Anyone without a city because of his nature rather than his fortune is either worthless or superior to a human being.
Unless the city is a metaphor for a large social group, this is rather aimed at people who live in rural communities. We are less than a human being. Whilst simultaneously more than one? Would anyone mind explaining this?
For the city is their end, and nature is an end; for we say that something's nature (for instance, of a human being, a horse, or a household) is the character it has when its coming to be is complete
So a city is the final form of human social grouping? This is the pinnacle we can achieve? Given the state of some cities i have seen I feel we can do better. Maybe ancient Athens was just awesome.
natural type of village would seem to be an extension of a household, including children and grandchildren,
Basically a large nuclear family then?
and something can be infinite in potentiality only by division
Is this a reference to the concept of irregular numbers? For if they had a concept of that should they not understand that numbers themselves are infinite. I am confused as to why infinity is only possible through division.
For if !!omething6 comes to be, then clearly there will be some potential but not actual substance from 25 which <the substance> will come to be and into which the <substance> will have to change when it perishes
So is this just the basics of growth and decay in nature?
The manual craftsmen, we think, are like inanimate things that produce without knowing what they produce
There is a great deal of disdain here. Wouldn't the master craftsmen have started out, or at least briefly been manual craftsmen. Nobody is born a god of a craft.
Non-human animals live by appearances and memories but have little share in experience
I know it isn't the point of this sentence for the reader to focus on the animals but I do have to disagree. The amount of animals which form tight social groups is rather large according to my knowledge. For example elephants will often recognize each other after years of separation. And going off the next sentence that humans are the only ones who use craft and logic I would point out the octopus which has the ability to remember complex patterns and even open childproof jars. Like I said I am aware that his is not the point at all but I just had to disagree it irked me so.
By 'principles' in each genus I mean the things whose truth cannot be proved.
Is this meant to be the same idea as morality that we covered earlier? Is this saying that there is no way to adequately describe the reasons for our morality. I could be wrong here but I was just wondering.
They assume that we cannot know posterior things because of prior things
That kind of pokes a hole in Socrates' notion that all knowledge is remembered then doesn't it?
by 'expressing knowledge' I mean that having the deduction constitutes having knowledge
But does it? Just demonstrating knowledge does not mean that you have it. There are parrots that have been taught to recite Shakespeare. The slave boy that Socrates instructs also demonstrates knowledge but does not necessarily have it. He was simply following Socrates' instructions. Anyway I do not think this is true.
The natural thing is for the sick person, rich or poor, to knock at c the doctor's door, and for anyone who needs to be ruled to knock at the door of the one who can rule him. It isn't for the ruler, if he's truly any use, to beg the others to accept his rule. Tell him that he'll make no mistake in likening those who rule in our cities at present to the sailors we mentioned just now, and those who are called useless stargazers to the true captains.
This ties into the earlier notion about love; how one can only love something that one is in need of. That is not to say that the feeling that one has towards their doctor or ruler is love. Yet the Greeks had many words for the different types of love so it could tie in here as well.
they're led astray a little bit by the argument at every question and that, when these little bits are added together at the end of the discussion, great is their fall, as the opposite of what they said at the outset comes to light.
Well that is a very eloquent way of describing Socrates' method of dialogue. The man just chips away at your argument and then it topples over.
a thing that desires desires something of which it is inbneed; otherwise, if it were not in need, it would not desire it. I can’t tellyou, Agathon, how strongly it strikes me that this is necessary.
It is fascinating so see how Socrates so easily forces Agathon into a contradiction.
Didn’t you say some-thing like that?
It helps me to remember that Socrates is apparently rough to look at. So Agathon saying something as rude as there is no love of ugly things could have struck a cord with Socrates. Which is why I love this little snap from Socrates at the end. "Didn't you say something like that?" Awesome.
But if I have learned a singlelesson from my own field, the science of medicine, it is that Love does notoccur only in the human soul; it is not simply the attraction we feel towardhuman beauty: it is a significantly broader phenomenon. It certainly oc-curs within the animal kingdom, and even in the world of plants. In fact, itboccurs everywhere in the universe. Love is a deity of the greatest impor-tance: he directs everything that occurs, not only in the human domain,but also in that of the gods.
Now that is a comforting thought.
They sent him to theIsles of the Blest because he dared to stand by his lover Patroclus
I could have sworn Patroclus was his cousin.
Besides, no one will die for you but a lover, and a lover will do this evenif she’s a woman
This does not seem to be true. The first half of the sentence of course as the second half is a tad sexist in my opinion. You can die for ideals and notions. And there are countless examples of people dying for others with whom they were not lovers. Perhaps he meant this as a metaphor for the intellectual act of love. For example if I loved the ideas of someone and was willing to die for them.
Dionysus will soon enough be the judge of our claims to wisdom!”
Awesome quote. I may borrow that one
Dionysus was the god of wine and drunkenness
I find it fascinating that they are asking the god of drunkenness and wine to be the judge of their wisdom. I know that it is a dinner party but still, it is a fascinating choice of judge.
No, no,” he said. “Leave him alone. It’sbone of his habits: every now and then he just goes off like that and standsmotionless, wherever he happens to be. I’m sure he’ll come in very soon,so don’t disturb him; let him be
This is very interesting behavior. It does fit with the reset of Socrates' personality though. I also like how the guests are totally accepting of this. Yeah he's under the neighbors' porch he'll come by eventually.
