This is intresting so here is he implying that some people are just naturally meant to be rulers.

Does it actually still remain the same body, don't the fact that it is sick change the compostion of the body?

How does he know this thought?

This seems like he is saying that there is a theoritical being and an actual being which reminds me of his ideas about knowledge and the Mary's room thought experiment. Where Mary had theritical knowledge when she studied color and then actual knowledge when she saw it.l

So does this only apply to the substance that is made when two substances come together or also to the matter that is only made of one substance by itself?

Is this actually true thought, humans seek knowlwege so that they can tailor the world to benefit them. The more universal the knowledge the more benefit tehy can get from it.

Seems like Platos divided line

This seems like he has an elitist view of wisdom and knowleedge suggesting that only a small few are caacble pf achieving it.

Do you really need senses to think though?

Memories aren't just based on vision, they can also be based in other things

Do we produce it then or rearange it?

So the mathematician more concerneed wit the way in which things interact with one another, while the student of nature wants to figure how to categorize things based on this relationship.

So growing and coming to be are soley elements that are found in nature and lead toward something else but are nature themsleves.

What exactly does he mean by account, like does he . mean the circumstanses something is in?

So this would mean that all other things are produced? But if you have something like wood, then produced it? Are there other things that are able to produce objects besides people/animals?

So the fire within does not have a nature but it is that which makes a thing have a nature?

This seems to further convey this concept of a particular substance having multiple diffrent elements and how there isn't an interaction with these elements.

So learning then is just a reconfigration of konwledege?

So here is talking about hypothtical things and things that are taingable and we belive actually exist.

But this to some degree assumes that everyone in the city wants the same thing

Doesnt this seem useless though because will their message ever come across to the priosners

I feel as though he puts too much importance on to his philosophy and the way in which he sees things. What if the of the forms is not the outside of the cave but something that is even more missleading

Is this really a problem though you could have a government ruled by multiple people wouldn't this be better

This seems to contradicte what in his say thought if they are going to engage the most philosophy after they have retired from politics then this would suggest that there is a componet to it that is not philosphical. Bringing in to question how well suited philosophers are to be leaders.

This seems to be a very valid point ideal and theoritical concpets only so far in matters of politics and government. There is an element of real life experince that is need in these things that I think can not be acquired by thinking alone.

This seems to me like someone who is unlike most people in a given city, Socartes himself seems to hint at this fact as well. If this is the case then how is this individual or group of individuals going to be ruler or guardians of this city. Is it not nessairy that the person who is ruling over a group of people is somewhat like them so that this individual is able to know what is best for the group of people he is ruling over?

I feel like while it is true that these are traits that humans tend to avoid as they can lead to negative consquences. It is a basic fact of the world that most, if not all, humans are flawed. If we don't allow individulas who have some of these chracteristics to parctice philosophy or be viewed as having worthwhile philosophcal ideas because they do not have a philosophical nature then philosophy itself would be very limited.

Things may not be alike in all ways but as long as they have particular charactersitics that are are the same and which correspond to a particular thing then they will both be able to do this thing no matter how diffrent they are in other ways.

This seems very vauge isn't what is thought to be good by people the reason it is taken for a standard ?

This is intresting given his postition on justice if justice is good in in of itself then why is this notion of guilt tied to the people. People can often be wring and their is a close connection between justice and guilt.

You could apperciate good things and not have them but still be happy, saying that one has to have beautiful or good thing in order to be happy to a certain degree minimizes the concept and power of love.

This seems to have taken away all physical understandings of love here

So even Love itself seems not to be the ideal veresion of what it should be. Is it not possible for there to be a concept of Love in the forms. If there is then is this also in between ?

Yes this is true but you could have these things in different degrees so you may want to havre more of them

This seems to be putting animals in a higher positon that one would assume they would be put into. It seems to indicatae that animals also have postive quallities, which is not something one would think the acients would say about animlas

This is showing how he is moving of a from the material realm of things into the more abstract one.

This seems to indicate that he believes that wisdom is something that can not be taught or even inflenced by other people.

This seems to be in keeping with Socartes concept that nobody knows anything but I feel like then it does not make sense to say that Socartes is the only one is worthless. I think that in Socartes eyes he would probably knows just as little as anybody else he is just aware of that fact.

But don't you have to use the senses first to get to any philososphical thought so couldn't one argue that all phisosphy is rooted in the senses.

It intresting because it seems like Socartes is only judging someone based of off whether or not they practiced philosophy not morality or treating other people in a good way.

A lot of these opposits seem to baseed on subjective judgment of things.

I think the boday can serve to further provide knowlege for a particular perspective as it all you to see the world from a particular point of view even if it is not completely objective or all emcompassing.

Well if you gave your possesions the ablity to kill themselves then it is ievitable that at least one of them may do this. If the Gods really did not want people to kill themselves why would they just not give them the ablity to kill themselves

This seems to be becuase of the way in which human beings compare experineces that they have with one another altought I do not think this conceot of opposites is always the case.

I think that this statment is quite true because ones morals are shaped to some degree or another by the people that they interact with althought I do not think that one particular person can teach another virtue.

Well, there could be no teacher o f virtue in the sense that there might not actual people teaching virtue but every persons own individual life experince might in some way teach virtue. Thus, virtue at least in some degree may be taught its just that it's not the same for everyone and there are no set human teachers.

I feel like he is jumping at the conclusion that virtue is benfitial because it is a kind of wisdom and not because it is used along side wisdom. I mean how can he actually know when someone claims that they acted in accordence with virtue it was actually benfitial to them.

