Playing House

In book four I found it very interesting how Venus and Juno used Dido and Aeneas as pawns in their game they were playing. This romance which originated from the gods (Cupid) was set into motion by the storm brought on by Juno and continued when the gods ultimately manipulated them into the cave. It's as if the gods are simply playing house with human lives.

For a moment, we see the gods half way, kind of, sort of, almost agreeing on something. Juno and Venus work together to get the lovers together. The reader finally sees some sort of accord among the gods. However, reading on it's clear we spoke too soon. Another god's prompting (Jupiter) breaks up the affair by telling Aeneas to leave. Thus, the romantic flame is ended in flames and the gods' great game of house continues on.

P.S. I commented on Abbey's post!

Held in High Esteem

It's so interesting to me that in these ancient epics so full of blood and conquest, you often have these semi random interludes of the protagonist with someone who is rejected. There is Odysseus with both Circe an Calypso, and now there is Aeneas and Dido. It's as though the ancient authors recognized the significance of conquest and land and adventure, and equated it to this struggle for acceptance and love. Now it seems that their perceptions of love were a bit off from what you and I would probably define them as, but still, this is how they perceived it. It's really sad to me how in nearly every instance, the person is rejected. Still it's fascinating to me that in a world of so much power and warfare, etc, the matters of the heart are deemed in near equal importance.

On ze Kennedy's

Fear of Death

When Aeneas gets to the underworld one of the first things he sees are the interesting “monsters”.  But then he is unafraid because they are ghost.  That is so weird to thing about, because most people in today’s world would be more scared?  Anyway, If it’s not a stretch i think the imagery here may represent our fear of death.  It seems that throughout works we read that discuss any form of an after life or underworld, tend to have some draw to the fear of it. 


Comment

The Dark Abyss

This books descriprion of the underworld is much different then what I have encountered in past Greek literature. I've always imagined the underworld to be like it was expressed in Disney's brillant adaptation of Hercules. I imagined all the dead just wondering in a dark abyss, groaning. While reading I couldn't help but think to myself that if you were a good person it wouldn't be all that bad. I would be roaming in a beautiful, peaceful field. However, if you were to die out of love or not been burried properly, not so much... I enjoyed reading this excert.

P.S. I posted on Jeremy's.

Greek vs. Roman Underworlds

The differences between the Greek and Roman perception of the Underworld were unexpected to me. I expected for us to go to the Underworld we had to sail and offer a sacrifice then guard the blood, but instead we pluck a flower and travel down a cave. I was kinda disappointed, until I read the great detail and expansion that Virgil made on our knowledge of the Underworld. Unlike Homer, who does introduce us to various interesting ghosts, Virgil takes us on a literal tour of the Underworld. And unlike in The Odyssey, these ghosts are happy and know what's going on. Well the ones that aren't in torment. Was there a shift in the imagery of the Underworld between the time of the Greeks and Romans? For the Greeks, the Underworld was full of hopelessness and decay, but the Romans display forms of reward for those who are worthy. Maybe the Romans were trying to imply Plato's idea that the men should not fear death, but welcome it.

I commented on Collin's.

Scruples

I love the imagery used when Dido is convinced by Anna's advice to let her romantic passions take over. The intricate layout of the sacrifices is kind of beautiful in a weird macabre manner. But glorious macabre. It's intriguing that this slaughterhouse bloodbath also comes after the comment that Dido forgot her scruples. Immediately following this we see that the prophetic vision of Æneas is falling apart. All the projects are forgotten. I thought of the Republic. The city's guardian has forgotten her (insert greek word for soul that I don't know how to spell) and her city is in shambles.
P. S. I commented on Ashley's. 

Hell

I thought the portrayal of hell was interesting for a few reasons. First, the souls of those who were there seemed more human than spirit. They were still bound by human experiences. For example, Dido still held a grudge against Aeneas, and turned and walked away from him as he tried to speak. It would seem as though a soul wouldn't be limited to mortal emotions. Second, I thought it was interesting to see Aeneas's reaction when he sees his father. Aeneas tries to hug his father three times but fails, just like Odysseus did when he saw his mother.

I commented on Sydni's.

Dido vs. Aeneas

I thought it was really interesting to look at the difference between Dido and Aeneas's reaction to their break up. Aeneas regrets it, but he leaves because he knows his fate is somewhere else, and because of respect for the gods. Dido, however, doesn't react so well. Instead, she puts all of his stuff in a pile to burn-which seems like a typical scorned lover thing to do. But, as she sees him sail away, she takes it one step further than crazy ex, and becomes a tragic lover as she commits suicide.
This last attempt seems really extreme, but in context of the epic, it makes sense. In a weird twisted way. By having her be struck by Cupid, her love for him is no longer in her control. In the Aeneid, love is less of an emotion or decision, and more closely an outside force that can't be controlled. Aeneas on the other hand, still wasn't in control of this decision, but he was fated to continue on to Italy.
P.S. I commented on Jeremy's

Wherefore art thou romeo?

I seem to have a habit of comparing the works we read in this class to works that I've read in the past. With no exception, I can't help but compare book 4 to Romeo and Juliet. Dido is so distressed that she cannot be with her lover that she decides she can no longer live, so she kills herself just like Juliet. But where is Romeo? Aeneas sees Dido's pitiful soul and realizes she killed herself because she could not be with him. While he is troubled by this, he is not as discouraged as Romeo was in Shakespeare's famous play. He continues on with his journey. So based on Dido alone, I think that this part of The Aeneid closely resembles Romeo and Juliet, but that's just me.

P.S. I commented on Jeremy's post.

Dido

Dido makes me laugh, because she exemplifies a woman who can't control herself.  She goes and makes a vow and can't keep it!  Ladies, Dido doesn't make you look good.  I understand that some men have qualities that just make you lose your mind and forget your values, but values are, well, more valuable.  For a while, I was okay with her changing her mind, but then she goes and wishes that Aeneas will "drink his punishment".  OUCH.  He wasn't even staying there for her, really.  My favorite part, though, was Aeneas' reaction to this.  He was so "duty-bound" that he simply "sighed his heart out" (can't you picture it?) and returned to his fleet.  Poor Dido... she was played.

I commented on Brydon's

The Underworld

The Underworld excursion in the Aeneid is much more extreme than that in the Odyssey. While Odysseus mainly talked to ghosts, Aeneas and the Sibyl actually have to make a journey - which is a lot more interesting to read about.

