Hello.
Don’t have much time today, but we are still reading Plato’s Apology, though this was the last section.
The part that I selected today started on page 67, section b, though it ends on the next page. It goes like this: “the difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from wickedness, which is far more fleet of foot…I [Socrates], the slow old man, have been overtaken by the slower of the two, but my accusers, who are clever and quick, have been overtaken by the faster: by iniquity. When I leave this court, I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convinced by Truth herself of depravity and injustice. And they accept their sentence even as I accept mine.”
I thought that this was a really interesting quote because Socrates talks of how he has been overcome by death, but his accusers have been overcome by injustice. He talks of himself as the slow old man who is caught only by the slower. I also thought that it conveyed fairly well the tenor of the last section of The Apology. He is not afraid, he has made that quite clear, but there is something else behind his words nonetheless. I found this last part especially sad, with its last line that conveys such heaviness even through its light tone, “Well, now it is time to be off, I to die and you to live; but which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God.”
Goodbye.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Accusations Abound
Hello.
We are still reading the Apology, by Plato, and the more I read, the more I think that Socrates truly is one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth, perhaps THE wisest. He talks about how there is no equal to him in page 57, Starting with the sentence that begins on the top line with “I”, going all the way down to the end of the paragraph.
The quote that really struck me from this part of the Apology that we read was on page 56, section e. “My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for it’s wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give you attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul.”
First, my explanation. So Socrates is saying, “You, my friend, are part of this really wonderful city of learning, a city that is FAMOUS for the knowledge here, and yet, you spend all of your time trying to make money and no time trying to find the Truth (capital “T” Truth).”
I thought that this was really important because it was like an accusation to the prosecution. It says that you are too concerned with “real” matters, physical things, and not concerned enough about the things that Socrates believes truly matter. I think that he is also subliminally accusing them of being in this wonderful city, where everything is devoted to wisdom and strength, and yet here you stand, accusing me for the very thing that makes this city so special.
This is such a wonderful piece of text!
Goodbye.
We are still reading the Apology, by Plato, and the more I read, the more I think that Socrates truly is one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth, perhaps THE wisest. He talks about how there is no equal to him in page 57, Starting with the sentence that begins on the top line with “I”, going all the way down to the end of the paragraph.
The quote that really struck me from this part of the Apology that we read was on page 56, section e. “My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for it’s wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give you attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul.”
First, my explanation. So Socrates is saying, “You, my friend, are part of this really wonderful city of learning, a city that is FAMOUS for the knowledge here, and yet, you spend all of your time trying to make money and no time trying to find the Truth (capital “T” Truth).”
I thought that this was really important because it was like an accusation to the prosecution. It says that you are too concerned with “real” matters, physical things, and not concerned enough about the things that Socrates believes truly matter. I think that he is also subliminally accusing them of being in this wonderful city, where everything is devoted to wisdom and strength, and yet here you stand, accusing me for the very thing that makes this city so special.
This is such a wonderful piece of text!
Goodbye.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Truth About Wisdom (And Ignorance)
Hello.
We are now reading a part of “The Apology” by Plato. In this piece, Socrates tries to convince the jury that he is innocent, and, moreover, that all of the claims against him are utterly false.
The line that struck me most, though it has little to do with the trial that we plan to host, was on page 44, section 21d. Here, Socrates says, “It is only too likely that neither of us have any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something that he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance.” First, allow me to explain what I think Socrates means by this.
He is talking about a man that he interviewed in his quest to find other men wiser than he in Athens, or, for that matter, in the whole world. I too am coming to think that there are none. The man that he interviewed was a politician, I believe. Socrates claims that neither of them have any real knowledge, for what is the knowledge of men compared to the immortal knowledge of the gods? But the man, the politician, BELIVED that he knew far more than he did, whereas Socrates knows that he knows nothing.
This is what I have learned from this, and what I have written in all caps in the margin: TRUE WISDOM IS THE AKNOWLDGEMENT OF IGNORANCE. I’m sure that’s a quote from somewhere, I can't be the one that thought of that first. I think what this means is that the second that you realize that you really do know nothing, you have learned the most important piece of knowledge: there is more to know. Socrates believes that neither the men who know little but think they know much, or those that know much but think they know little are truly wise. And worse, I think he believes, are those who believe they know all and in reality know nothing.
What does this have to do with the trial? Nothing. Just something interesting I learned along the way.
Goodbye.
We are now reading a part of “The Apology” by Plato. In this piece, Socrates tries to convince the jury that he is innocent, and, moreover, that all of the claims against him are utterly false.
The line that struck me most, though it has little to do with the trial that we plan to host, was on page 44, section 21d. Here, Socrates says, “It is only too likely that neither of us have any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something that he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance.” First, allow me to explain what I think Socrates means by this.
