see attached
Discussions
1. At Apology (41d) Socrates says that a ‘good man is not harmed in life or death’. Throughout the dialogue he also discusses his ‘divine sign’ which prevents him from engaging in wrong doing. In another dialogue the Gorgias Socrates says that ‘doing what’s unjust is actually the worst thing there is’ and that it is better to suffer injustice then to do it (Gorg. 469b-c). These ideas seemed highly counter-intuitive to Socrates’ own audience and perhaps even more so to our own way of thinking. Since at least the time of Thomas Hobbes an emphasis has been placed on ‘self-preservation’ as a hallmark of rationality. Yet here in the Apology Socrates deliberately responds to the jury in a way that imperils his life. There are two questions here which can be taken in turn or separately. 1)Is Socrates being irrational in the way that he acts before the jury; would it have been more rational for him to act in another way(Apol. 36a-39e)? 2) Is Socrates correct that good man can’t be harmed in life or death? in what sense is this true? if at all? even if the good man is not harmed by others, could one be unjust to one’s self by not adequately defending oneself? is Socrates guilty of this sort of injustice as Crito seems to hint (Crito 45c-d)? Respond to any or all of the above and end your posting with a question of your own.
2. In the Euthyphro Socrates insists on the importance of definition. If one doesn’t know a things definition then one can’t know a thing. This requirement has led to the charge of the Socratic fallacy; one can use word properly (be a competent language user) without actually knowing the definition of a word. This issue is still a converted point in the literature. However, putting aside whether Socrates is committed to this fallacy given the events related in the Euthyphro and the Apology is Socrates correct to place such an emphasis on the definition of words? do these definitions have any practical relevance? explain using examples from the dialogues and or your own experience.
3. Looking over the initial material on the definitions of philosophy in
topic one of the course, which definition (Aristotle, Novalis,
Wittgenstein) would you say gives you the best feel for philosophy? What
is it about the definition that interests you? what other questions do
you have regarding the meaning of philosophy? what potential problems do you see with any of the particular definitions?
3. At the end of the Meno (around 100b) Socrates says that if Meno can convince Anytus of the things they have concluded in the dialogue he will provide a benefit to the Athenians. Given the background of the Apology what do you think Socrates means by this. What is the overall topic of the Meno? and how is it relevant to the Athenians or to us for that matter?
4. In the Phaedo Socrates is preparing for his death and consoling his friends that death is not a bad thing. There are echoes of the end of the Apology here. Much of the dialogue deals with arguments for the survival of the soul after death. We have already seen in the Meno the famous argument for the pre-existence of the soul to explain the puzzle of learning (cf Meno 81e ff); Aristotle in his Posterior Analytics (76a ff) will provide another solution to this puzzle that doesn’t require the preexistence of the soul. My question here regards Plato’s general conception of the body in the the Phaedo. He famously states that the proper aim of philosophy is the practice of dying and death (64a). He goes on to claim that only the philosopher (lover of wisdom) can have genuine virtues; non-philosophers overcome fear by greater fears and overcome desires by stronger desires (69a-c); virtues require knowledge and only the philosopher has real knowledge so only the philosopher can actually be virtuous. What is Plato’s underlying attitude towards the body in this dialogue as you see it? What essentially is the human being for Plato as you can gather from this dialogue? is he correct in this? why or why not? (address any or all of the above in your posting and end your posting with a question of your own).
5. As a background for Gandhi it would be helpful if you watch the Academy
Award winning film entitled Gandhi from 1982. This will give you a sense of his history, development and context as well as some of most powerful events of his career.
In what sense can Gandhi’s life be considered a success? Returning to the Socratic credo “a good man is not harmed in life or death” and “better to suffer injustice than to do injustice” (cf. Discussion above on the Apology and Gorgias), is Gandhi’s life proof of these claims? How are Gandhi’s ethical/ political views grounded in his religious/ metaphysical/ philosophical views? (in your discussion respond to any or all of the above and end your posting with a question of your own).
