Phaedo topic

I wish to talk about 65c- The disassociation between soul and body.

The soul should be free from association with the body as much as possible.

 

What does this mean for each? (I won’t go into the pleasures aspect that much since it seems that it’s someones topic). How is the soul deceived by the body?

Where is thought located? In the body or the soul?

On 66 Socrates believed that man could have thought alone without the association of the body. How is this possible?

presentation 11/15

For my presentation I would like to focus on the idea of pleasure and pain being connected in a cyclic manner as presented by Socrates at 60 b4.  Specifically, i would like to talk about how this initial comment sets the dialogue that follows and how this relates to Socrates current position.

other presentation today

I’d like to discuss whether or not Socrates is defending a particular argument in this piece, or is merely refuting the arguments of Critias and Charmides.

sidenote:

HW 5 is substantially more work when you have 3 articles rather than 1… :(

presentation 11/10

For my presentation, I will return to the beginning of Charmides and discuss Socrates’ refutation of the temperance is modesty argument from 160e3-161b2.

Presentation

I wish to focus on sections 174-175: Why did Socrates bring up the relationship between good and evil? I also wish to focus on how this ultimately intervenes with “happiness”.  Nothing about the “knowledge of knowledge” seems to satisfy Socrates in understanding the  involvement of our”happiness”

presentation

For my presentation I will be focusing on lines 167a-170e10.  Specifically I will be focusing on weather it is possible for something to be both itself and the absence of itself (167b11-c3)

Presentation 11/3

My presentation will focus on Socrates’ dream of an ideal state in which temperance “ruled over us” at 173a9-173d5. My discussion will focus on whether or not “acting scientifically would make us fare well and be happy” and how this question plays a role in the rest of the dialogue and, specifically, in the conclusion of the dialogue.

Charmides

For my presentation, I will be looking at the image of Charmides being presented versus the depth of identity we can see within Charmides by reading closely. No need to prepare unless you desire to read over the dialogue again, as I will be leading a reading through the first few pages. Sorry this took so long to post.

 

Focus

So I would like to focus on what Socrates and Critias are discussing between 165c4 and 167a1. There seems to be a disagreement on what science is, and whether or temperance qualifies as one.

 

The Soul and the Body

This is just a comment, not neccessarily what I’ll be focussing on in class on Monday:

It seems to me that Socrates has much to say on the nature of the Soul in the dialogues we’ve read thus far.  In the Phaedrus, the Soul seems to be the self-mover which inhabits different bodies under various reincarnations, but which is separate from any particular body. In the first part of the Charmides that we’ve read,  the Soul is described as the source of bodily health and disease.  Both of these dialogues point to a dualism of Soul(possibly Mind in some ways) and Body. While he seems to be consistent in arguing the importance of the Soul to the Body, he has not yet said much on the importance of the Body to the soul.  Does anyone have any thoughts to how this relationship might be explained by Socrates/Plato?

 

Side fun Plato fact: The origin of the Myth of Atlantis comes from Plato in the Timaeus.  People have been trying to find it ever since.  Apparently Poets can give better directions to a long lost city than Philosophers.

Minuets 10/11/10

Phaedrus
Comments/Reactions
• Most accounts are of Plato reciting Socrates, this is Phaedrus reciting a speech
• More in the moment

Socrates: the speech is repetitive
Socrates competes with Lysias speech by restating what he believes him to have said
• Socrates focuses on internal mechanism of love
• Lysias focuses more on behavioral aspects, what they do
• Socrates does not believe in his own retort to Lysias’ speech as it downplays what he believes to be the importance of love
• Lysias’ speech in itself is thought of as a well written speech

Competition of nature vs. city
• 230 b2: Socrates praises nature as being ascetically beautiful
• 230 d4: Socrates desires knowledge which can only be obtained in the city
• Nature is “not willing” to teach him but people are
• 230 d :Phaedrus claims that Socrates never steps outside the city walls
• This is a false claim as Socrates has served on military campaigns
• Countryside: relaxing, less focus on knowledge and learning but more focus on activities such as farming
• Socrates and Phaedrus are having an intellectual conversation in nature
• Combines the two settings

Story of Boreas
• North wind kidnaps a girl
• Warning for children
• Why is this so important? Location, meaning,
• This story distracts Phaedrus from his original task so it must hold some importance to him
• Phaedrus may simply wish to postpone his discussion with Socrates
• Similar themes in story of Boreas as in Lysias’ speech, love and lust
• Showing a “bad” form of love (lust and desire)

Purpose of Boreas story to Phaedrus and Socrates
• Phaedrus asks if Socrates believes the story
o State of mind in reference to story or internal thoughts
o Belief shows commitment to truth
• Polytheism vs atheism
• Socrates gives an evasive no as an answer

A Sculpture of Plato?