He is talking about a man that he interviewed in his quest to find other men wiser than he in Athens, or, for that matter, in the whole world. I too am coming to think that there are none. The man that he interviewed was a politician, I believe. Socrates claims that neither of them have any real knowledge, for what is the knowledge of men compared to the immortal knowledge of the gods? But the man, the politician, BELIVED that he knew far more than he did, whereas Socrates knows that he knows nothing.
This is what I have learned from this, and what I have written in all caps in the margin: TRUE WISDOM IS THE AKNOWLDGEMENT OF IGNORANCE. I’m sure that’s a quote from somewhere, I can't be the one that thought of that first. I think what this means is that the second that you realize that you really do know nothing, you have learned the most important piece of knowledge: there is more to know. Socrates believes that neither the men who know little but think they know much, or those that know much but think they know little are truly wise. And worse, I think he believes, are those who believe they know all and in reality know nothing.
What does this have to do with the trial? Nothing. Just something interesting I learned along the way.
Goodbye.
Monday, May 14, 2007
The Speach of Pericles (Funeral Oration and Values of Athens)
Hello.
We are now reading a part of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, the section, for those of you who know it, called Pericles’ Funeral Oration. I think that this is a really wonderful speech because it talks a lot about Athens, the values they hold and what it means to be truly brave.
I will begin with the Athenian values. I believe they are:
• Courage/bravery/manliness
• Freedom
• Tradition/following your father
• Individuality (especially in government)
• Equality/fairness (also in government)
• “Love of things of the mind”
• Kindness to others
• General scruples
I think of these, the most important to the people, and certainly to Pericles, are the ones pertaining to their government, which they took great pride in, and the treatment of others. Several times he mentions the importance of a government that is equal to all of its people, be they rich or poor. Also, he talks about how unique such a government is, one of the quotes that stood out to me was the following from page 148, section 41, lines 13 and 14, “Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders now.”
This will be a really important issue in the trial of Socrates that we are planning to put on because this society was a democracy where freedom reined supreme. This should include freedom of speech…yet Socrates was killed for expressing his own opinion and teaching it to the youth of Athens. If this society that Pericles praises so much were truly free, Socrates would not even receive a reprimand for his teachings.
Goodbye!
We are now reading a part of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, the section, for those of you who know it, called Pericles’ Funeral Oration. I think that this is a really wonderful speech because it talks a lot about Athens, the values they hold and what it means to be truly brave.
I will begin with the Athenian values. I believe they are:
• Courage/bravery/manliness
• Freedom
• Tradition/following your father
• Individuality (especially in government)
• Equality/fairness (also in government)
• “Love of things of the mind”
• Kindness to others
• General scruples
I think of these, the most important to the people, and certainly to Pericles, are the ones pertaining to their government, which they took great pride in, and the treatment of others. Several times he mentions the importance of a government that is equal to all of its people, be they rich or poor. Also, he talks about how unique such a government is, one of the quotes that stood out to me was the following from page 148, section 41, lines 13 and 14, “Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders now.”
This will be a really important issue in the trial of Socrates that we are planning to put on because this society was a democracy where freedom reined supreme. This should include freedom of speech…yet Socrates was killed for expressing his own opinion and teaching it to the youth of Athens. If this society that Pericles praises so much were truly free, Socrates would not even receive a reprimand for his teachings.
Goodbye!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Patriot Act, What it Means for YOU
Hello.
The topic that I have read about for this “Jigsaw Activity” is on the issue of censorship (rather obviously). This censorship, however, is more centered around 9/11 and terrorism related omissions. More specifically, The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an act that was passed to allow the government to look at the books that you buy, check out from the library or look for while you are at a public library. This was implemented, they say, because one of the suspected terrorists of the 9/11 crisis did research in a public library. If this was a debate topic, I would suggest that the resolution be as follows: The Patriot Act goes directly against our First Amendment rights.
This is really important. Think about it this way, the government could go back and looking through records of any book that you ever checked out or bought. While you are in a public library, a free space to use a computer, the government can legally ask the library for records of everything that you did while you were there. Now, most of you probably never pick up a book unless directly asked (and even then…), but you DO use the computer and you wouldn’t want the government looking through your history and accusing you of terrorism based on those accounts. Because of recent changes in the legislation, the FBI can now look at these files without a reason (if they have one) and they certainly don’t have to give a reason to the library staff. I have a right to what I read. That is NONE of the government’s business. This is a direct breach of our privacy and shouldn’t even be legal.
The reasons against this, I have given above, but to recap, this is a violation of our privacy; we have a right to do whatever we want. The government should have very good reasons and evidence before going into this stuff. As Nancy Chang put it, “The act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers.”
On the other hand, we have John Ashcroft, ex-attorney general, who advocated for The Patriot Act, perhaps because he was the one who wrote it. He says that the government doesn’t care what types of books we read and that there are only 11,000 FBI agents in the USA and they are not going to waste their time looking over our shoulders at the books we read. The administration, he says, believes in the First Amendment.
