Here's to my 1st Philosophy Class

Coming into this class, I knew close to nothing about philosophy or any thing relevant to the subject. Already I could tell that I would enjoy the class because it involved a lot of discussion rather than memorizing facts, ect. Within the first couple classes, I could tell that the discussion portion of Philosophy is the entire essence of Philosophy. We all perceive life differently, but to adequately explain your experiences and thoughts living inside your head, is the art of philosophy, in my opinion. The second thing I learned was that words are your psychological weapon. Socrates prided himself on being able to use his words to conquer the massive conflicts in his life. Another thing I learned, never stop asking questions and engaging your mind to the unfathomable because it will ultimately lead to fulfillment in ones life. So much of our life is lived internally. We think that we live externally because of our surroundings, friends, ect. But when we examine our behavior, we realize that most of the thoughts we think and feel never surface to our external environment. We live inside our head; philosophy is just the intelligent thought process to explain our perception of life. I haven't really thought like this before being exposed to the class material, which is why I think we can all take something from this class and prosper in this journey, we all call life.

---Brett

The Apology

I think it is really interesting that the title of the passage is entitled "The Apology". Socrates is in no means apologizing in our modern view of the word. Apology in this context means a defense. Actually "apologizing" for what he did is the last thing Socrates will do. Instead he is very controversial and makes a point that it is his duty that he must question the knowledge of "wise men" that formulates mainstream understanding of the world.

Socrates's fearlessness is something to be admired. He jokes after being found guilty of what his penalty should be, demonstrating that he is indeed not emotionally destroyed. This also shows the strength of his character and his ability to stand up for himself. When the verdict of the death penalty was made... Socrates accepted the penalty. He accepted the penalty even though he did not believe he was in wrong doing. This amazed me that a man with so much rebellion (in his words) during the hearing accepted the most steep penalty possible. This again portrays the pureness of Socrates's character.

Would you stand up for your beliefs if death was staring you in the face? I don't think I would to be honest. Socrates honors his intelligence and persona over his physical life, I think thats something we can all tip our hats to.

--Brett

Innocent or Guilty

In Plato's "Apology", Socrates is on trial because he "does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker speech the stronger, and by teaching others these same things."
On page 75, section 25c, Socrates is debating with Meletus as to why Meletus thinks he is corrupting the youth. Socrates says, "but tell us further, Meletus, before Zeus, whether it is better to dwell among upright citizens or villainous ones?....Do not the villainous do something bad to whoever are nearest to them, while the good do something good?"
This last statement is a little confusing for me. I dont understand why its relevant to his argument. Meletus believes Socrates is voluntarily corruptive, so Meletus clearly thinks that Socrates is "bad". So why does Socrates point out that the bad do something bad to those around him and the good do something good? Socrates later says, "but either I do not corrupt, or if I do corrupt, I do it involuntarily, so in both cases what you say is false." Again, why does he phrase his statement this way when it doesn't matter what Socrates thinks of himself, but what Meletus and the others think of him, which is that Socrates is guilty of voluntary corruptiveness?

The Mean

In chapter 7 of Book Two of the Nic Ethics, Aristotle talks about different kinds of emotions and feelings and states that there is a mean between the two.

For example, on page 31 line 10 he says "Concerning giving and taking money, the mean condition is generosity" and line 20 "And concerning honor and dishonor, the mean condition is greatness of soul."

I am confused by what Aristotle is saying by these things. My interpretation of it, is that Aristotle believes that we all have certain innate feelings and emotions, and by choice we can choose to act upon these innate feelings for good or bad purposes (ex. giving and taking money respectively). Almost all of chapter 7 is devoted to Aristotle talking about these means, and what actions are connected to them. I could be completely wrong, but as I was reading this chapter and noticed the repetition of his writing I thought it was important enough to bring up.

What do you think Aristotle is trying to say in this chapter?

Do we need to be taught, or do we already know?

In the first couple lines of Nic. Ethics, book II chapter 1, Aristotle speaks of the two sorts of virtue. He says, "...excellence of thinking is for the most part, both in its coming to be and in its growth, a result of teaching, for which reason it has need of experience and time...". This reminded me of when we read the Meno, and Socrates spoke of learning simply being recollection, and we arent actually taught anything. "As a result, its being able to recollect what pertains to virtue and other things is nothing to be wondered at, since it also knew them previously" (Meno pg 107 line 81c). To me, this two ways of thinking are contradictory. Aristotle claims virtue can be learned through teaching, yet Socrates states we don't need to be taught, we just need to remember. Do you believe these are contradictory, or do they have the same point? Which do you agree/disagree with?

Happiness: How the Meaning Has Changed

In class we have been talking about how the meaning of the word 'happiness' used by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics is different from how we use the word 'happiness' today. As I have understood from class discussions, Aristotle's use of the word is more "all-encompassing" and speaks to the fullness of one's life as a whole rather than the meaning of momentary pleasure or enjoyment that we use today.
However, in Book I, Chapter 10, it seems as though Aristotle momentarily switches to the way we use the word when he writes, "For it is clear that, if we were to follow along with the fortunes, we would often call the same person happy and miserable in turns, making the happy person out to be a kind of chameleon or a structure built on rotten foundations" (1100b). I got confused because if Aristotle means ultimate happiness and fullness of life when he uses the word happy, wouldn't the people around a person not know if they were happy or miserable until their life was over?

"The Self-Numbing Stingray"

In "Meno," there is a point in the text where Meno refers to Socrates as being "like that well-known stingray of the sea"(80b) due to the fact that everyone who he comes in contact with "feels numb"(80b) (or, more simply, perplexed). He claims that Socrates has worked this same magic on him and and accuses him of intentionally trying to confuse him on the subject they are addressing. To this accusation Socrates responds that he is only like a stingray "if the stingray makes itself numb while it numbs others,"(80d) due to the fact that as he befuddles other people, he does the same to himself.

I find that this exchange speaks volumes about Socrates' method of thinking. It shows that throughout their discussion, Socrates has been thinking and discovering things about virtue as he goes and is not just spouting out his opinion to Meno or simply asking random questions to distract him. As he tries to help Meno find enlightenment, he too is searching for his own understanding of virtue.

Alex Wade