A pretty jaunty review of a book about a possibly contemporaneous sculpture of our dear Plato, giving evidence for his wrestling prowess:

The ‘Berkeley Plato’ story: Aristocles of Athens’ grandson, some say, nicknamed Plato from the gymnasium, founded one called the Academy, hit on wise words, and, ‘perhaps in his fifties or early sixties’ was remembered as macro-bearded aristo and be-ribboned winner of a good bloke through a ‘real time’ portrait. Sculpted by Silanion. Set up in his HQ c.370-65 B.C. by Mithradates the Persian. (You must not forget those bibbons, Best Beloved.)

A herm-portrait in Parian marble, one piece plus added shoulders, was taken from the statue’s head c.120-60 CE, with headband retaining twin ribbons draped down clavicle and pec; ears asymmetric, left well-damaged as sporting prowess, right slanting backwards toward the top; …

Minutes of September 29th

ALCIBIADES

“Know Thyself!” Chart

• Hope is that, by understanding seeing, we can understand knowing.
• Knowing=Ability to answer questions, competence

• Parallel between soul and eye: The only things that can be seen are things that are illuminated through being outside of the eye.  One can only see reflections of light.  Therefore, one cannot see itself.  Problem of soul: Maybe soul cannot see itself either.
• Parallels between seeing and knowing:

-you have to be awake both to see and to know.

-darkness: you can see in the dark, but there is nothing to see just as you could know something, but not be       probed with questions.

• Problem with analogy: Analogy based off tool-the sould uses the eye as tool to look into itself.
• Why Mirror as symbol for looking at one’s eye and not, for example, statue?-Mirror changes as you change and does not have interference of artist.
• Parallel between recording of beliefs and mirror:

-One’s eye could be focusing on reflection of one’s whole body or background, but focuses in on eye.  One could focus on any recorded belief, but focuses in one’s own beliefs in order to examine one’s soul.

-Once you agree with different beliefs in recording, you can know a little about your soul.  Survey of beliefs isn’t informing you, but your agreement.

• What kind of thing would a soul trying to know itself try to know?

-Oftentimes you may not know how you feel about something, but this is discovering something.  Discovering that you are indeterminate in that area.  For example, “Do I know if I love him?”  Likewise, there could be something in your eye that your eye can not see directly.

-When eye looks in mirror, it distinguishes itself from everything else.  When soul looks at itself, it looks at, and distinguishes itself from what it is not.  For example, are hands part of the soul?  No, if tools are separate from tool user.

-Soul might want to know what class it is in, i.e. animal just as eye might looks at other things similar to eye, i.e. telescope or microscope.

• How do I know when I’m engaging in examination of myself that I’m examining myself?  And similarly, how does eye know when it’s looking at itself for the first time if it doesn’t know itself?

Eye

-Eye can recognize itself because it moves when looking.

-Or maybe one is familiar with what others’ eyes look like.

Soul

-If I were to change my soul, I would find that my agreement with different beliefs changes.  One can sense the shifting of one’s soul.

-How would you distinguish soul of someone who shares the same beliefs as you from your own?

1. Distinguish your distinct background from theirs.

2. If, however, you share the same exact background and experience, it wold be impossible for you to distinguish your soul from theirs.

• Why is soul unable to efficiently examine itself directly?

-Soul is constantly changing, presents problem.  For one to know their soul, one would have to take figurative snapshot of it, which is unrealistic.

-Your friend can know you better than yourself.  Your concept of yourself isn’t as cognitive as your friend’s concept of you.  You don’t always reflect on your actions in terms of how they define you.  Your friend has better standpoint for observation of your patterns.