Then failing to secure gold and silver, whenever it would not be just to do so, either for oneself or another, is not this failure to secure them also virtue
Yes I love the way Socrates dissects someones statements. He basically just made Meno say that the hording of wealth for oneself is rather virtuous. Great stuff. -Arthur
Can you tell me, Socrates, can virtue be taught? Or is it not teachable but70the result of practice, or is it neither of these, but men possess it by natureor in some other way?
"What is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax Just a fun quote I think fits well here. If anyone gets it let me know :)
Then, let it be, Crito, and let’s act in that way, since that’s theeway the god is leading us
This ties back to an earlier discussion we had in class concerning the monotheistic views of Socrates in a polytheistic culture. -Arthur
contrary to your commitments and your agree-ments to live as a citizen under us
Again signaling back to the dishonor that Crito feels towards Socrates abandoning his people and students. -Arthur
Well, then, if he disobeys that one man and sets no value onchis opinion or his praises but values those of the majority of people whohave no understanding, won’t something bad happen to him?
This is rather similar to Socrates' horse trainer argument from the Apology. - Arthur
What news is that? Or has the ship returned from Delos, atwhose return I must die?
I am assuming that this is a sarcastic joke on Socrates' part. -Charles "Arthur" Nevin
After that, then, I kept approaching one person after another. I realized,with distress and alarm, that I was arousing hostility.
This ties into what we talked about in the last class. Where we brought up that Socrates was a bit of a jerk who enjoyed poking holes in arguments to bring his opponents wisdom into question.
For I’m only too aware that I’ve no claim tobeing wise in anything either great or small.
Socrates' wisdom is based in the fact that he was aware of his lack of wisdom. It is really interesting when you think about it. He is aware of the gaps in his knowledge.
as I said, please don’t create an uproar, gentlemen—
Side note, you can feel the outrage and emotion of the courtroom. Socrates says this many times throughout the text. You can almost feel the anger and hatred that they had for this man.
A person is the measure of all things—of things that are, thatthey are, and of things that are not, that they are not
Granted my knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita is rather limited. But this does seem similar to the passage where Arjuna is informed of the infinite path that we are all on. Everything is in me and I am in everything. It does seem similar does it not? -Arthur
Protagoras says of mathematics, the subject matter is unknowable andthe terminology distasteful
This is a rather large jump from the Pythagorean's thinking process. Where as they thought that everything was made of numbers and thus by using numbers one could understand anything, the Sophists seem to distrust them with an intense passion.
for what-is-not is literally unsayable andunthinkable
This is fascinating. For if this is true then reason is all inclusive. It includes everything. Thus anything is possible. If it can be dreamed it can be done.
test and assess the arguments she gives.
Challenging the things that were told to him is a big step away from the Pythagoreans' way of doing things
but nothing is not: these things I bid you to ponder.
How can this be? If nothing is not then what is nothing? Is this in reference to the boundlessness of the human imagination?
But gaze upon things which although absent aresecurely present to the mind
I am curious as to what is meant by this. Is this a reference to the concept of belief or faith? Perhaps a reference to the idea that people have faith in things that they cannot see? If that is the case then it does not seem that he is so far separated from the earlier thinkers.
havingapparently rejected the world of sensory experience as unrea
Is this sort of the same as "I think therefore I am" in any way. As in the portion of Descartes' reasoning where everything beyond your thoughts is open to interpretation? It does seem that Parmenides is on the same track in terms of rejecting anything beyond his own thoughts as open to interpretation.
Rather, one must judge by understanding (the capacity to reason) whatfollows from the basic claim that what-is must be
This seems to similar to Occam's Razor to me. All that is must be seems rather close to the simplest answer is the correct one. Just a thought.
Sincenumbers are naturally first among these, and in numbers they thoughtthey observed many resemblances to things that are and that come tobe . . . and since they saw the attributes and ratios of musical scales innumbers, and other things seemed to be made in the likeness of num-bers in their entire nature, and numbers seemed to be primary in allnature,
It is strange that they take such solace in numbers when earlier they put so much faith in superstitious beliefs such as the avoidance of touching white roosters. Are they saying that beliefs such as those influence the numbers' outcome in a certain way? Or that the souls in the motes of the air are able to be counted and understood in a numerical fashion?
declared that the soul is themotes in the air, and others that it is what makes the motes move.
Is this saying that each soul makes up a small portion of the substance of the air? And that the overall number of souls creates the movement and mannerisms of the air? I like how deep that is.
Much learning [“polymathy”] does not teach insight. Other-wise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and moreoverXenophanes and Hecataeus.
Is this pointing out the difference between knowledge and wisdom? If it is, would it not be incorrect to point out that in order to obtain wisdom, knowledge must first be gathered. I know it was Socrates' way to state that he was not wise because he was aware of the gaps in his knowledge.
The natural and the supernaturalcoincide. Since Hesiod feels no compunction about asserting his claimswithout reasons to support them, he seems to think that the proper re-sponse to the story is acceptance.
This reminds me of Descartes' way of providing evidence for his arguments. He repeatedly seemed to use his own claims that he had previously made as evidence for his later claims. He simply assumed that since he had stated a claim before that it was evidence for his other claims. Which was one of the biggest issues I had with his text.