Thursday, February 23, 2017
The Republic Book 1
Book one of the Republic begins with Socrates and Glaucon coming back from a festival. While coming back, they run Polemarchus and his friends and decide to o talk with him at his house. All discussions of Justice aside, I think that Plato is trying to make a statement via how the discussion transpires. Plato is trying to show that philosophizing is something that should happen naturally in everyday life and is not something that has to be forced. I found this interesting because I think that a commonly held view among a lot of people is that philosophy is meant for wizened old professors in ivory towers. Plato, in all of his dialogues not just the Republic, seems to go out of his way to disprove this theory. He always has Socrates in a more natural element and I think its something worth pointing out.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
The Sophists
For this post, I wanted to further explore the connections I saw in class between the sophists and the modern day lawyers. The sophists really seem to be the forerunners of our modern conception of lawyers. The most obvious connection is the emphasis on rhetoric. I think that when most people picture a lawyer, they imagine them arguing a case in a courtroom. The sophists are also all about arguments as well. They claimed that they are able to take and defend any argument using rhetoric. Isn't this exactly why people hire defense lawyers?
I also think that both sophists and lawyers tend to share a view that you do not always have to pursue the truth, and a willingness to defend things that they know are not true. When I pointed this out in class some people thought I was attacking lawyers with the statement but that i really not how I feel. I think that in many instances this mindset is a positive otherwise how would any guilty party get proper representation in court. Likewise, I think the sophists felt the same way and reflect this attitude by offering training to any who could afford it. They were not concerned with how the rhetoric might be used but simply wanted people to know rhetoric and be able to defend ideas.
I also think that both sophists and lawyers tend to share a view that you do not always have to pursue the truth, and a willingness to defend things that they know are not true. When I pointed this out in class some people thought I was attacking lawyers with the statement but that i really not how I feel. I think that in many instances this mindset is a positive otherwise how would any guilty party get proper representation in court. Likewise, I think the sophists felt the same way and reflect this attitude by offering training to any who could afford it. They were not concerned with how the rhetoric might be used but simply wanted people to know rhetoric and be able to defend ideas.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae
Anaxagoras and the Atomists theory of the cosmos has always amazed me with their foresight. Anaxagoras believes that everything is made up of invisible "ingredients" and that all physical things we perceive are just different mixtures of these ingredients. What is incredible about this theory is that eventually it would be somewhat confirmed by scientists.
While it might seem to be a strange comparison the Atomists remind me of some of the science fiction writers from the mid 20th century. Similar to the Atomists, they create theory's or predictions that would be fulfilled by scientists many years later. For example, Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451 makes predictions about future technology in 1953 that would be created for another 60 years. This includes things like flat screen tvs and Bluetooth technology. The comparison might seem random, but its all I could think about while reading the Atomists.
While it might seem to be a strange comparison the Atomists remind me of some of the science fiction writers from the mid 20th century. Similar to the Atomists, they create theory's or predictions that would be fulfilled by scientists many years later. For example, Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451 makes predictions about future technology in 1953 that would be created for another 60 years. This includes things like flat screen tvs and Bluetooth technology. The comparison might seem random, but its all I could think about while reading the Atomists.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Empedocles the divine
Empedocles beliefs about the divine and immortality greatly interested me. He states that only Love and Strife are immortal and that everything will eventually pass away, this also seems to include his other core elements (air, fire, water, earth) and the gods.
Empeocles seems to have created a new definition of what a god is with his idea of Daimones. These are beings who are not immortal but very long lived, and have great power. This power comes at a cost as to become a Daimon Empedocles says that one must commit a grave offense. It makes me wonder what great offense Empedocles committed as he self identifies as one of these Daimones.
Because Empedocles self identifies not only as a Daimon, but also as a God, one could infer that he believes the Greek gods are also these Daimones. It certainly wouldn't be far fetched based on the Greek mythologies that the Gods had committed some great offense like patricide for example. By implying that they status is not truly divine, and is actually attainable by normal people like himself, Empedocles is tearing down the awe and mythos surrounding the Greek pantheon. While he is not the first Pre Socratic philosopher to somewhat dismiss the Greek gods, I think that Empdocles does it in a very interesting way.
Empeocles seems to have created a new definition of what a god is with his idea of Daimones. These are beings who are not immortal but very long lived, and have great power. This power comes at a cost as to become a Daimon Empedocles says that one must commit a grave offense. It makes me wonder what great offense Empedocles committed as he self identifies as one of these Daimones.
Because Empedocles self identifies not only as a Daimon, but also as a God, one could infer that he believes the Greek gods are also these Daimones. It certainly wouldn't be far fetched based on the Greek mythologies that the Gods had committed some great offense like patricide for example. By implying that they status is not truly divine, and is actually attainable by normal people like himself, Empedocles is tearing down the awe and mythos surrounding the Greek pantheon. While he is not the first Pre Socratic philosopher to somewhat dismiss the Greek gods, I think that Empdocles does it in a very interesting way.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Zeno and Parmenides
Zeno takes up an unusual stance while defending the arguments of Parmenides. Instead of bolstering Parmenides own claims about everything being one, he instead attacks the counter arguments of this theories detractors. He tries to prove this via several paradoxes designed to show that the "many" is impossible.
Honestly, Zeno is a hard read because his arguments are difficult to wrap your head around. In the course of reading his four arguments, I felt increasingly confused. But, maybe that was his plan all along. Just confuse the other side so much they no longer know whats going on.
Honestly, Zeno is a hard read because his arguments are difficult to wrap your head around. In the course of reading his four arguments, I felt increasingly confused. But, maybe that was his plan all along. Just confuse the other side so much they no longer know whats going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)