• If soul tried, could it see itself?  Is looking at one’s own soul like looking at one’s own elbow, possible without a mirror, but easier with the aid of one?

-There are some things the soul can know about itself better than any observer of the soul.  There are ways for one to hide things from observer.

-Socrates states that the soul cannot observe itself in Alcibiades, but in Charmides, Socrates discusses the possibility of turning inwards and examining the soul.

• Why would soul need to examine entire concept of itself when it can access aspects of itself whenever needed.

-You can learn things about your soul purely under the initiative of examination.  Some things don’t just pop out without intention of examination.  Self-examination involves mining deeper and coming to unexpected realizations.  Upon coming to these realizations, one can change something about one’s soul.

• S. prompts A. to realize he simply wants to dominate politically.  This urge of A.’s is not consistent with his view on human affairs and belief that examination of soul has beneficial consequences.
• What is the public part of the soul?

-The expressive part of the soul is comparable to the reflective surface of the eye.

• Recording of beliefs vs. Another person (observer of soul)- Observer of soul is more reflective, can more precisely tailor questions and suggestions to particular soul.
• One can discover the most information about oneself if one is in communication with knowing part of another’s soul as opposed to other parts of another’s soul, such as, for example, the appetite part or the money loving part.-This is comparable to looking into seeing part of another’s eye, which is the most reflective part.

HIPPIAS MAJOR

• longer than Hippias Minor and written two days before.
• kalon=the fine, fineness, beauty, the beautiful, excellence through external quality-often translated as noble
• Kant says beauty is something that makes universal, objective claim on everyone to like it.  Everyone should esteem that thing.  Value lies in its structure, not its usefulness.
• H.=self-professed knower of everything-polymath, good at talking to people, makes his own shoes and adept at other skills, does not seem pompous, motivated by what is commonly thought, and confident in the power of solitary reasoning.

-297d: “And I don’t know where to turn…”

-Views conversational method as a total drag.  Folly to think we have answers to all questions.  Some questions take long to answer, which is not conducive to conversation.

• H. requires reputation through kinds of lectures he gives-286a
• H. has overall view that wisdom progresses over time due, in part, to the fact that we have more insight into the past.
• How does the way S. attempts to educate people differ from the way H. attempts to educate people?

-H., who takes himself to be great teacher, teaches by teaching student about genealogies.  Study of genealogies gives you model to follow when you want to know how to act.

• 286a3, H. tells pleasant stories for pleasure.
• Why would S. be interested in talking to H, the polymath?

-H. is only visiting for short amount of time and S. is interested in people.

-Perhaps S. is interested in the fine life and wants to ask H. about this.

• S. reports talking to himself in this dialogue.  What is the reason for this?

-Perhaps he has met his match in H.

-Restructures dialogue so he is solving problem w/ H. rather than arguing with him.

-Maybe H. is defensive or sensitive.

-Maybe there is reason S. doesn’t want H. to hate him like all of his other opponents.

-Maybe he really did engage in dialogue with himself.

-S. knows H. doesn’t like to engage in dialogue- showing him how to think in solitude.

• What could be the value of talking about the fine?

-286c

-297: knowing what is fine is not just aesthetic knowledge, but is most crucial kind of knowledge.

Minutes for 9/27

We started the class off by trying to decide whether or not one actually can learn justice from the “people in general.” Moral beliefs seem to be something which we have some internal sense or belief about, which then we tend to take as being objective in the world.  This is opposed to other objective knowledge, which we then internalize.  The problem then with moral beliefs,  is that if everyone has their own unique subjective viewpoints, how do we resolve differences between one person’s viewpoint and another?  Invariably, sorting all this out would take a substantial amount of time, but there do seem to be some points of moral beliefs which would be common to all or nearly all people, from which one could at least get a grounding on a particular moral subject, from which one could then go on to investigate further with the help of an expert.