Now, that might be true, but I don’t believe what he said about the FBI. Why have a Patriot Act if they really don’t care what we are buying? Why even allow that option if they honestly don’t care? Therefore, I think that he must be lying. What other purpose would the act serve?
Goodbye.
The topic that I have read about for this “Jigsaw Activity” is on the issue of censorship (rather obviously). This censorship, however, is more centered around 9/11 and terrorism related omissions. More specifically, The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an act that was passed to allow the government to look at the books that you buy, check out from the library or look for while you are at a public library. This was implemented, they say, because one of the suspected terrorists of the 9/11 crisis did research in a public library. If this was a debate topic, I would suggest that the resolution be as follows: The Patriot Act goes directly against our First Amendment rights.
This is really important. Think about it this way, the government could go back and looking through records of any book that you ever checked out or bought. While you are in a public library, a free space to use a computer, the government can legally ask the library for records of everything that you did while you were there. Now, most of you probably never pick up a book unless directly asked (and even then…), but you DO use the computer and you wouldn’t want the government looking through your history and accusing you of terrorism based on those accounts. Because of recent changes in the legislation, the FBI can now look at these files without a reason (if they have one) and they certainly don’t have to give a reason to the library staff. I have a right to what I read. That is NONE of the government’s business. This is a direct breach of our privacy and shouldn’t even be legal.
The reasons against this, I have given above, but to recap, this is a violation of our privacy; we have a right to do whatever we want. The government should have very good reasons and evidence before going into this stuff. As Nancy Chang put it, “The act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers.”
On the other hand, we have John Ashcroft, ex-attorney general, who advocated for The Patriot Act, perhaps because he was the one who wrote it. He says that the government doesn’t care what types of books we read and that there are only 11,000 FBI agents in the USA and they are not going to waste their time looking over our shoulders at the books we read. The administration, he says, believes in the First Amendment.
Now, that might be true, but I don’t believe what he said about the FBI. Why have a Patriot Act if they really don’t care what we are buying? Why even allow that option if they honestly don’t care? Therefore, I think that he must be lying. What other purpose would the act serve?
Goodbye.
Monday, April 23, 2007
We Need The Press
Hello.
We are doing more on censorship, but this is in a different area, one I am not going to support: censorship of the press. I believe that there are some things that need to be censored (see the last post I wrote), but I think that the American people have a right to know what is happening in the world, we can’t and the government can’t keep what is happening from the people. The piece I read agreed with this position.
The first thing that this piece brings to my attention is a case involving a man named Maher Hawash, who was (and still is, perhaps) in jail for a reason that was not explained to him. He had been “caught” by ex-attorney general, John Ashcroft who had been proven in the past to detain these people without reason as HE (not a jury) suspects them of terrorism. These people were generally detained without warning or reason.
The second thing was the case of a man named Jose Padilla, who, like Mr. Hawash, was kept without reason and without a trial. He was unable to see a lawyer or his family and has not been told why he was detained in the first place. And, this is the worst part, he is not the only one. This has happened to lots of people and the government has been trying to keep it under a “blanket of secrecy”.
And last, it is the press’ job to protect our rights and keep us informed. Without them, the American public would be unable to make informed decisions. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t do things like vote and our rights would crumble, without anyone knowing anything about it.
Even though I advocated censorship in the last piece that I wrote, I don’t believe in all censorship. I don’t believe that you should be able to show porn on a family channel on Saturday mornings. I do, however, believe that things like the press (and books) should not be censored. We need to know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t want us to know something, we should be worried about what they are trying to hide as they probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Goodbye.
We are doing more on censorship, but this is in a different area, one I am not going to support: censorship of the press. I believe that there are some things that need to be censored (see the last post I wrote), but I think that the American people have a right to know what is happening in the world, we can’t and the government can’t keep what is happening from the people. The piece I read agreed with this position.
The first thing that this piece brings to my attention is a case involving a man named Maher Hawash, who was (and still is, perhaps) in jail for a reason that was not explained to him. He had been “caught” by ex-attorney general, John Ashcroft who had been proven in the past to detain these people without reason as HE (not a jury) suspects them of terrorism. These people were generally detained without warning or reason.
The second thing was the case of a man named Jose Padilla, who, like Mr. Hawash, was kept without reason and without a trial. He was unable to see a lawyer or his family and has not been told why he was detained in the first place. And, this is the worst part, he is not the only one. This has happened to lots of people and the government has been trying to keep it under a “blanket of secrecy”.
And last, it is the press’ job to protect our rights and keep us informed. Without them, the American public would be unable to make informed decisions. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t do things like vote and our rights would crumble, without anyone knowing anything about it.