It does make me wonder why Virgil would add so much to the journey. If he was mimicking Homer, why not just leave the Underworld episode as brief as Homer's? Why not let Aeneas simply talk to his father over a sacrificial carcass, instead of making the journey into the actual deeps of the Underworld? Disparate social/religious/traditional ideas about the Underworld and how to talk to the dead?

Did Virgil just really want to take Aeneas through the different parts of the Underworld? Since he knew people in various destinations in the Underworld, maybe he had to make the journey to encounter them - to tie up loose ends, as in Dido's case. It's an interesting decision, anyway. The structure of Virgil's underworld is fun to examine.

PS I commented on Brydon's post.

The Funeral Pyre of Dido

          I find the account of The Aeneid much more dramatic and touching than The Odyssey. The imagery is much more vibrant, and the plot line, much more tragic. While I do not assent to Dido's personal choices nor her leadership style, I found the portrayal of her suicide moving. The funeral pyre is bedecked with cloths and cypress boughs, almost as dramatic as the cry of her distress, 

"I die unavenged, but let me die. This way, this way, a blessed relief to go into the under gloom. Let the cold Trojan, far at sea, drink in this conflagration and take with him the omen of my death!" 

She could not overcome the temptation of lust, and when ripped from her 'lover' she has nothing else to cling to for her sanity. It is sad to me that they don't really even love each other. Aeneas even says in the Underworld that he had no idea she was that attached to him. Their relationship has not progressed in a healthy manner, but instead the appetitive nature has ruled like a tyrant. It is tragic that such a diplomatic woman could succumb to such a base desire. 

One of my favorite things about epics is how the reader is able to draw so much information from the beginning lines. The tone of the story is set by the way in which the author invokes the Muses. In this case we are not hearing of the man of twists and turns, or the great rage of Achilles, but the story of a man at war. This says so much about the following books, and as one reads through the story this becomes even more clear. Also, from the very start, the Aeneid has always been one of my favorite epics. I am pleased to find myself within its pages again.

PS I Commented on Kennedy's post

Aeneas or Odysseus?

While reading the first two chapters of The Aeneid, I kept finding instances that reminded me of Odysseus' journey in The Odyssey. From the ship crashing in the monstrous storm or the cloud that Venus creates to prevent them from being seen or the many disguises that the different gods possess along the way. It all takes me back to when Poseidon wrecks Odysseus' ship in a storm, when the gods put a cloud over Odysseus so he can make it through the city safely, and when the different gods of his time take on different disguises. Its crazy to me how similar these two stories are at times.

P.S. I commented on Abbey's post.

What is fate?

This crazy rivalry between the gods seems to consume the entire. It looks so heavily over the narrative that at times the story line seems to be less about the deeds of the mortal characters than it is about the bickering among the gods, who are continually disrupting and manipulating events here on Earth. One of the Aeneid’s main themes, it seems to me, is that for both the gods and mortals, fate always wins in the end. Fate always has the final say so. This is the only binding factor between the God'a and mortals. But my question is... What exactly is fate? Do we decide our own fate? Can we change our fate along the way? 
Ps. I commented on Ashley H

I'm...just...so...confused!!!!

While I found this reading more enjoyable than the Odyssey because of it's descriptions of scenery, a majority of my time was spent being completely and totally lost. I couldn't keep track of which god was which and what the main plot line was. It still shocks me how these gods behave. They are constantly baffling me in their interactions with each other. One minute they are bickering and the next they are whining. As a reader it is hard for me to imagine how people at one point found them worthy of praise. Another random thing that I though was interesting was the inclusion of one of the theories of how the great Roman Empire was founded by Romulus the boy raised by a she wolf. Again I am baffled by what these people believed.   


P.S. I commented on Collingsworth's Post

Plagued by the gods

Since everyone seems to be pointing out similarities between the Odyssey and the Aeneid, I figured I might as well jump on the bandwagon and go with it. But my point may be just a little different. While reading this I found myself highly frustrated with the gods. Just like in the Odyssey, the gods only appear when there is some kind of struggle going on. That, or the gods are bored and need some form of entertainment. Yes, it sounds lovely in theory that Athena and Venus helped Odysseus and Aeneus, but why did they even do it? Athena could have just sent Odysseus home instead of making him take a super long journey. Better than that, she could have helped years ago when he was first marooned on the island. Then in the Aenied, the gods are always fighting and bickering. How can you revere them when they don't even get along? The entire point here being that the gods anger me. I just wish I could understand their logic and reasoning.

P.S. I commented on James' blog 

A Disappointment of Epic Proportions

          Aeneas' version of the siege of Troy is possibly the most moving literature I have read this semester. Perhaps it is because I like Aeneas better than Odysseus, perhaps I just feel bad for him. This quote describes their state perfectly. "The desperate odds doubled their fighting spirit: from that time on, like predatory wolves in fog and darkness...through arrow flights and enemies we ran toward our sure death, straight for the city's heart." He describes an agile crew that valiantly assembles against the enemy of Troy, despite their impending doom. They fight well and hard before those who were left alive finally accept defeat and escape the city.
        This scene is so dramatic because Aeneas describes the savagery of the war in killing women and children. Blood and dead bodies lie everywhere. You can feel the impending defeat sinking deeper and deeper into Aeneas' chest as the situation gets worse. Not only does he lose his city, but also his beloved wife. If only they hadn't traded their security for the simple fraud of Sinon, "Keep faith, Troy, as you are kept from harm If what I say proves true, if what I give is great and valuable."
         Chapter two ends with the grave lament:
"...No help or hope of help existed. So I resigned myself, picked up my father, and turned my face toward the mountain range."

p.s. I commented on Abbie George's

Ulysses

Like seemingly everyone seemed to have picked up, the Aeneid shares MANY similarities with the Odyssey. However, the way this seemed to present itself to me most obviously was in the way the gods acted. The spite and revenge of one god(ess) on the hero, but shock of all shocks, the hero is destined by fate to prevail, which puts a damper on the vengeful plans said deity had in store.
However the real question is why the similarities? I don't think that simple plagiarism is a good enough reason. Then I wondered if maybe it was because of the setting. Because this story is set to run parallel to that of Odysseus (here called Ulysses), it could serve as a reminder of sequence? I really have no idea.

P. S. I commented on Jeremy Beaman's post

The Advocate

There are incredibly clear connections that can be made between The Odyssey and The Aeneid.

Athena is to Odysseus as Venus is to Aeneas. Both are advocates for the characters. They defend and advise both men in the process of enduring hardships.Venus gets the help of other various gods along the way to help weave her master plan, just as Athena speaks to Zeus and other gods as she weaves her master plan. Also both goddesses appear to their favored mortals in disguise.

