For we think friendship is the greatest good for cities, since it best prevents civil conflict in them;
I'm not sure whether I agree with this or not
For we think friendship is the greatest good for cities, since it best prevents civil conflict in them;
I'm not sure whether I agree with this or not
and a human being naturally grows up armed and equipped for intelligence and virtue,
Is intelligence natural or can it be taught?
t is evident why a human being is more of a political animal than is any bee or any gregarious animal
so if a city exists with people, it has to be political in order to run efficiently?
Now there is a natural distinction between the female and the slave.
Interesting comparison....
since everyone does every-thing for the sake of what seems good
I don't necessarily agree with this
a dead man has the same <visible> shape and figure that the living man has, but still it is not a 35 man.
How would someone dying change what he was? A dead man is still technically a man
We expect one and the same individual with this general education to be able to judge in practically 10 all subjects
How do we determine how educated someone is?
for coming to be is the perishing of what is not, and perishing is the coming to be of what ~n~
So it's just a big continuous cycle?
omes to be healthy, for instance, from being sick and sick from being 35 healthy,
You can't have one without the other
If, then, water cannot come to be from fire, or earth from water, then neither will anything be dark from being pale, or hard from 25 being soft;
We've seen this argument before in earlier readings
the matter <is something> potentially, and the form <is that thing> actually.
So the matter turns into the form?
Further, there will be many patterns of the same thing,
Would there be one overall form of something and the forms of that thing under than form?
bad things 985a were apparently more numerous than good things,
how can this be possible if everything has an opposite?
hot and cold, or fire and earth
everything has an opposite
every case knowledge, rather than experi-ence, implies wisdom
But wouldn't you need experience to gain knowledge?
Chance is not the same as luck, since it extends more widely
is the difference that luck is generally a good thing where as if something happens by chance, it could be good or bad?
everything that is said to result from chance or luck has some definite cause.
Is this the idea that everything happens for a reason?
For odd and even,
we're also getting more of the idea of opposites/contraries
hat thing is their nature and substance.
We're starting to see more about the forms here
The subject is one in number but two in form.
This phrase kind of confuses me
for it is impossible to know what a thing is if we do not know whether the thing is.
All of this kind of relates back to the forms
Again
When looking at the last reading, and the 4 subjects that were brought up to be considered to have knowledge, where would this type of reasoning fall?
A belongs to B in its own right in the following cases:
A lot of these examples are a little difficult to follow along with. I feel like it would be a little easier with actual examples rather than just the letters
hose who assume that there is no knowledge at al
How can there be no knowledge at all?
both those who lack knowl-edge and those who have it think they are in this condition, but those who 15 have the knowledge are really in it.
Once again showing that having knowledge puts you on a different level than everyone else
Then evidently they lead us towards truth.
How exactly do numbers lead us towards the truth? Like we discussed when reading Pythagoras, numbers are really only a concept, so how exactly can they lead us towards the truth?
I mean number and calculation,
Makes me think about when we read about Pythagoras
Then education is the craft concerned with doing this very thing
Once again emphasizing education/knowledge.
Realizing that the same applies to the soul, when someone sees a soul disturbed and unable to see something, he won't laugh mindlessly, but he'll take into consideration whether it has come from a brighter life and is dimmed through not having yet become accustomed to the dark or whether it has come from greater ignorance into greater light and is dazzled by the increased brilliance.
I really like this comparison
In the knowable realm, the form of the good is the last thing to be seen, and it is reached only with difficulty.
What exactly is the form of good? I feel like something this broad is hard to give an actual form to.
Do you suppose, first of all, that these prisoners see anything of themselves and one another besides the shadows that the fire casts on the wall in front of them?
It's all a matter of perspective
I'm imagining it.
The allegory of the cave is definitely really interesting! I'm excited to read this!
Every soul pursues the good and does whatever it does for its sake.
Whats good for every could could be different.
What about those who define the good as pleasure?