The right and wrong uses of theses things vary from person to person thought

I can see how people may act in . a way that they believe is virtuoius or and thus they is good but I dont know if the same is true for knowlege does having a lot of knowlege make someone act good. Do people believe that they scted good because they had a lot of knowlege ?

What exactly is this kind and how does he know this kind can be taught?

But if majority rule, which these actions are based on, is faulty as Socartes claims then it would wrong not to try and overthrow these law and make new ones. If you don not challenge laws in a bad system you are just as guilty as those who made them, in this case it would be the majority.

Well if the pursuit of justice is causing you more harm than the pursuit of injustice then I think it is fair to consider the fact that you may have a flawed notion of justice. Justice is justice because it seeks to reduce harm, this is obviously not always the case but if everyone who was in this position was like Socartes and declared that one should do what is justice because even if it caused harm to them then a society could be living in a false notion of justice which causes more harm to it's citizen then it does good.

But why does he care about the Athenians just a couple of lines before he made the argument that one should not look to the majority to gain an understanding of what justice is. The Athenians are the majority, so then why would he base the fact of whether or not his life is being living justly on the notion of justice that was set forth by the Athenians?

This seems to be a highly subjective claim, can one really know what living well is. Furthermore isn't living essential to living well so in this case won't this mean that living is just as important if not more so than living well. Also if we are going to define living well as an opposition to living badly then wouldn't this also be important. As our preception of what living well is can be defined by what living badly is not, thus living badly would also have to be essential to living well and again be just as important if not more so.

This notion of who has understanding becomes were hard to judge when it comes to certain matters. Like who has understanding concerning morality?

Well in the case of justice the most ideal aim would be to make a society that is as just for everyone as possible. This would mean that we would need to consider what each persons understanding of justice entails. However, one can only really know what justice means for them and not everyone else, so if we only look to someone who is deemed an expert in these matters to show us what justice is then we would not have an accurate representation of what is justice is in term of the whole of society just this one person.

Him being sentences to death indicates that in fact the majority can be wrong and is often wrong on serious so an argument to listen to the majority would be proven to be faulty.

Only an argument based on reason will change is mind noting else. The argument that Crito is bringing up are one that seem to be based on pathos or emotion.

This seems like a fairly selfish thing that Crito doing as his friend is about to die and his concerned with his self-image among the public as result of Socartes death

It's interesting how he relies on logic and rhetoric so much and ti he still take dreams to be evidence.

He seems not to be alarmed by the fact that he is going to die. This is most likely because he know even if he is dying he is not giving up philosophy were as if he had stayed alive he may not be able to do what he did before.

But one could also argue that their unjust actions are just, knowing full well that they are unjust so as to avoid punishment

How exactly did he come to this conclusion? They are Gods it would be reasonable to think that they have arrgument about things that humans do not.

Even if he becomes Euthyphro's student he is being indicted for things he did in the past before he was his student. Should he not be punished for some wrong he did just because he is attempting to not do that wrong now.

Should the notion of whether something is wrong or not be left to random citizens to judge?

This still gives them the right to be suspious. Just because they have all come true that does mean that he actually has the ability to make predictions.

I wonder if this has anything to do with other Presocratic philosophers who claimed that one had to work harder to attain real knowlege. Knowlege and learning don't just come from knowing things but reflecting upon these things and thinking critically.

Plato and Socrates believed that you shouldn't pursue wisdom only for the truth and not for any other reason. This speaks to the power and utlitiy that they gave to wisdom and it's role in the world.

So is he trying to say that we all have the same basic need and desires but different ways to fulfill them.

How can he come to this conclusion, if he states that all the atoms that are possible are already in this kosmos.

What was the thing that set of this blow though?

But if these atoms are the essential building blocks and there is nothing beyond them and they are so this like they are so fundamentally dislike then how can they be uniform and the same?

Is the void really an element or is it more of a space in which an element can be?

This seems like they are building upon Anaxagoras theory. He didn't really have a clear definition of what this stuff was but now they have narrowed it down and added more characteristics to it.

This is an interesting line is it trying to claim the justice and right are rarities for humans since they don't travel theses paths often?

This connects back to the other readings and put the list that was given into context.

Seems like he was of the opinion that morals can only be derived from reason, which is interesting.

If people do not have real world connections to their thoughts then they are just fooling themselves with baseless supposed knowledge.

Shows how human personifications are flawed and how we value ourselves too much. So much so that we try an impose all aspects of human life on to the gods.

This is an interesting concept that has not been brought up by other ancient philosopher yet. The fact that wisdom and reason can lead lead to civil and societal good. It seems as thought before hand there was belief that the Gods would take care of those things.

Emphasis on thinking and reason

I wonder if these kinds of concepts were the sources of Plato's belief that knowledge is not acquired but comes from within.

This seems to be interesting incorporation of certain mathematical concepts to real life. Math is based upon repeated patterns that are predicable. He is taking this concept and apply it to human life by making the assertion that humans lives repeat in a sense.

This is interesting because this notion of the proper way is actually something that a lot of philosophers seem to be concerned with.

The soul according to Thales is the cause of the production of motion, so everything that moves must have a soul that is allowing it to move but Aristotle is indicating that this is a faulty claim because he claims that lodestone which moves iron must also have a soul even though this is obviously not the case.

A rough break down of this argument would be that: All things are made of matter This matter can be effected overtime but can not change This matter thus is always going to stay the same and is in all things He then looks for cause or origins of this matter and believes it to be water.

This is an interesting example of inductive reasoning. Since he saw an olive crop that was large he assumed that is likely that most other olive crops are also large.