I did an essay on the importance of disguise regarding Athena and the development of Telemachus, so the disguise of Venus caught my attention. I wonder how significant Venus' tendency to withhold will be in the development of Aeneas.

This is only one aspect of many that connect the two tales. Interesting to see the war from the other side.

P.S. I commented on Danielle's post.

The Will of the Gods

It's interesting to see immortal beings explaining that the fall of Troy is the god's doing. Often, the will of the gods was portrayed in a semi-positive light. For example, to attribute Odysseus's success to Athena's help and guidance. Aeneas's mother, however, is very clear about why the city has fallen. She says that "the harsh will of the gods it is, the gods, that overthrows the splendor of this place and brings Troy from her height into the dust." I liked seeing it from this perspective because the Greeks will be thanking the gods for their victory while the Trojans are cursing the same gods for their defeat.

I commented on Collingsworth's.

Aeneas --- What a Hunk

     Back, during the discussion of Greek Art, there was discussion on the "ideal mate." Okay, now I might eat my words later, but Aneas seems to have what it takes. He's got it all. He's the family man. He's fighting for the cause. He is your put-together, go-after-it kind of fellow. It's made evident mostly in Book II. Once the attack is occurring, he is forced to leave (after an attempted attack on Helen---smart guy) with his family. This attempted attack on Helen, even though stopped by Venus (which I am lost on connecting the Greek and Roman names), is very... Heroic. 

     Virgil is giving us this view of the underdog. The city that is to be torn to shreds in a surprise undermining attack contains a being who has a charming heroic character. Strangely, I never felt one-sided sympathy. The whole picture is presented. (THANK YOU, Virgil.) 

     Back to Aeneas, I'm curious to see his character progress. I want to know for sure his heroic nature I assumed of him is true.

Comment: http://honorsblogging.blogspot.com/2014/11/fate-and-free-will.html?showComment=1415850493186&m=1#c8750904795697733978

On Miss Kayleigh-Marie

What?

So, I can normally understand most stories and their flow, but the Aeneid is another story. First the change from the Greek pantheon, to the Roman pantheon threw me off. While the Roman pantheon is strikingly similar, I had a problem understanding who each god was. Also, I had to read the same paragraph multiple times in-order to understand what is going on, and I am still not quite sure... However the view of the Trojan war from the side of the Trojan's is very much appreciated. History is normally told by the winner, this is one of the few times when it is not.

Commented on Jeremy's

So That Makes More Sense... Kinda

I found it really interesting to watch the fall of Troy from the opposite side. In the past I always wondered why in the world they would just see this random horse on the beach, assume it was from the gods, and haul it in. At the time they put so much stock in signs, that if snakes from the sea consumed the sons of the only man against the horse, they knew it must have been a sign. But still, it’s interesting how when under stress they were much more likely to throw reason to the wind. They never really stopped to think. How often do we over-extrapolate or overthink things when we are under stress?

Fate and Free Will

One thing I (finally) picked up on while reading The Aeneid was the idea of the finality of "fate". In all of these ancient epics, if a person's fate was foretold, nothing could stop them from coming to a different end. Aeneas was fated to settle Italy and settle Italy he did. Even when seemingly insurmountable obstacles were put in his way, some of which were direct blows from one of the most powerful goddesses know to the romans, Juno.

So, under the greek and roman gods, did people have free will? It seems that if Zeus/Jupiter decided you were going to do something, you were going to do it regardless of what happened to you along the way. There was no way to get out of your destiny. I don't really know what I'm trying to get at here but I think it's along the lines of whether or not this ancient religion acknowledged free will and, if it didn't, how can all of its great heroes like Odysseus and Aeneas be credited with their triumphs?

P.s. I commented on Jeremy's post

History

From what I've read about the Æneid, Virgil is filling in gaps to create a tale for the founding of Rome. Yes Æneas is mentioned in the Odyssey. So Virgil took those mentionings and some other information from the Iliad and other writings and concocted this little Latin myth. I think it's pretty gnarly that the Romans, who had so much pride in their own particular identity, felt the need to give an homage to their Greek influences. This work came to become recognized canon as part the education of Roman citizens even into Christian times. As a child, I would have had to memorize this. Just as Greek children memorized their epics. 

P. S. J. Bea's post currently hosts my remark. 

The Odyssey vs. The Aeneid part 2

I'm adding to Kelli's idea: THERE ARE SO MANY SIMILARITIES.  Venus is disguising herself just as Athena did.  I'm still trying to figure out how Aeneas recognized his mother as she walked away...  That seems odd.  As I discussed in my comment on Kelli's, there are similarities in the actions of the soldiers as they land at Carthage and those of Odysseus' men.  Both feast and drink!  Along with those, Aeneas and Odysseus have keen similarities.  Both are solid leaders and have the trust of their men.  Why is the story line of the the Odyssey so closely related to the Aeneid? What was Virgil trying to accomplish or prove by this?  I think it could be that he wished he were Greek.

P.s. - Kelli's

The Odyssey vs. The Aeneid

I went into The Aeneid expecting it to be similar to The Odyssey, and it is in the fact that it's a piece of Ancient literature surrounding the times of the Trojan War. The differences were very striking to me though. The change of the gods's names from the Greek to Roman, the differentiation in phrasing, the constant reference to words that I don't know what they are because I never saw them with Homer. I mean, it took a lot of context clues to figure out that unlike in Odysseus's journey where we sailed around a happy map figuratively, the story was actually referencing the real map as we understand today. So I looked up some background information and learned Virgil actually wrote the Aeneid about Aeneas, a character mentioned some six hundred years earlier in The Illiad. Aeneas eventually becomes the ancestor of the Romans, but the story is about his travels and conquers of Italy.

ATTENTION

Hey guys! Just a friendly reminder that blogs aren't due until Wednesday night so don't panic if you haven't got it finished yet. Also, we still need your ten dollar contribution to the honors fund. You can bring it to class on Thursday or feel free to run it by room 202 in Faulkner Hall second long. If we aren't there to answer the door, slide it underneath with a note on the chalkboards stating your name. It's really important that you guys get this to us quickly because it funds the play and it also helps with parties that we will have in the next semester. Thanks!

Attention!

Remember there is no blog this week due to the Exam on Tuesday and Groups 3 & 4 presenting on Thursday!

Method Of Philosophy

I am a bit torn. As I understand it, Plato is forming this city to determine if any act performed by man can be inherently good. To answer this question he forms this “perfect” city. I realize that this was established in the first chapter of this read, but something about it has continually bothered me. This method sounds great in theory, but I think in order to make it successful one would have to fully understand the human condition and in turn the deepest motives of man’s heart. Can anyone so accurately portray a scenario that one can draw a universal truth from it? Also how can one know that what is then found is truly a universal truth? Are there any universal truths when it comes to the motives of man?

