athletes, and politicians have turn into courage when really it's a lack of respect and shame?

Socrates sees a democracy as beautiful. "It is probably the fairest of the regimes just like a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues, this regime, decorated with all dispositions, would also look fairest, and many perhaps like boys and women looking at many-colored things, would judge this to be the fairest regime" (557c). Unique, bright, and colorful it is, but I'm not so sure I see the way our politics have turned as beautiful or fairer than the other regimes.

Ms. McKenzie