January 19 (Thursday, Day 4): Prepare notes
on each of the four main characters we meet: Lysimachus & Melesias
(treat as one), Nicias, Laches and Socrates, evaluating each character's
way of thinking. base your "read" of each character on specific textual
details, including the interactions between the interlocutors.
- Try to figure out what seem(s) to be the core value(s) for each
person or set of persons, tying this to textual details.
- What questions or suspicions form for you about each character
and that character's statements and ideas? Where do these suspicions
come from?
|
January 23 (Monday, Day 6): Use the time to
begin exploring the list of books on reserve.
Some help:
- Here is
the
library page about how reserves work.
- Or, form the PALS search page, use the scroll box in the top
blue bar to select not CSBS/SJU libraries, but "CSB/SJU
Collections --Course Reserves." You can simply type my name
(Beach) or the author or title in the search box.
- You will need the "Reserve #" (not the regular
library call number) and your ID to check out the book at the main
desk of Alcuin Library.
- I'll take a preliminary survey on Friday, January 27 about
preferences.
|
January 25 (Wednesday, Day 2):
- Sketch an outline of the arguments that are made in the second
part of the Laches in the attempts to define courage. That is
briefly note:
- How do the definitions differ from one another? How do they
evolve, if they do?
- What are the objections made to the various definitions? Who
objects? On what grounds?
- What do we learn from the discussion of the various
definitions of courage?
- Where would your own definition of courage fit in the
discussions?
|
January 27 (Friday, Day 4):
- There seemed to be a general agreement that we don't get a good
definition of courage at the end of the Laches. But do we
learn something anyway? What are some lessons you'd be willing to
argue are learned (or can be learned by a good reader) from the
dialogue? Come with some notes about this so the thoughts you hit
the pillow with Thursday night can be resurrected in class Friday
morning!
|
January 31 (Tuesday, Day 6):
- Read from pp. 1-39 of the Symposium (to 199c of the
margin numbers, or through the speech of Agathon). We will take
several days to discuss this much of the text, but it will allow us
then to have time with no new reading to work on the paper, etc.
- For the present, just try to follow the main ideas of each
speaker. After the introductory "frame" dialogue between Apollodorus
and an unnamed friend, we get the set-up of the feast and the plan
to have everyone give a speech on love. You might start by just
noting what each person speaking emphasizes about love.
|
February 2nd (Thursday, Day 2)
- paper due.
- We'll continue the discussion of the first speeches on
love--aiming to get through at least Aristophanes, if not Agathon.
|
February 6 (Monday, Day 4)
- Read the section of the Symposium entitled "Socrates
Questions Agathon," through 201c, p. 44.
- Write a brief reflection about what you think of Aristophanes'
speech on love. If you like it say what you like about it, what it
contributes to an understanding of love. This will not be graded as
a paper, but will be "counted" as done or not done (or: done
responsibly vs. done very superficially).
|
February 8 (Wednesday, Day 6)
- No special instructions, just read Diotima's questioning of
Socrates and his re-telling of her conversations with him.
|
February 10 (Friday, Day 2)
- Make a Public Folder Entry (Public Folders - Academic -
Philosophy - Dennis Beach - Ancient) that responds to the question
that is posted there and here. Please make your post before you go
to bed Thursday night!
- Write a response about how you see Alcibiades' speech (and the
dramatic action) fitting into the purpose of the Symposium as
a whole. In other words, how does this speech affect our
understanding of the insights you think Plato intends us to derive
from this dialogue?
|
February 14 (Tuesday, Day 4)
- Just read Republic, Book I, and be ready to discuss it.
|
February 16 (Thursday, Day 6)
- Read Republic Book II and make a public folder entry on
one of the following topics:
- How are Glaucon and Adeimantus' arguments different from
Thrasymachus' arguments in Book I?
- What do you think about the way Socrates begins thinking
about "the city coming into being in speech [words]"? In other
words, if you consider the "principles" by which they "found"
the city.
- The step from the healthy city to the unhealthy, luxurious
city (372e)--is this a necessary step in the question they have
undertaken?
- What do you think of the education that Socrates proposes so
far in Book II, especially the discussion of the "tales" or
stories they will allow?
|
February 20 (Monday, Day 2)
- We'll continue with Book II. Those who did not post to the
public folder for last Thursday, please post for today.
- Move ahead with outside reading project.
|
February 22 (Wednesday, Day 4)
- Skip to mid-Book IV, and pick up at 427d, where Socrates says,
"So then son of Ariston, your city would now be founded." The
remainder of Book IV looks at where justice can be found in the
city, and compares this to an individual. In doing this, Socrates
presents a very interesting account of the human soul, which we will
focus on.
