25 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. She asserts that nature is the best teacher of clo{1uencc. Rules help only a little, and only if they have been <lcrivcd from nature.

      This has echoes of Plato in it, where Socrates asks repeatedly whether rhetoric can be taught.

    1. explanation ofthe tenns commonly ends the controversy

      Hence why definition is needed to start, not once the argument's already gathered steam (as Locke also points out). While I find merit to this, I dislike agreeing with anything Socratic/Platonic on principle.

    1. before they went any further on in this dispute, they would first examine and estab-lish amongst them, what the word liquor signi-fied.

      Thanks, Socrates (she said sarcastically).

  2. Jan 2019
    1. Socrates

      Via Socrates Biography -- Britannica "Socrates was widely considered to be a Sophist, though he did not teach for money and his aims were entirely different from theirs. Although there is a late tradition according to which Pythagoras invented the word philosopher, it was certainly through Socrates—who insisted that he possessed no wisdom but was striving for it—that the term came into general use and was later applied to all earlier serious thinkers."

    2. Plato's dialogue

      this is referring to the dialogues of philosopher Plato, who was a student of Socrates, Plato was in turn the teacher of Aristotle

  3. Jul 2015
    1. . By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is implicitly endorsing the Laws, and is willing to abide by them. Socrates, more than most, should be in accord with this contract, as he has lived a happy seventy years fully content with the Athenian way of life.
  4. Jan 2014
    1. Socrates was concerned with reflective thought: the ability to think deeply about things, to question and examine every statement. He thought that reading was experiential, that it would not lead to reflection.
    2. Questioning and examination are the tools of reflection: Hear an idea, ponder it, question it, modify it, explore its limitations. When the idea is presented by a person, the audience can interrupt, ask questions, probe to get at the underlying assumptions. But the author doesn’t come along with a book, so how could the book be questioned if it couldn’t answer back? This is what bothered Socrates.

      This is what bothered socrates.

    3. Socrates, Plato tells us, argued that books would destroy thought.

      Books as destroyers of thought

  5. Oct 2013
    1. Appetite is the cause of all actions that appear pleasant. Habit, whether acquired by mere familiarity or by effort, belongs to the class of pleasant things, for there are many actions not naturally pleasant which men perform with pleasure, once they have become used to them. To sum up then, all actions due to ourselves either are or seem to be either good or pleasant. Moreover, as all actions due to ourselves are done voluntarily and actions not due to ourselves are done involuntarily, it follows that all voluntary actions must either be or seem to be either good or pleasant; for I reckon among goods escape from evils or apparent evils and the exchange of a greater evil for a less (since these things are in a sense positively desirable), and likewise I count among pleasures escape from painful or apparently painful things and the exchange of a greater pain for a less.

      At odds with Socrates (Plato's "Gorgias") again, however Aristotle's view of things sounds much more realistic.

    1. For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the things that make for or against it; whatever creates or increases happiness or some part of happiness, we ought to do; whatever destroys or hampers happiness, or gives rise to its opposite, we ought not to do.

      This reminds me of Socrates in Plato's "Gorgias." Except that he advised people to only partake in things that make them happy because they are good or beneficial and not to partake in things good/beneficial because they make the person happy (or something along those lines).

  6. Sep 2013
    1. Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly.

      Coincides with what Gorgias was presumably attempting to say to Socrates.

  7. caseyboyle.net caseyboyle.net
    1. For the truth is, Socrates, that you, who pretend to be engaged in the pursuit of truth, are appealing now to the popular and vulgar notions of right, which are not natural, but only conventional

      I see Scorates as very opposite. I know it's part of the way the questions are asked, but Gorgias was definitive in his responses whereas Socrates is all over the place. I find this disagreement falls inline with the methods of questioning

    2. I mean to say, does he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or honourable, just or unjust in them; or has he only a way with the ignorant of persuading them that he not knowing is to be esteemed to know more about these things than some one else who knows?

      Dangers of persuasive rhetoric

    3. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.

      Socrates again showing concern with ascertaining truth (love of truth/knowledge). Interested in a dialectic, not a debate concerned with being right.

    4. SOCRATES: Then rhetoric is not the only artificer of persuasion? GORGIAS: True.

      Whammy! Socrates leading Gorgias into a contradiction.

    5. Then hear me, Gorgias, for I am quite sure that if there ever was a man who entered on the discussion of a matter from a pure love of knowing the truth

      Philosophy = love of knowledge = rhetoric? (as per Socrates)

    6. Then why, if you call rhetoric the art which treats of discourse, and all the other arts treat of discourse, do you not call them arts of rhetoric

      Socrates was known for his mistrust of so-called "experts". He would ask someone a series of questions that would eventually lead them into a contradiction.

    7. Very good then; as you profess to be a rhetorician, and a maker of rhetoricians, let me ask you, with what is rhetoric concerned: I might ask with what is weaving concerned, and you would reply (would you not?), with the making of garments?

      Socrates making his question as explicit and specific as possible. He may be anticipating some indirect answer.

    8. That is what is wanted, Gorgias; exhibit the shorter method now, and the longer one at some other time

      Direct speech = athenian spirit?

    9. in my admiring mind

      a cute turn of phraze

    10. to set it on its legs

      to give it ground, in contemporary terms, since our teachers no longer travel and teach door to door in the same way. Yet, "to give it legs" still works for our times.