Phaedo Part I

There are three points that I will discuss: (1) Cooper's discussion of the "historic Socrates," (2) the theme of the cyclical nature of pleasure following pain, and (3) the care that Socrates demonstrates for his friends' souls. In terms of (1), I am truly not sure why Cooper claims that "Plato seems to take particular pains to indicate that Phaedo does not give us Socrates' actual last conversation or even one that fits at all closely with his actual views." (49) The three pieces of evidence that Cooper uses to support this claim are (a)the explicit reference to Plato's absence for the conversation, (b)the fact that Socrates discusses the existence of Forms and a nonphysical realm, and (c) the claim that the later does not comport with Socrates' own description of his work in the Apology or how he conducts himself in Plato's Socratic dialogues. In terms of (a), I think Cooper has to provide us with an explanation as to why Plato's reference to his own absence entails or is evidence that the discussion is not historically accurate. Indeed, I think that it is important to note that this reference comes after the narrator has already agreed to recall all of the details of the event, and seems at least implicitly to agree to do so "as exactly as you can." (58d-e) As for (b)and (c), it seems that unless one assumes a certain account of both the historic Socrates and his relationship to Plato's rights, one will not find that these clearly highlight that Plato is presenting his own view. So before I accept Cooper's claims, I would at least like to hear how someone who holds to his view would address my concerns. With regard to (2), the theme of the cyclical nature of pleasure following pain, I want to highlight two scenes in the dialogue that capture this idea. The first is when Socrates initially introduces the idea in 60c. There Socrates discusses the pleasure that he feels know that his chains are gone; the chains, of course, had caused him pain. I believe that this scene sets the tone not only for the discussion of why philosophers above all other human beings are most ready/willing to die (so that they can flee the prison, confusion, and pain of the body), but for the literary structure of the dialogue. Time and time again, Socrates takes up a question that clearly is causing his friends pain, and provides them with a philosophical response that brings them pleasure. I believe that we most clearly see this 85b-89c (of course, I should also include Socrates' response). Simmias and Cebes have just brought a painful set of challenges to a philosophical argument that Socrates' provided and had fostered pleasure within many of his friends. Socrates will go on to take this painful set of questions, and give an answer to them that brings he and most of his friends great pleasure. Thus, it seems to me, the dialogue notes that philosophy can follow same pattern of pleasure coming after pain: one experiences pleasure after one has adequately addressed a thorny philosophical question that is of great import. The latter idea brings me to (3). I was stunned by how patient Socrates was throughout the dialogue. He seriously considers every difficult question that his friends bring. He does not come across as exasperated, eager to show that he is right, or patronizing. Instead, he gently entertains and responds to the important questions that his friends ask him. I think that this is a beautiful representation of what teachers can, and perhaps should, be like. I find that my students are most receptive to me when they trust that I care for them as human beings, and am, as they would say, therefore willing to seriously engage with what they think about, what worries them, what worries them, and what brings them joy. I believe that we would do well to try to exemplify these Socratic (or maybe not if Cooper is right, I am not sure) characteristics.

Abstract_10/24/2013

Here is my abstract. I look forward to reading what you all think. Blessings- Nathan Contemporary philosophers often explicitly or implicitly hold that the primary topic under consideration in the Laches is courage. One sees this, for example, in the work of Vlastos, Penner, and Santas. I argue that this view is mistaken. Instead, I contend that the discussion of courage serves to flesh-out the primary theme of the dialogue—namely, that the Athenian educational process is in disarray. I will defend this view by arguing for four theses. First, the dominant contemporary view does not adequately account for the discussion of learning at the beginning and end of the dialogue. Second, throughout the Laches, the characters disclose that few if any have taught or are teaching the youth about the most important issues in life. Third, Socrates argues that the narrow conception of courage within the Athenian Warrior Ethic that the generals have adopted is insufficient; it does not provide the necessary resources for young men to turn out well. Fourth and finally, the discussion of courage demonstrates that both generals are malformed and need moral instruction. This, of course, is problematic given the role that the generals have as senior leaders within the Athenian government.