- I don't think Plato or Socrates intends us to take all these
prohibitions seriously. He's clearly making some points this way,
but there's an unrealism about the whole, especially if we compare
this to other dialogues. Parts that we will skip:
- Book II begins by continuing the discussion of the
guardians' (military) education, involving first more
restrictions on poetry:
- No longer focuses on a "theological" restriction, i.e.,
telling false stories about the gods;
- Admits no poetry that would inspire fear of death (so
many famous lines from the Iliad are expressly
censored);
- Lines pointing to emotional weakness or softness are
left out, as the soldiers have to be willing to undergo
great hardship.
- Nothing inspiring great laughter, as this weakens
people.
- Keep passages extolling truth and obedience and
self-mastery and endurance, but restrict passages extolling
the pleasures of feasting and sex.
- The next thing discussed is the "style" of poetry, and here
a distinction is made between "narrative" (telling what
happened) and "imitation" (representing people's actual
words--direct dialogue). Socrates and Adeimantus choose to have
direct speech imitating (mimicking) noble persons be the rule,
with short narrative passages to get through bad things as fast
as possible.
- Of the meters and harmonics, they chose the warlike Dorian
harmony (as we saw in the Laches) and a version of the
Phrygian mode for "people performing peaceful deeds that are not
violent but voluntary" (399b).
- Once they decide they must outlaw polyphony and the lyre,
they say they have now "purged the luxurious city" (at least for
the guardian class). "Plato don't allow no lyre-playing 'round
here..." (399de). Conclusion: 400e.
- Gymnastics follow a similar regimen: not pampering the body,
but developing it and making the soldiers capable of their
military service. Gymnastics and physical conditioning are
thought to prevent most of the need of medicine, which they say
really is a substitute used by weak bodies. Medicine is seen by
Socrates as something most often practiced by hypochondriacs or
people overly focused on their bodies. Gymnastics done right
disciplines the body.
- But we also don't want overdeveloped bodies that cramp a
person's mental capacity: 411cd.
- The next topics is who among the guardians should rule? This in
effect shifts a two-class city (workers and guardians/soldiers) to a
three-class one: workers, auxiliaries or helpers (formerly called
guardians) and the true guardians or rulers (414b).
- The rulers are chosen from among those citizens who seem
most naturally to be able to concern themselves for the whole.
They are those with the strongest love for the whole of the city
and the most concerned about how it functions.
- The "noble lie" of gold, silver and iron/bronze
constitutions of people that corresponds to their role. At the
same time, this myth or "noble lie" unites all in the city--of
all classes--as brothers and sisters: all came from the same
underground "nursery" and the gold, silver or bronze that
characterizes each was a matter of chance. Thus children might
be born with a different "constitution" than their parents had
(415a-d).
- The living arrangements of the different classes (end of
III, beginning of IV).
- Arranged for the happiness of the whole, not for private
or individual happiness.
- Private property abolished so that the extremes of both
wealth and poverty are also avoided, since both tend to
corrupt (422a).
- Even spouses and children are to be "in common" (424a).
This is to ensure that education of their dispositions and
not private favors rule the city.
|
Thursday, March 9 (Day 4)
- Public Folder Entry: Choose one of the arguments about the true
philosophers presented in Book VI that you wish to comment on, and
write a brief reflection/commentary on it. You could choose one of
the principal images (the ship, the beast-tamer, the analogy of the
sun, the divided line) or one of the other arguments or points
brought up. There are other images or metaphors used as well. Your
reflection can go in any way you see fit: commentary on what it
means, its appropriateness, or perhaps the truth or insight you find
it expresses even today...
Please post before retiring for the night on Wednesday.
|
Monday, April 10 (Day 2)
- Write a little reflection in your notebook about each of the
following:
- First, try to explain what you think Aristotle means by the
sentence at 418a5: "The perceiver is potentially..."
- Choose some experience or experiences of perception and
write a reflection in which you try to see how your experience
fits into what Aristotle describes as perception. You can use
any parts of his description of perception that you want.
|
Friday, April 21 (Day 2)
- Now new reading. Review what Aristotle says about virtue in Book
I of the Nichomachean Ethics. Bring a one paragraph
reflection on the following topic: How and why does he define the
highest good, i.e., happiness, as “virtue”?
|
PHIL331-01A: Ancient Philosophy