Censoring Homer

Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer?

I think Plato would censor Homer because there was a lot of violence in the battle scenes. The battle scenes are gory and disturbing. For example, one time Ajax is charging at a soldier. The soldier throws a spear at him that he dodges and then Ajax picks up the spear and throws the spear straight through the soldier's head and then he stabs him. Also, if we were led by a warrior who is only good at fighting and is not in any agreement with politics or who doesn't help his own king, then Plato might want to censor Homer because he doesn't agree with him.

According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?

Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are made up names of places, the violence in Hesiod and Homer, things that are scary and has sexual content.

What should poetry “teach” and why?

Poetry should teach about every day things and not about sex and violence. Plato thought that poetry should teach about morals.

If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?

If I were talking to Plato, I would tell him that I think people should choose what they want to read. Each person should be entitled to do what they want to do as long as they stand within the law. However, some books might not be the best for someone to read, like little kids wanting to read some sexual content. A scholar might want to read a book like Tom Sawyer. People should be able to read what they want.

Censoring Hesiod

Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod?

If Plato was against women having the greater power on earth than he might want to censor Hesiod because Hesiod's whole story shows that the titans Gaia and Rhia are setting up the entire plot. Mother Earth created everything and men just help to give birth. It might also be true that Plato didn't believe in Greek mythology. He might have believed in something else. Or he might have not been a very good friend of Hesiod. He also might have been jealous that Hesiod wrote up the story and then had so much power over the people. Plato's philosophy might not have had that much power.

What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Homer and Hesiod are guilty of writing what they think the gods have said when they don't really know who the gods are. Did the gods actually come to them and tell them all these things? We don't know.

What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?

The two main characteristics are 1) phenomenal living being that is believed to exist through faith, not by fact and 2) each god is unique, supernatural and has special powers. The laws of story telling based on those characteristics are gods may be written about in any way since they are not easy to describe based on their charactertistics. As long as you follow the laws of their base characteristics, you can write a story about them. Take the Iliad for example. Achilles, Agamenon, Ajax, etc. were all real people who fought in the Trojan War, but it is not proven that gods helped them; but they put them in the story to try to explain about things they didn't really know about.

Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?

My personal reflection was only right on one part. He questioned whether the gods were real. He also questioned the behavior of how the stories were written because there were conflicts between families and that is not always the best kind of reading for all ages. He also pointed out that were a lot of really bad lessons in Hesiod's writing.

Socratic Seminar Prompt

9) In the “Simile of the Cave,” do you think there is any part that has to do with the subject of justice?

There certainly is a part that has to do with justice in the Simile of the Cave when a man comes to free the prisoners. When the prisoners see the man for the first time in their life, they kill him. Why? The prisoners seemed scared and uncertain about whom the man was. Also, they were indubitably bringing punishment against the man because they were chained up from birth and they thought the man was the person who chained them up. They acted out of instinct because the first thing in their minds was: “ I’m scared. Attack.”

So what is justice in the story? Judgment. There was no justice. The law was: human instinct and intelligence. Justice was made to keep thing s under control. However, they didn’t have justice in the story, so the prisoners had to rely on their judgment of right and wrong. The prisoners were not limited to do certain things. They didn’t know the laws and they didn’t have laws like we have today which give them a right to know.

In the story justice is viewed in another way. Justice is viewed as common sense. The shadow puppets were the only thing s the prisoners saw when they first opened their eyes and they judged the shadow puppets as reality and the truth. They had been chained up and forced to see that reality is truly justice because everyone is alright with the world if there is no war. This type of justice might be a true path to peace. So in the end, justice exists because the prisoners find the truth and find reality. The prisoners had been fooled their entire lives and acted on inaccurate judgment and they found the reality of truth indubitably at the end. So what justice is in the story is that there is no justice. The law was: human instinct and intelligence.

The Republic, Justice and Happiness

Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?