In Alcibiades though, Socrates does not seem to think that there is any way to learn anything of justice from the general public because they disagree.  But it is unclear what it is they disagree about.  It seems reasonable that they might disagree about certain cases of justice, for example, they might disagree that the sentence at the trial of Socrates was or was not just.  However, to even have that disagreement, seems to require an idea of what justice is, even if one is not keenly aware of its intricacies.  If they are actually arguing about justice writ large, then it seems that since justice is something that effects the people in general, that some kind of average or synthesis of everyone’s views would create a fairly good best fit for what justice actually is.  Another point to consider is that even experts in a field disagree once certain ground points are established.  All movie critics for example would be able to agree on certain criteria as they relate to a certain movie, such as the genre, the overall quality of the film, but then they might disagree on the quality of the special effects, how well a particular actor played a part convincingly and so on.  Even though they disagree on these details, one could still learn from them up to the points they disagree.

So it seems that Socrates might be wrong in thinking that we cannot learn anything from the people in general, if by learning, we mean the acquiring of stable views over time. If Socrates means a more formal systematic approach then probably not.

Midway through the dialogue, the argument switches from whether or not Alcibiades knows anything about justice in order to give advice, to whether or not he is a better candidate to so than anyone else.  We are also presented with the question of whether Alcibiades knows nothing of justice, or just not a lot about it, and we must then consider whether or not he simply wishes for the honor to be heard, or whether in fact Alcibiades natural intuition on justice is actually better than that of other men.

Socrates does not think that Alcibiades has such natural intuition, and certain that Albiciabes upbringing is not even on the same tier of that of Kings of Sparta or Persia, where a more active role is taken in fostering such natural abilities.  Alcibiades, however has not even considered these men, but had rather been more concerned with his fellow Athenians.  However, Socrates seems to convince him that these foreign competitors would make some cultivation of the soul worth doing. Of course, now to figure out exactly how one cultivates oneself.

This leads us to the second half of the class.

So how does one learn about one’s ignorances?

1. You are asked about X.

2. You recall whether you know about X.

3. Go try X, See if you can.

4. You realize that issue X is controversial.

5. See if you have any thoughts associated with X.

6. Reflecting on whether you have had the adequate experience required to know X.

7. See if you can explain X.

For Socrates option seven is the best way, and is the objective of most of his dialogues.  Particularly in Alcibiades, Socrates is trying to show that Alcibiades would be a terrible advisor if he cannot explain the things he is supposed to be advising about, and thus he needs to perform some self cultivation in order to be a better advisor and leader.

For the final bit of class, we discussed the Pupil and Mirror analogy.  Socrates says that in order for an eye to examine itself it must look at it’s reflection in a mirror, or at the part of the eye that does the seeing.  Similarly, then for the soul, it must examine a book of beliefs where there is agreement, or else in one’s thoughts which hold one’s beliefs.

class notes 9/22/10

Alcibidies: other alcibidies
Alcibidies 2 someone mimicking platos technique.
(plato)
Many non Socratic conversations of Alcibiades
Plutarch: life of alcibidies, relies on historical sources
432- alcibidies 20 socrates-32
alcibidies
Much fame, horse racing, honor, respected speaker,
Ends up with a negative reputation- pirate, switched sides during Peloponnesian war, Sicilian expedition
Question: should we read these works with former knowledge of Alcibiades reputation
Claim that Socrates fails: Alcibiades ends up saying he will study with Socrates but doesn’t

Socrates
Seduction of alcibidies
Socrates approaches alcibidies and gives him 2 reasons why he should listen to him
Socrates calls for a close personal relationship with alcibidies

Question 1:
How does Socrates keep alcibidies interest
Leave with the impression of meeting up later. Common theme in platos dialogues

Does alcibidies change? Is he affected?

118a: Just and admirable, good and advantageous

Why is Socrates interested in alcibidies?
Socrates own benefit: patronage, political insight, spending time with a different person,
For Athens benitif: improves governing,
Affirmation of life

Socrates seems fuller of himself.
Says he is indispensible
Creates curiosity
Relative power of logic
‘sent by the gods”

Alcibidies is complacent

106d : must you have learned intentionally?
One knows only what one has acquired
One acquires only what one wants to. Accidental knowledge acquisition
One wants only what one knows one does not have
One acquires X is one wishes to acquire whatever is equal to X

107d: what will you discuss in the Athenian assembly? The Athenians own business

108: comparative terms

110b: did you ever think you did not know justice? How could you ever learn justice if you only learn what you think you don’t know? Childhood