Even though I advocated censorship in the last piece that I wrote, I don’t believe in all censorship. I don’t believe that you should be able to show porn on a family channel on Saturday mornings. I do, however, believe that things like the press (and books) should not be censored. We need to know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t want us to know something, we should be worried about what they are trying to hide as they probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Goodbye.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
You Beleive in Censorship Too
Hello.
Censorship is a really interesting issue, because the more I read about it and the more that I learn about how it effects our lives, the more I think that we do really need some form of censorship. I know, you are permitted to gasp, but let me ask you this, and this is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, “Do you think that ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?”
No? I thought not. Well, and this is also Jonah Goldberg’s point, then you believe in censorship as well. If you believe that you shouldn’t be able to distribute the work of someone else, their book, their music, their characters, then you also believe in copyright laws, which is a form of censorship.
Now, the part that gets tricky is hate speech. Do you believe that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be aloud to spout white supremacy speeches? I personally don’t think so, but if you limit them, you are really starting to put a lid on what people can and cannot say. You are really cutting down on the American idea of everybody can say whatever they want.
The last point I would like to make, and borrow again from Goldberg, is that in modern times, censorship has become something that we gasp at. We think, “Censorship? No!” Even the word “censorship” has come to mean “the bad kind of censorship in which the government takes away all of our rights.” But perhaps, it’s not really such a bad thing.
The second article, if I am to continue my pervious opinion, is actually rather naïve-sounding. They say that hate speech should be aloud and even the Ku Klux Klan members and the Hitlers of the world should be give the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Of course, they make no mention of the good kind of censorship and rather deem it all as “bad”.
I would like to draw a parallel. America is a free country in which we are aloud to do whatever we want. However, there are laws to keep us safe, so we are not entirely free. But, would you have the government get rid of the law that says that it’s illegal to kill another human? Would you have them get rid of the law that says that you can’t steal things? No, I don’t think so. Censorship is the same way. We ARE a free country and you can say almost anything you want, but we have to have the censorship laws, and if you thought about it, you would see that there are forms of censorship that everyone believes in.
The article advocating free speech makes some very good points. We have come a long way from jailing people for handing out anti-war leaflets, in fact, we have the right to protest and use it frequently. I believe in that right. I believe that we need to be able to express our dissent, what I don’t believe is that it is so black and white. More a shade of grey, I would say.
This second viewpoint also says “freedom of expression…is…‘the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’” And I have to agree. Without this, our society, a democracy, would crumble, but there are some cases in which censorship is a pillar of our society, one of the things that is keeping us afloat. Pull out this building block and we will truly crumble into anarchy.
Goodbye.
Censorship is a really interesting issue, because the more I read about it and the more that I learn about how it effects our lives, the more I think that we do really need some form of censorship. I know, you are permitted to gasp, but let me ask you this, and this is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, “Do you think that ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?”
No? I thought not. Well, and this is also Jonah Goldberg’s point, then you believe in censorship as well. If you believe that you shouldn’t be able to distribute the work of someone else, their book, their music, their characters, then you also believe in copyright laws, which is a form of censorship.
Now, the part that gets tricky is hate speech. Do you believe that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be aloud to spout white supremacy speeches? I personally don’t think so, but if you limit them, you are really starting to put a lid on what people can and cannot say. You are really cutting down on the American idea of everybody can say whatever they want.
The last point I would like to make, and borrow again from Goldberg, is that in modern times, censorship has become something that we gasp at. We think, “Censorship? No!” Even the word “censorship” has come to mean “the bad kind of censorship in which the government takes away all of our rights.” But perhaps, it’s not really such a bad thing.
The second article, if I am to continue my pervious opinion, is actually rather naïve-sounding. They say that hate speech should be aloud and even the Ku Klux Klan members and the Hitlers of the world should be give the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Of course, they make no mention of the good kind of censorship and rather deem it all as “bad”.
I would like to draw a parallel. America is a free country in which we are aloud to do whatever we want. However, there are laws to keep us safe, so we are not entirely free. But, would you have the government get rid of the law that says that it’s illegal to kill another human? Would you have them get rid of the law that says that you can’t steal things? No, I don’t think so. Censorship is the same way. We ARE a free country and you can say almost anything you want, but we have to have the censorship laws, and if you thought about it, you would see that there are forms of censorship that everyone believes in.
The article advocating free speech makes some very good points. We have come a long way from jailing people for handing out anti-war leaflets, in fact, we have the right to protest and use it frequently. I believe in that right. I believe that we need to be able to express our dissent, what I don’t believe is that it is so black and white. More a shade of grey, I would say.
This second viewpoint also says “freedom of expression…is…‘the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’” And I have to agree. Without this, our society, a democracy, would crumble, but there are some cases in which censorship is a pillar of our society, one of the things that is keeping us afloat. Pull out this building block and we will truly crumble into anarchy.
Goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)