Symposium Part 1

I confess that I have not had time to read anyone else's post. So please excuse me if I repeat what others have said. I found myself puzzled by how the initial structure of the Symposium. The first aspect that stands out to me is just how removed the narrator is from the original events that he retells. Moreover, Plato seems to go to great lengths to inform us about exactly how many layers of narration exist between us and the events that did transpire. It seems like this could serve to accomplish at least two opposite ends. On the one hand, Plato could use this literary devise to emphasize just how important the material in the Symposium is; our narrator spent a substantial amount of time "memorizing" most of an conversation that lasted over the course of an evening. The details are so important that people are asking our narrator to recite what he remembers for their edification. On this view, we as the readers seem to be the recipients of a special gift. On the other hand, Plato's explicit reference to the narrative layers and our narrator's inability to recall exactly the details of the conversation (let alone the fact that he acknowledges that he is simply telling us the points that he found important) could serve to let us know that we are not getting the whole story or should caution against taking the story too seriously. Although I hesitate to accept the latter option, I do not want to deny that it is a live option. On a different note, I enjoyed the heavy dose of irony and sarcasm in the first quarter of this dialogue. Here are just three instances that come to mind: (1) Socrates invites someone of lower stature to a party with him and then ends up urging him to run along with.out him; (2) Agathon rebukes Aristodemus for not bringing Socrates to the party when Socrates is the one who technically brought Aristodemus; and(3)Aristophanes of all people cannot speak at his turn because he has the hick-ups. On yet another different note, I think it is interesting that around 174d Socrates says to Aristodemus "Let's go...We'll think about what to say 'as we proceed the two of us along the way.'" I find this interesting for at least three reasons. First, Socrates ends up needing to think about "something to say" because that evening is filled with conversation and speeches. Second, the allusion to the Illiad is great given that Socrates actually does stop off multiple times because he gets an idea before Aristodemus. Third, they never even have to come up with something to say about Aristodemus's attendance at the party, because Agathon wanted him there. So that line fills "pregnant with meaning." Well, that is all that I want to say for now. My next post will go into depth about the actually points made in the speeches.

Republic: Lingering thoughts on Democracy and a Reflection on BK X

I want to begin by noting a few thoughts that I have had about Plato's/Socrates's discussion of democracy in BK VIII. I confess that most of my previous thoughts about this involved the US. You can see this in my previous post. Yet over the past four days or so I have tried to do more to put the discussion in its historic context. Ancient Athens, at least around the time of Socrates and Plato, was a democracy. I utterly failed to recall this as I read BK VIII. So I now think that I am beginning to appreciate just how radical Socrates's statements were. Indeed, I wonder if they might not be more radical than his comments about philosopher kings. To call out democracy like he does, it seems to me, is far more confrontational than saying that the best solution for a feverish city is to have philosopher kings rule it. I do not mean to down play just how radical that idea is/was. Still, for Socrates and Adeimantus to say what they do about democracy is radical and remarkable in a significant part because they are a direct, explicit rejection of Athenian democracy. This brings me to a lingering question. What is the significance of the fact that Adeimantus rather than Glaucon interacts with Socrates in his discussion of democracy? Is Adeimantus more prepared to discuss this and receive what Socrates has to teach than Glaucon? I honestly do not recall any textual clues that would support this. For that matter, I am not sure if there are any clues that address my question. If we can, I would like to talk about this in class. Final question about BK VIII. Do we have any records about the reception of Socrates's discussion of democracy? Such a condemnation of democracy, I can imagine, could have sparked an anger that rivals that that we read about in the Apology. Turning my attention to BK X, I find myself struck by the end. Socrates finally moves in for an all out attack of poetry, particularly the Homeric tradition. This attack, if I understand the text correctly, is not just addressed at the "ideal city." Instead, it seems to be a practical application based on what Socrates et. al. have learned about the nature of justice and injustice. This discussion may be the most radical claim of the Republic. For a Greek person to argue for and truly desire the end of Homer's influence on Greek society is astonishing. Could he argue for a more radical proposal? Either way, we certainly need to appreciate just how revolutionary Plato is. Indeed, I am now beginning to understand why Southern conservatives (from 1860-~1950) often spoke passionately against the revolutionary methods of the French Jacobins and Plato! Final thought. Does anyone else feel like the Republic ends on a rather unexpected and disappointing note? I honestly cannot tell how seriously we are supposed to take the myth of Er. Is it an instance of a "noble lie?" Why does Plato end his discussion of justice, particularly his discussion of the most important reasons to be just, with a myth? I truly am interested in what you all think. I for one am not sure.