~P.S. I commented on Caleb's post.

Three Manly Men

In his second argument of book 8, Socrates repeats his argument that the soul is divided into three parts: reason, the spirited part, and desire. So That would mean there exists three basic types of men: the man of reason who seeks knowledge; the "spirited" man who seeks honor and success; and the man of desire who seeks gain (wealth) and satisfaction. Remember that the man of reason possesses knowledge of the Forms, hence, Justice. The first man is the just man; the second, the timocratic man; and the third is a sort of mixture of the oligarchic, democratic, and tyrannical. If we were to ask each of these manly men if he thought himself to be the happiest, each of them would probably answer yes. It's possible that each man may have experienced happiness, but Socrates insists that only the man of reason can experienced the happiness of knowledge because he is the only one of the three who posses it. And the same way with the other two men. So, the man of justice is correct in his judging himself to be the happiest. And it is self-evident that the man of reason is best fitted to judge, since he alone of the three knows Justice.
This is my breakdown of it. If I understood incorrectly, please someone correct me!!!

P.s. I comment on Charlie's. 

Plato's Number

I want to start by saying I am fairly decent at math, and at determining the various different applications, whether scientific or practical of numbers that may be used in every circumstance. Now I can say, I highly dislike Plato's "geometrical figure of dissonance". I read his math about the fertility and prospective matchmaking of people within a society, and it made no sense. I reread the paragraph and it made less sense. I then looked up what I could about the passage and every source comes to the conclusion of his math not even being algebraically sound. I respect Plato's theories, he is even incredibly spot on with a lot of his societal changes within governments based on human nature, but; it bothers me when when people use something, like math, that cannot be used in a theoretical discussion with sound importance or even a manner of sense of any kind. Geometrical figures cannot in any way describe the complexity of the thousands of jolts of electricity that run through our grey matter every hour in order to produce the expected route someone "should" take in order to find someone for marriage. I just don't understand, and it angers me.

I commented on Sydni's.

The Degeneration of the Just City

What I found to be the most interesting was the inevitable degeneration of the Just City in book 9. There was no way to spare it from this fate, as long as people make mistakes (so everything).  DUe to one lapse in judgment, the Just City falls to the honor and spirit-driven timocracy to the greed and appetite driven oligarchy. As things fall apart, the oligarchy devolves into a democracy with too many opinions, person pitted against person, with no common aims. At this point, there can no longer be said to be one city, because they are no longer looking for the common goal, but for their own protection from other citizens.  As the city progressively declines,  one individual stirs the poor to rise against the rich, and overthrow the apparent unjust, and they then replace the rule of the wealthy with the tyrannical rule of the one individual.
This decline is really concerning. If this can't be avoided, is this where we are headed? Was Plato right?
P.S. I commented on Brydon's post

The tyrannical man

Nobody would associate themselves with someone who acts irrationally or ridiculously.  The tyrannical man is absurd and promotes absurdity.  The irony of this image, though, is that there are small streaks of tyranny in all people, I think, even the "philosophers".  Even though no person would admit it, all have "casted off sleep and sought something of gratification".  What separates the tyrannical man from the non, is that the non-tyrannical man can control himself, or at least has learned from his tyranny.

P.S. - Caleb's

Philosophy

It shocked me that though I normally judge Plato rather harshly, most of his philosophy shares a foundation similar to my own. When he discusses that the perfect examples of people must spend time each day to their studies reminded me of Roman 12:2 where we as believers are commanded to renew our minds daily. Just another example of the flesh twisting fundamental truths. 

P. S. I commented on Collin's bloggity blog blog. 

Selfishness

It's interesting to see how Plato describes the degeneration of the government. It's also interesting to see that the downfall is brought about by selfishness and a lack of contentment. Plato talks about how the various forms of government change as the rulers begin to focus more on the accumulation of wealth. Their greed eventually leads to distrust, revolution, and tyranny. I think back to what Plato said in book five about literally making the entire city a family. As strange and shocking as his methods were in doing so, it is actually makes you think. Consider the early church. The Bible says that people actually sold their own property to provide for those in need. If we overcame selfishness to the same degree today, how different would our government be?

I commented on Abbey's. 

Dreams

To be honest, I haven't been able to take a lot of The Republic seriously. It's very good writing and logic, but much of the quibbling on philosophy just doesn't seem practical at all - where's the real-life application that makes this book matter? It can also be difficult to grasp exactly how seriously Plato's/Socrates's idealism should be taken.

But the section about dreams, in the first part of Book IX, really bewildered me the most.

It's a very minor issue, I know, but is Plato/Socrates really suggesting that our dreams show our moral state? Maybe one dream in a few dozen can reflect a fear or an obsession, but, typically, dreams are nonsense.

I'm not sure. I think the issue of 'the just man' is being taken a little too far now. Unless Plato/Socrates is meaning to be sarcastic, though I don't think he is this time. It's befuddling.

PS I commented on Brannan Uhlman's.

Knowledge and Power

While he may or may not admit the city is impossible to achieve, Socrates' point is that acquiring Perfect Knowledge is the key to success. Knowledge is one of the abstract "realities" in this world, and by attaining perfect knowledge, Philosophers can rule the city without making any mistakes. This brought two scriptures to mind, 

Psalm 127:1

Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman keeps awake in vain. 

1 Corinthians 1:24-25 "To those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

We can make all kinds of assumptions and observations about human behavior, but until we realize that the real problem is our sinful nature, and the only solution is God's grace, it won't matter what real justice is or how we get it. 

Plato's Ideal City

    Is it just me or does Plato's ideal city remind any one else of the city in The Giver?  Granted they're not 100%  identical, but there are some similarities that have caught my attention. First of all, the citizen's information is extremely censored in the book even to the point where everyone only sees in black and white. Their jobs are assigned to them based on their achievements (just like when Plato said the son of a politician should not be a politician if he is not good at politics). The "parents" in the households do not have their own children. There are birthing women who give birth to every child. This was similar to the parents and children never getting to know one another. Although in The Giver the children live with parents they will never know their bilogical parents. Finally, in book ten as Plato summarizes everything, I could not help but notice that Plato wants to practically get rid of emotions like hate, anger, lust, love, and more. These emotions influence one's soul for the worst and messes with one's rational thought process, which also reminded me of the way the city in The Giver was set up.  There may be more examples or my connection may be completely off. I would appreciate feedback! Thanks!
P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffin's!