This shows that different people have different definitions for good. How exactly can we know if something is good based on what one person might say/define as good?
philosophic nature
They keep bringing up the idea of the "philosophic nature". Is this the same thing or a similar idea of a philosophic form?
Nonetheless, we were compelled by the truth to say that no city, constitution, or individual man will ever become perfect until either b some chance event compels those few philosophers who aren't vicious (the ones who are now called useless) to take charge of a city, whether they want to or not, and compels the city to obey them, or until a god inspires the present rulers and kings or their offspring with a true erotic love for true philosophy.
Hypothetically this perfect city would work out but in reality, the idea is way to broad
And if truth led the way, we'd never say, I suppose, that a chorus of evils could ever follow in its train.
What exactly are they defining as the truth?
When such people have reached maturity in age and education, wouldn't you entrust the city to them and to them alone?
This is kind of a scary thought
Only the philosophers have knowledge
I feel like this is a common thought that is brought up.
You agree, then, that the women and men should associate with one another in education, in things having to do with children, and in guarding the other citizens in the way we've described
They should be equal in everything
That's absolutely right.
These are so very weird laws/ideas.....
And then, as the children are born, they'll be taken over by the officials appointed for the purpose,
So is the idea of having children just about reproducing rather than having a family?
Then it's clear that our next task must be to make marriage as sacred as possible.
Is it nit considered sacred at this point?
but e in all of them women are weaker than men.
this just annoys me
Do you know of anything practiced by human beings in which the male sex isn't superior to the female in all these ways?
All they are trying to do is prove that men are superior for women.
bald and long-haired men are the same or opposite.
All of these examples are just showing the binary ideas/thoughts, like it has to be one or the other
Or should we keep the women at home, as incapable of doing this, since they must bear and rear the puppies, while the males work and have the entire care of the flock?
More of the sexism that always comes up
I suspect that it's a lesser crime to kill someone involuntarily than to mislead people about fine, good, and just institutions. Since it's better to run this risk among enemies than among friends, you've well and truly encouraged mel
This to me seems as if they are implying that it is okay to be unjust to your enemies
necessary for a city
I would argue that all of these are necessary for a city
gods
So the gods are on charge of determining whether someone is just or unjust?
we separate the most just and the e most unjust.
What exactly dictates the most just from the most unjust?
They say that to do injustice is naturally good and to suffer injustice bad, but that the badness of suffering it so far exceeds the goodness of doing it that those who have done and suffered injustice and tasted both, but who lack the power to do it and avoid suffering it, decide that it is profitable to 359 come to an agreement with each other neither to do injustice nor to suffer it. As a result, they begin to make laws and covenants, and what the law commands they call lawful and just.
I kind of got lost while reading this
But this city is not, given human psychology, a real possibility.
I would say this is partially because everyone has a different set of ethics.
completely good city
This could all be based on individual opinion
ho are even more pregnant in their souls than intheir bodies
This is just confusing me
“Now, some people are pregnant in body, and for this reason turn moreto women and pursue love in that way,
This is what I was saying earlier. This is really the only mention of love in a feminine way.
Human beings
This is a very common explanation for why we care about our offspring
what use is Love to human beings?
This goes back to the story of why we love
is in betweenmortal and immortal.”
How is this possible?
Then how could he be a god if he has no share in good and beautifulthings?
I feel like this is getting into a completely different argument
for there is no love of ugly ones.
This is so mean
At the time he desires and loves something,
It's annoying me that they keep only using "he" for terms of love
t, he is himself the mostbeautiful and the best; after that, if anyone else is at all like that, Love isresponsible
I feel like when people think of love and Aphrodite as the goddess of love, it has a very feminine connotation. It's interesting that they keep bringing it up using "he".
Love
Love is talked about in this very artistic sense
violence never touches Love.
A lot of the things that he is saying that 'love is not' are negative. Does this mean that he is implying Love can only be good? And I'm curious to see what other people think about this idea.
Love has extraordinary good looks, and betweenugliness and Love there is unceasing war
So the only way to be loved is if you are attractive?