Acting "right" or justly means going with the flow and by this I mean that you fit in with the crowd because usually when people do the same things, they get along better. However, sometimes on some conditions, like when you hang out with people like a bank robber and rob a bank, this type of crowd might not be the best kind of crowd to call "just." I try to stay in the middle of things, but stay out of trouble. So I am closer to the "just" side of things.

There are different views of happiness and they all depend on the people you are talking about. Happiness in my definition is basically one of the most complicated parts of life. Happiness affects you and the ones around you strongly just like any other very complicated emotion does. The emotion of happiness is usually something that makes you feel good, pleased with yourself, and makes you feel loved. Happiness makes you feel open-minded. Happiness is a very good feeling. But some kinds of happiness, depending on other types of people, are sometimes considered "bad" views of happiness. Usually if people say that bad things are good and that makes them happy, then most people would say they are crazy.

Sometimes acting right can help happiness because when you do what you are told you are helping someone and you and the other person feel good about what you do. For example, if you have to get your homework done, if you just refuse to do it, you won't get anywhere, and you and the teacher will both be mad and you'll get a bad grade. So it's better to just do the work you are given and then in the end you'll be a lot happier because you'll be free. Freedom is the largest part of happiness because the feeling of being free is like having nothing holding you down. You can just do what you want to do.

Socrates would agree with me but he would probably say that I was right about needing to do the work I was given because that is my responsibility. Being responsible leads to happiness. He would also ask me if being right was the only way to happiness.

The Republic pp. 15-29

1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms.” In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?

• rulers may often be mistaken about their own interest
  
• rulers might be wrong
• rules might make bad laws

2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?

T: --pursuing self interest and injustice pays better than justice and political power is exploiting one class over another

S: --true rulers pursue their subjects' interests but it is natural to pursue self interest

3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?

In my opinion, you should only harm someone if they have harmed you because if a person starts something then the person needs to be taught a lesson through the same way you were injured. Then the person would know how you feel. Until the person learns the lesson, you should keep repeating the process. Socrates would probably ask me to clarify what I meant and he would think differently. He might ask me "do you think it is right to try and teach this lesson through hurting somebody or do you think you could solve it in a better way." Socrates would say that mentally solving things is a lot less damaging to others. Thrasymachus would probably say that I was wrong and that I shouldn't harm someone no matter what they do to you. You should always just do what is right. If the person did something wrong, they will pay for the consequences. You shouldn't take things into your own hands.

The Republic, Conventional View of Justice Developed

A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?

His father's definition is to tell the truth and pay your debts. Polemarchus says we must be consistent and help and injure both friends and enemies. I don't think his is an improvement over his father's because I think it is hard to understand.

B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?

Simonides definition of justice is to give everyone their due. Polemarchus, in a way, has interpreted him correctly if you look from the perspective of judgment because if you judge a person you judge them based on whether they are good or bad.

C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?

Socrates sees that Polemarchus is confused and he tells him that you must help both your friends and your enemies, that it isn't just to help just your friends.

D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?

Socrates is trying to teach him the truth of what is right and what's wrong and what should be done and what should not be done.

E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?

I find Socrates' argument more convincing because he seems to know more about justice. Socrates' has some very good examples of justice. Socrates explains how transactions between people are like a chess game. He asks if a just man is a "good and useful partner or just a chess player." What this means to me is that justice is like a game and if you are a good person with a open-minded partner and you don't ask questions and just play by the rules, then you are okay. On the other hand, if you try to cheat at the game, then you are a bad person. To summarize this as simply as possible, Socrates seems to be saying if you're good, you're fine; if you're bad, there are consequences.

Definition of a friend

A friend is someone you have a very close bond with and someone you can trust. A friend is someone who respects you for who you are. A friend is someone who admires your personality. A friend is also someone who cares about you and someone who would always want to be there for you. You should treat your friend with the same respect they treat you. That way you each learn a lesson. You should treat your friends better than they treat you. You should always try to help them.