So was Socrates Republican?

In America we revere democracy (conceptually - not necessarily the political party) as something that ought to be attained and that which is the pinnacle of liberty and freedom. While America itself is not explicitly democratic, our form of government is rooted in the concepts of people impacting their government, liberty, and freedom. Growing up American, democracy is really one of those inbred ideals that I always think of as being completely good in concept (though not always practical).  

As such, it was a bit surprising to me to see Plato almost condemn democracy as being evil, as it is the go-between for oligarchy (basically rich have everything and poor can’t contribute), and despotic tyranny. Obviously not a helpful or perfect ideal. But perhaps he is saying that merely the application is faulty. Regardless, it’s intriguing to see democracy not idolized. Honestly, given the division between republicans and democrats today (even though it's debatable whether the parties hold to their namesakes), it shouldn't really be surprising that a dude who wrote Plato's Republic would hate on democracy...

Commented on Jeremy's

EVERYONE READS THIS. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

ATTENTION ALL CURRENT HONORS STUDENTS, I HAVE IMPORTANT NEWS REGARDING THE FINAL PROJECT!
Good morning everyone! Here is the cast list for Antigone:

Will Carpenter - Creon
Abbey Griffin - Antigone
Sydni Holm- Ismene 
Caleb - The Watchman
Lewis Bailey - Tiresias
Jacob Roberts - Haemon
Abbie George - Eurydice/Chorus
Ashley Harding - Chorus/Messenger #2
Brydon Fox - Chorus
Brannen - Chorus
Collin - Chorus
PJ Padgett - Messenger #1/Chorus

ALL OF YOU THAT ARE LISTED MUST GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR WEEKLY SCHEDULE BY TONIGHT (Tuesday, *Remember, this is for your grade). We will need to begin rehearsing as soon as possible. The date for the production has yet to be determined. If there was anyone who wanted to be in the play that I somehow missed, please let me know ASAP. Thanks, guys!

A Blog Post

I seriously considered not writing a blog this evening. Not because I didn't want to, not because I was tired, not because I was just being lazy, but because I am kind of scared to write a blog post on Plato. His logic is incredible. Every subject that Socrates has brought us through so far has been incredibly beautiful. So beautifully thought through and said that I don't even really want to touch it because I fear that I do not really understand it. That is how I feel about this weeks reading right now. Thanks for shutting me up, Plato.

Writing The Republic

                   In the interest of not boring the grader of this blog, I think I will take a more unusual route.  I think everyone else has covered a large majority of the social and political (and every other kind for that matter) issues in the Republic. Instead I would like to comment on the writing style, which I found unique. Different from every work we have read, perhaps in the non-climatic nearly monotone writing.  Of course, the work is not in its original translation and therefore is subject to interpretation, causing, perhaps, some human error.  Nevertheless, the writing does follow a logical somewhat repetitive pattern. (which given the work is kind of a stupid statement)  The other thing I noticed were the responses of the individuals, for instance in chapter five the responses varied from, “True”, to “Quite True” to “That can not be denied.”  I do not know if this has any significance, but it was interesting.  


Comment

Connection and Characters

As Socrates begins to build his city in words, he begins by describing and prescribing different roles in the city. He refers to the different roles and their significance and makes the argument that "different men are apt for different jobs" and claims that a man who specializes in one thing is far greater than a jack of all trades. He applies this truth to the whole city, saying that everyman should have and be limited to one specific craft in order for the society to work. He says each thing will become "more plentiful, finer, and easier, when one man, exempt from other tasks, does one thing according to nature and at the crucial moment."

When I read the previous quote my mind immediately wandered to the "Divergent" series. Although I am not familiar with the book itself, the movie conveys a society very similar. Each individual is brought up in certain class or "faction." They are "exempt from other tasks" as they eventually choose a craft and stick to it by law. This is probably a very apparent connection, but I found it interesting all the same.

The other thing I found interesting was the way Socrates denied many mythological characters due to their various inconsistencies of character. Not only did I find this strange and ironic, but very bold on Socrates' behalf to deny the gods believed by so many. Socrates believes that "such tales must cease, for fear that they sow a strong proclivity for badness in our young." To me, his boldness reflects and presents the strong struggle that the deep thinkers of this age faced in regards to the gods. Are the gods holy and just? Do we believe in such gods? It is clear that they are not, due to the fact that Socrates would not include the tales of their vices in his ideal society.

Just thoughts.

P.S. I commented on Ashley's post.

The True Purpose

Socrates is trying to desperately to define a perfect, whole, and just society. Unfortunately, no matter which way you look at it, it simply can't be done. Or at least that's what I keep seeing. However, if we could make a perfect society, wouldn't we at least try? To answer my own question, it's yes, we would. In Philosophy 101 we just read exerts from the Declaration of Independence and the UN Declaration of Independence. The purpose of both of these documents was to create a society where people could live freely and happily, yet at the same time, live for the greater good. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only stands true until you get in someone else's way of their own rights. That's why laws and bills were formed and passes, to give a guideline that everyone could follow and reach happiness. Yes, it seems incredibly absurd to try and create a perfectly just utopia, but in truth that's exactly what America did years ago.

P.S. commented on Matt's blog

Questions

While reading through this work I realized just how much Plato loves to invoke deep contemplation. In fact the purpose of this dialogue is to discover if there is any point to act justly other that the consequences your face or receive.  Socrates even stops mid dialogue to remind his opposition of the purpose behind forming this “ideal” city (pg.70 section 392 b). It is as if Socrates is reminding him not to get sidetracked from the original topic. Socrates is reminding him that the purpose behind their discussion is to answer the seemingly impossible question. The question of this dialogue pertains to the purpose of acting justly, while attempting to exclude all outer consequence. Plato then forms his idea city as a method of seeking out the truth. In this quest for the truth he begins to pose what seems like the most minuet questions. Each aspect of society that he calls to the attention of the reader has a vital role in the formation of the soul. For instance, he speaks of the importance of how his guardians are educated from childhood. This, once again, reiterates how impressionable a human is during childhood. Upon further examination, I have found this book ventures into many different aspect of philosophy, which is why I find it so interesting.  


P.S. I commented on Brannen's Post.

The nature of hypocrisy.