For he walks not on earth, noteven on people’s skulls, which are not really soft at all, but in the softest ofall the things that are, there he walks, there he has his home.
Some of the things that they are bringing up/referencing are very random...
Love was born to hate old age and will come no-where near it.
Is this trying to say that love is mostly a physical thing (physical attraction in reference to beauty)?
Love seems to me very useful indeed.
It's definitely clear that love is very important not not only humans, but plants, animals and the gods as well
Therefore I say Love is the most ancient of the gods, the most honored,and the most powerful in helping men gain virtue and blessedness,whether they are alive or have passed away.
This is very interesting overall
So they punished him for that, andmade him die at the hands of women.
Does this have anything to do with the sexism that was very prevalent during this time?
it’s simply because I’m a maniac, a
This whole conversation is just odd to read, especially with the tone that is coming across in the conversation.
We are told that when each person dies, the guardian spirit who wasallotted to him in life proceeds to lead him to a certain place, whence thosewho have been gathered together there must, after being judged, proceedeto the underworld with the guide who has been appointed to lead themthither from here.
There's a lot of talk about the underworld but not really anything/anywhere else. Why is this?
Form of life itself
Getting back into the idea of the Forms
This is how the soul of a philosopher would reason:
This is putting the wisdom of philosophers above everyone else
Socrates, the soul resembles the divine, and the body resem-bles the mortal.
I like the way that this is worded. I think that this is a really good description of the overall thought process
when the soul and the body are together, nature80orders the one to be subject and to be ruled, and the other to rule and bemaster.
This is an interesting way to look at it
When did our souls acquire the knowledge of them?
This idea is really interesting
Therefore, he said, if there is such a thing as coming to life again, it72would be a process of coming from the dead to the living?
This brings a new aspect to the argument
such virtue is only an illusory appearance of virtue;
Back to the discussion on virtue
practice philosophy in the right way,
Is there really a right way to practice philosophy?
And that freedom and separation of the soul from the body is calleddeath?
I think that this is what most people would consider death.
fills uscwith wants, desires, fears, all sorts of illusions, and much nonsense, sothat, as it is said, in truth and in fact no thought of any kind ever comes tous from the body.
Is he saying that these things can only happen if you have a body?
Do webelieve that there is such a thing as death?
What exactly does he mean by this? I think most people would be able to agree that death is a thing, but what happens after death or to your soul is a different question.
the wise would resent dying,whereas the foolish would rejoice at it.
Is the implication that because he is dying, he will be with the gods, which are supposedly his 'good master', and that is what makes him wise?
that a god is our protectorand that we are his possessions.
It seems that people are put on the planet to serve the gods, and make sure that they are happy.
When she saw us, she cried out and said thesort of thing that women usually say
Even though they don't particularly say anything too sexist here, you still get the idea that women just don't have the same respect that men have during this time just by the way that this is worded.
Surely virtue makes us good?
I feel like this depends on what your moral standards are.
whether we should attack virtue as something teachable, or as a natural gift, or in whatever way it comes d to men.
virtue is something that is different for everyone, so I don't necessarily think that it is teachable.
Do you mean that they believe the bad things to be good, or that they know they are bad and nevertheless desire them
This is a very interesting idea. Everyone believes that their own thoughts are correct, but it's interesting to think of whether people who do bad things think of their actions as good and vice versa.
it is easy to say that a man's virtue consists of being able to manage public affairs and in so doing to benefit his friends and harm his enemies and to be careful that no harm comes to himself;
Is harming someone else though virtuous? Even if they are an enemy?
Can you tell me, Socrates, can virtue be taught
I think that this is a very interesting question to start the reading off with. I also think that this is something that we should discuss in class.
Are the Laws telling the truth ornot?
This is all a matter of opinion
hen are our lives worth living with a wretched, seriouslydamaged body?
Mind/Body distinction?
And we should value good opinions, but not bad ones?
But isn't this a matter of opinion as well?
But you can surely see, Socrates, that one should care aboutdmajority opinion too.