I am quite confused by the Republic and here is why. If a man is unjust, yet pretends to be just, why do so? Why can he not simy be a just man to begin with? For, the unjust man must see something of worth, something desirable, in the life of the just man or he would not imitate him. So why is it that he still leads an unjust life? Is it the old adage, nice guys finish last? Is it something in the nature of immorality being fun? Why is there such hypocrisy in the life of the unjust that he feel the need to conceal his identity. If he were not ashamed of his lifestyle and character, why would he continue to hide it? I propose that there must be something about the life of the just man, whether tangible or intangible, that is desired above all else. We as Christians call it righteousness and holiness. But what would the Greeks have called it? What role model would they have looked to as an example? If you can't tell... I've been wrestling with this.

P. S. I commented on Caleb Zessin

Hypocrates

I'm beginning to feel as though Plato's Socrates is the ancient Grecian constitution of communism. We see in his ideology the beginnings of the thoughts that would come to define the movement. His intense censorship of religious literature of the gods just flabbergasts me. He's basically a heretic. He's stating essentially that the gods they follow are immoral. What? I'm sorry. I don't get you dude. I'm changing your name. 

But I'm legitimately wondering if this is how the live Socrates was or if this is just a borrowed name for the character. 

P. S. I have placed a comment on the post of Suttle, Collin. 

True Happiness

     In the beginning of the Fourth Book, Adimantus asks Socrates if the people will be "happy". Socrates answers that the purpose is Justice alone, with happiness of the whole being the result. He uses the analogy of a piece of art- Would you paint the eyes of a statue purple, just because it is a beautiful color? No, because that would not be REALISTIC and would take away from the effect of the statue. 
     Socrates argues that in a city where everyone is raised in the ideal circumstances, doing what they were ideally made for, there will be perfect justice-because happiness leads to justice. 
     I think his argument is pointless because there is no one Just except God. In the beginning, we were created in an ideal environment, with everything humanity needed, with a single purpose, but that was clearly messed up. So even if everyone were happy-would they stay happy? Would no one ever make a mistake and become curious about other things in the city, other options? I think the fact that this city is completely theoretical just points to the fact that Socrates is going about this discussion in the wrong way. We cannot measure Justice according to earthly standards. 

Defining Justice?

I'm not sure I agree with Socrates position on what justice is. Socrates claims justice as the rival of wisdom, moderation, and courage and the rival of them (indirectly justice) as the power that each man possess in minding his own business. Justice defined as "the having and doing of one's own and what belongs to oneself" with respect to not meddling in anyone else's business seems really strange to me. It makes some sense, especially in comparison to the definition of injustice "meddling among the classes ... would most correctly be called extreme evil-doing". Even when narrowed down to the individual aspect from the city, justice is described as "to establish the parts of the soul in a relation of master, and being mastered by, one another that is according to nature". I would guess that these strange definitions are due to the fact Socrates can't compare justice to consequences, which is what I would use to define it, but must compare justice to the internal soul. 

I commented on Matt's. 

To Much Trust

     As I read through Sacrotes ideal city, I realized he is placing a lot  of trust on the guardians to run this city. He believes if the elders were elected, their virtue would not translate into the virtue of the city which is what Sacrotes desires.  This reminded me of the idea behind communism. I remember discussing communism in one of my high school history classes. Communism sounded like a wonderful plan, or at least what we read and discussed. But if it was so good, where did it go wrong? Humans. Humans tend to get power hungry, so how could Sacrotes ensure the guardians wisdom to remain unbiased and the citizens' safety and needs would remain in the guardian interest? Sacrotes idea of the perfect city sounds nice, but can it be trusted in human hands?
P.S. I commented on Matt's.

Guidelines for Mankind in the City

Although Plato's purpose throughout the entirety of this work is to describe his ideal for of government for his ideal city, I can't help but feel as though he is also trying to explain how an ideal way for a person to live. Examples of this can be seen throughout his work, from ways that a person should train athletically to the ways that a person should approach work and craft. Plato also emphasizes the importance of each role a person has in the city. While there are a few things suggested by Plato that would have a more difficulty implementing in our modern world, there are still a few things that could be implemented on a practical level.

P.S. Commented on Matt's.

A Different Kind of Censorship

Just a few weeks ago we covered The Republic in Honors Political Theory and one of the big things we talked about was Plato's intense censorship, especially of literature. I have always hated censorship and wrote several papers in high school (and one so far in college) about how harmful it is to society and the pure idiocy of the entire idea.

But, while I still don't agree with Plato's brand of censorship, it is worth mentioning that it is generally quite different than censorship that we encounter today. Plato didn't care one bit about saving people's feelings with political correctness or shielding people from sex, drugs, and violence. Plato was only concerned about the moral state of the city and that required a ban of much different things.

Basically, he would ban anything that encouraged or glorified cowardice, selfish, shallow, or otherwise morally damaging materials. (One notable example Dr. Biskner gave in Political Theory was Keeping Up With the Kardashians). Plato certainly had better motives for his censorship than its modern proponents and may have been right about some media being bad for us, but I still can't get with the censorship program.

P.s. I commented on Kennedy's post

Wealth and Poverty

Socrates says that both wealth and poverty will make a man worse at his craft. He says that if a potter becomes wealthy, he will cease to work and lose some of his skill. He also says that if a potter were poor, he wouldn't be able to buy the tools necessary to create good work. He says that the perfect society would be free from wealth and poverty. Although this is an interesting thought, I believe that both wealth and poverty could in some way inspire a man to become better at his given craft. Just because a man is wealthy does not mean he will definitely lose his will to work. Poverty may inspire a man to become better at a craft so that he can get money and see the results of his work. Is Socrates rejecting this idea entirely?

I commented on Collin's blog.

different types of good

Glaucon's statement about the different types of good brings me back to a discussion we had in Dr. Mashburn's philosophy class. Like Glaucon said, there are three types of good: the good in itself, the good in itself with benefits, and the good that is painful but has benefits. Most people tend to take part in the last type of good because they fear the consequences. In this, we see that justice stems from human weakness and vulnerability. Justice isn't something that we practice for our own sake, but it is something we engage in out of fear and weakness.

P.S. I commented on Collin's.

The artist's place in the Republic

It's a little bit early for a blogpost but I'm reading Book III now and feeling a bit terrified.

I'm not really sure what to do with The Republic, as an artist. Am I supposed to take Plato at his word? Is he going to 'logical' extremes with his construction of his bizarrely hyper-controlled city? Is this purely a metaphor for the rights and wrongs of the soul and the search for the meaning of justice, or is it meant to have some genuine wisdom for city-building and public life?

I don't know, but reading what Socrates has to say about poetry and stories in the hypothetical city makes me hope his words aren't meant to be taken as far as he suggests. Because what he's suggesting - such an intense crackdown on artistic liberties and the intensifying of state-enforced morality - is frankly disturbing on at least a few levels.

Maybe I'm taking this all much too seriously and literally, but the kind of meddling Socrates/Plato wants the government of the republic to engage in reminds me of too many totalitarian states. I assume there's more solid philosophy ahead instead of just ruling-class intervention - or, again, maybe I'm reacting too strongly to something that's not meant to be taken so intensely - but right now the censorship angle just disturbs me.

Just vs Injust

One thing I love about honors is we can focus on small details and think critically instead of just accepting a reading as fact and  not challenging it.  A point is made putting justice and injustice in comparison. Thrasymachus claims that injustice is better than justice.  Power lies with injustice because of lack of boundaries or rules. Justice by definition will always have rules and penalties.  Injustice may allow a man to be freer but it also allows men to have free rein over weaker men. It ends up being survival of the fittest and a constant battle for power. In the long run a just system will prevail therefore justice triumphs over injustic.

PS i commented on Danielles

The Arrogance of Thrasymachus

The dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates reveals the limitations to wisdom that results from being heavily stubborn and opinionated. As the debate progresses, it can be seen how increasingly difficult it becomes for Thrasymachus to accept a perspective other than his own. His arrogance limits his own abilities to understand new ideas and concepts. This prohibits Thrasymachus from completely understanding many important points made by Socrates. On several different occasions, Thrasymachus is blatantly hostile towards Socrates as he is consistently proven wrong. While Thrasymachus is certainly knowledgeable, he is also much too opinionated and arrogant to ever prevent his own ignorance; regardless of whether or not Socrates successfully enlightens him at the end.

P.S. I commented on Jeremy’s.

Age is a state of mind

I have read Plato's Republic before but have supposedly never really paid any attention to this passage until now. Before the initial talk about justice with Polemarchus, Socrates is given a lesson about age. Most people consider age to correspond directly with wisdom, but nothing else. Cephalus, on the other hand, related age to the state of someone's mind. Cephalus's main point ended up being about how age does not mater to those who have a sound mind, but can ruin a man who is stressed or unhappy This is interesting in the fact that society today is concerned about their age on a level that was unheard of in Plato's times, but the same truth is evident. People who are stressed or unhappy are usually the people you find lying about their age, such as the high school teacher we all had that was forever 28 years old. On the other hand people who ignore or pay no particular interest to questions concerning age are normally content. This all reminds me of a quirky saying I once heard too, "Age is strictly a fact of mind over matter, if you don't mind, it doesn't matter." I also love how I read the word sillybillies in the book and never caught it, I guess it might just be the translation.

I commented on Kayleigh's

Mightier, Freer, and More Masterful

“So Socrates, injustice, when it comes into being on a sufficient scale, is mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice, and as I have said from the beginning, the just is the advantage of the stronger, and the unjust is what is profitable and advantageous for oneself.”

Thrasymachus has just finished his argument on just versus being unjust. He suggest that injustice has the advantage. He is right in saying so, but this is the reason justice is held up so highly and viewed as lovely. Just is quite possible a gift. A person who is completely just is few and hard to find. This is because like Thrasymachus says, injustice makes one freer. Injustice requires nothing--little effort--from a person. A person takes what he wants and goes where he pleases; indeed, he is free. The question that remains is this: Is it more profitable for the soul to be unjust or in other terms selfish? This would depend on an individual's priorities, really. 

I commented on Mary-Kate's: http://honorsblogging.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-strength-of-just.html?showComment=1413263739116&m=1#c1407533541439030363

What do the ponies want?

“We must infer that all things are produced more plentifully and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things.”

Ponies in Equestria come of age when they receive a “cutie mark." It's a symbol that represents their natural talent. The cutie mark is the most important factor in determining the course of a pony’s life. In Equestria, ponies can do the one thing depicted on their flank with exceptional ability, a specialization of labor Plato could only have dreamed of. However, I have to ask, is this what the ponies want? I feel like America promotes a philosophy that is the exact opposite of Plato. We say that anyone can become anything here. We are the land of dreamers, right? So which philosophy is correct? 

I commented on Mary Kate McCray's.

The Strength of the Just

"I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger."
This phrase essentially slapped me in the jaw when I read it, merely because it seems to be very familiar. The world absolutely works this way. When I say "the world" I am referring to those who do not hold to the Christian faith. However, slowly this phrase has been seeping into the hearts of those who are within the church and it has changed them. Justice is only just for those who happen to look the way we want them too. Those who are sociable, creative, and attractive, physically and socially, are the only ones who now receive just action. So says the actions of the church. The others are written off and are labeled "bad people" who are "hard to deal with". There is no justice for those who are weak or appear to be so.

P.S. I commented on Kayleigh-Marie's post

Beautiful Logic

"But let us consider this further point: Is not he who can best strike a blow in a boxing match or in any kind of fighting best able to ward off a blow?
Certainly.
And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping from a disease is best able to create one?
True.
And he is the best guard of a camp who is best able to steal a march upon the enemy?
Certainly.
Then he who is a good keeper of anything is also a good thief?
That, I suppose, is to be inferred.
Then if the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealing it."

           I've read Plato for several classes and I have always been a huge fan. Socrates is one of my favorite non-fictional characters EVER and I never get tired of these first chapters of the republic. I love him chiefly for his sassiness but I also can't get enough of his logical pathways. The quote above is just one of the many times that Socrates' logic blew my mind. I love reading it because you start out wondering what he's getting at, then you slowly start to see it, and then when he makes his final conclusion you're still like "WOAH!" even though you saw what was coming three lines back. Yeah, I'll say it. I love Socrates <3

P.s. I commented on Sydni's  post

Censorship and Metaphors

Art sounds like it's in pretty bad shape in the republic.

I'm torn because, as an artist, I'm a little disturbed by what Plato/Socrates is suggesting the people of the republic do to keep their morals intact: censorship. Censorship is never a healthy option - never. It's a tool of fear and ignorance, even if in the name of moral purity.

But then, the republic isn't really a plan for a republic; it's a metaphor, an illustration of one soul. Strictly speaking, I don't think Socrates/Plato is advocating the legal restriction of art and storytelling. Still, is 'censorship' good even for an individual person?

How do you know what you believe if you never read or listen to or expose yourself to anything different to what you've been taught? Are your morals really real - are you following them for the right reasons - if they're all you know?

Standards in entertainment are one thing, but can you really claim that it's moral to block out anything that doesn't jive with your personal worldview? Is it moral or is it just ignorant?

PS: I commented on Syndi Holm's post.

Lessons in Leadership

I personally love the following quote. “Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher?” This quote to me means that Leaders must have a level, and thoughtful head. In regards to the other texts that we have read, the only times we see the main characters slip up is when they are not thinking like a philosopher.