Thats what I was thinking as I was reading the paragraph above
There are many reasons, men of Athens, why I’m not resentful at thiseoutcome—that you voted to convict me—and this outcome wasn’t unex-pected by me. I’m much more surprised at the number of votes cast on36each side: I didn’t think that the decision would be by so few votes but by agreat many
This is interesting that it seems as if he isn't too impacted by the outcome. or someone who seems very strong willed, it's interesting to see this perspective
What can he mean, then, bysaying that I’m wisest? Surely he can’t be lying:
This starts to show how highly he thought of himself
possess superhuman wisd
Where exactly does this idea of human vs superhuman wisdom come from?
nd what about the gods, Euthyphro?
Do they believe that the gods cannot disagree with each other in these types of arguments?
prosecuting those who commit an injustice, such as murder ortemple robbery, or those who’ve done some other such wrong, regardlessof whether they’re one’s father or one’s mother or anyone else whatever.
Is this something that everyone else disagrees on? Morally speaking, this seems to make the most sense, so it's surprising to me that Euthyphro would have his opinion on the matter stand out from other people
eletus, ifyou agree that Euthyphro is wise about the gods, you should also regardbme as correctly acknowledging them and drop the charge
I'm still confused as to how Euthyphro's viewpoints about the gods are different than what everyone else believes
t’s ridiculous, Socrates, for you to think it makes anydifference whether the dead man’s a stranger or a relative.
This starts to open up a discussion on morals
They probably think you rarely put yourself atother people’s disposal, and aren’t willing to teach your own wisdom.
Is this referring to his different religious beliefs from the majority of the people in Athens?
we are constantly conversing with people who contradict us. He saysdogmatically that contradiction is impossible,
This in itself is a contradiction
He concludes as follows that nothing is:
The idea that is in this fragment is kind of difficult to follow
Two arts of witchcraft andmagic have been discovered—errors of the soul and deceptions ofopinion. (11
I think that it's interesting that witchcraft is being brought up
He was the first to use in dialectic the argument of Antisthenesthat attempts to prove that contradiction is impossible.
This is something I know that we touched upon last class, but I think it would be interesting to bring this up again in discussion
Concerning the gods I am unable to know either that they are orthat they are not or what their appearance is like.
This seems to be considering something besides the anthropomorphic view of God that most people seem to have
ut all things areatoms, which he calls forms
This reminds me of the idea of the forms in Plato's Republic
here can be an atom the size of a kosmo
Is he saying that there can be one singular atom the size of the cosmos? I think I might be interpreting this wrong as it seems that this is going against everything else that is being said
The sun is carried around in a larger circle around the moon
Is this the first ideas of the sun revolving around the Earth/the flat Earth idea?
The things in the one kosmos have not been separated from oneanother, nor hacked apart with an axe—neither the hot from the coldnor the cold from the hot.(
Is his claim that everything is mixed together in way way or another, except for the mind?
All things were together.” All things except Mind (Nous), which is pure andunmixed, and which knows and controls all things.
This reminds me of the mind/body distinction. Except he is saying that the mind is separate from everything else, not just the body
halfthe distance, but these are infinite, and it is impossible to get throughthings that are infinite.
Just because it is impossible to get through something that is infinite, why does that make him question whether or not motion is a thing or not? I'm really curious to hear other peoples perspectives on this idea.
it is without starting or ceasing, since coming-to-be andperishing
I feel like he is using a lot of opposites in order to explain things which is making what he is trying to say like a riddle
What-is must be whole, complete, unchanging, and one. It canneither come to be nor pass away, nor undergo any qualitative change
What kind of things would would fit all of these categories? This idea is very unrealistic, and it's interesting to see this belief.
ogos).
Is this where logos, pathos, and ethos come from? Logos keeps getting brought up, and I'm just interested to know of this is where it comes from.
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and dark,Thracians, that theirs are grey-eyed and red-haired.
Another example as to how people are going to perceive the gods based on their own cultures and ideals.