I commented on Sydni's

The Older Generation

Although justice was a  major theme in the first book,  page 26-27 stood out to me the most. The discussion of the elderly between Sacrotes and Cephalus was very enlightening.  Many of us tend to overlook the older generations, but Sacrotes brings up a good point. "Cephalus, I count conversations with very old people among my greatest pleasures. We ought to learn from them as from travelers on a road we have not yet taken but which most of us, sooner or later, are destined to follow..."  We can learn from the elders' mistakes and experiences. Cephalus and Sacrotes also discuss how people react to aging differently. What I love about this part of their discussion is how the older generation is "liberated from a savage and relentless slave master". As some age they feel as if they are losing something great; instead, they are freed from those past temptations and weaknesses which so easily entangled!
P.S. I commented on Jeremy Beamon

Socrates, SHUT UP

When my world history professor, Dr. Sirmon, lectured on ancient Greece, he naturally mentioned Socrates.  Dr. Sirmon said that he died because he never shut his mouth.  I now understand what Dr. Sirmon meant when he said that.  Though reading his many questions really annoyed me, some of the things that he brought up were interesting.  The most intriguing of those is that of the government and laws.  Socrates asks whether or not citizens should be obedient to the government, and the clear answer is yes.  Then, he asks if the government is infallible, and makes all laws perfectly, to which the answer is obviously no.  This part of the discussion instantly brought to mind the passage in Romans 13, in which Paul instructs readers to subject themselves to the government.  Now, the conversation doesn't move towards answering the question of when to obey the government and when not to, in the case of an unjust law, but I like to see the topic brought up because it is always so hard to answer. 

Yo, on Caleb's

Two to Tango

As I was reading several individual quotes stuck out to me, mainly because I'm still processing the overall concepts. One quote from Glaucon states, "For the extreme of injustice is to seem to be just when one is not." I may not agree with Glaucon's whole argument, but I do agree with this statement. In arguments both sides have valid statements that should be acknowledged, if both sides don't have a case to argue there would never be one. Socrates acknowledges this I believe, as he listens to the other side and sometimes validates certain phrases they say into his own argument. Socrates ability to listen, understand, and evaluate another person's ideas helps him develop a deeper understanding of his own.

P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffin's.

Defining Justice

From the first book, one overarching question becomes apparent: what is the nature of justice, and how does one define it?
While this seems like it should be a clear cut Merriam-Webster case, it is actually a much more complex  philosophical dilemma. Can justice be truly objective? Socrates argues that it is actually subjective, and the nature of justice as defined by Polemarchus stating that "justice is helping friends and harming enemies" cannot be universally applied to any form of law or structured system, but must remain relevant solely to the individual. If Justice can not be maintained from person to person, can anyone really be just in anyone's eyes but his own? Can a government have a justice system? I was thoroughly confused by the idea of a fluid and changing justice as opposed to the concrete form of justice I had constructed in my mind.
I suppose with a christian world-view perspective, justice is defined by the perspective of YHWH, the ultimate judge. However, is justice subjective if the subject is completely and wholly objective?
Basically, I have no answers, just a lot more questions of my own to add to those of Socrates...
P.S. I commented on Caleb Zessin's

Is Cynicism Inspirational?

     I don't know about y'all, but sometimes I feel like I can edit the life out of a paper, but can't actually write one. Reading Plato this week, especially in book I, I feel like Socrates is very similar. He can tear down other people's arguments, but then fails to throw out his own ideas. Sometimes I wonder what the point is in merely tearing down ideas. I understand that it is beneficial to change your views on life if they are wrong, but this is a circular argument that seems to not really impact ones actions. Or does it? But the negativity and futility demonstrated but the approach of Socrates somewhat bugs me.  What is the point to cynicism? Yes, it stretches the mind, and broadens your perspective, but ultimately how does it benefit society? Truly, it isn't the red marks on a paper that inspire, but the words. Wouldn't the same concept be true when it comes to ideals?


P.S. I threw in my bit on Caleb's post :)

Necessary Realism

The initial debate about justice between Socrates and Polemarchus is incredible. It really shows that you have to know the foundation for your beliefs. Socrates quickly flusters Polemarchus to the point that he makes the comment, "...I no longer know what I did mean..."  Socrates remains cool throughout. It's also clear to me that the arguments of Socrates seem to always revert towards an idealistic view. Such as justice. With all his talk about pilots and doctors, he seeks to nullify Thrasymachus' view of rulers. Yet it's important that the definition he establishes of these titles hinges upon how the holders of these titles "should" act. Socrates doesn't appear to take into account how flawed humans actually act even though human fallibility is mentioned many times. 

P. S. I commented on Brydon's queso postito. 

Logic in the Context of Scripture

        Books I and II of The Republic have contained nothing but unanswered questions and theories. Socrates has questioned the nature of justice? Is it necessary? Is it self-contained? What is NOT justice? Who is just? Book II is about creating a "perfect city". It is way too complex to even attempt-isn't that why God is God and we cannot completely understand His ways? He is the only One who could make a perfect civilization. It cannot be recreated or explained with logic.
         I am also a bit flustered by Socrates' 2D people he has chosen for his city. Each person must have ONE occupation? In an "ideal" world, he says, if each person stays in their one art, then the city will be efficient, i.e. perfect. What I don't understand is how he could overlook the fact that each human being created has a complex makeup. We know that God created each of us unique, physically, mentally, emotionally. You cannot put people into a box like that, or expect each person to always act exactly the same way to every situation, every time, in any place, in any phase of life. Which is why this perfect city can never be achieved.

My question is, what kind of logic do we need to use then, in the perspective of a scriptural worldview? How should we respond to Socrates? What is the point of all this "if, then" when we have the scripture as our basis of knowledge and we know that God is still beyond our understanding?

Fall Break!

No blog this week due to Fall Break and the exam! There will be one next Monday so don't forget!

Questioning God

Many people often assume that questioning God shows direct defiance to the authority of God. Job consistently questions God throughout, yet never displays a lack of fear or respect to God. Although Job is constantly attacked by his peers for questioning God, he constantly reaffirms his faith and fear of God. Job shows fellow Christians that there is a difference between questioning God and disobeying Him. I think it’s a fine lesson to be learned. While there is certainly a very fine balance to be upheld, careful questioning proves as a means of further growth and development in a walk with Christ. Just as a student prompts his or her instructor in order to gain more wisdom, so too should a Christian approach God with similar intentions.

ps.  I commented on Kennedy's post.