August 2009 Archives

In the beginning of the reading, Socrates asks Hippocrates what a sophist is exactly. Hippocrates remarks, "I think that a sophist...is someone who has sophisticated knowledge" (312c) and later says that a sophist is "...a master of making people skilled at speaking." (312d). This explanation does not satisfy Socrates, so after lecturing Hippocrates of the mortal danger his soul is in, they proceed to talk to this "sophist". Socrates then asks the great sophist Protagoras, what is that he is selling as a sophist. Protagoras replies, "The course I teach is in good-decision making, whether it's in his personal life, where the question is how he can best manage his own household, or in public matters, where the aim is to make him as effective as he can be handling and debating the affairs of the city." (318e-319a) Socrates clarifies, saying that his goal is to "turn people into good citizens." (319a).

But there are a couple of different definitions for a sophist. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a sophist is a "1. Philosopher; 2. Any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century b.c. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning; 3. A captious or fallacious reasoned." The dictionary allows for a Sophist to be both a skilled at reasoning and logic and also untrustworthy and deceitful. This is an interesting contradiction. This arises mostly from the modern vs. the ancient Greek interpretation of a sophist. The ancient Greeks thought of sophists as teachers well versed in philosophy and rhetoric. Modern interpretations have them cast as those skilled in deceiving people. In fact sophism is defined as "an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online). In Plato's book I'm sure we'll be referring to the more positive definition. It's just interesting to see how attitudes and words change over time, and to keep that in mind while reading Plato. So what is a sophist? Perhaps Mel Brooks and his movie History of the World pt 1 can help us (please excuse the language):

Unemployment Office Person: "Name and occupation?"
Comicus (played by Mel Brooks): "Comicus, Stand-up Philosopher."
Unemployment Office Person: "A what?"
Comicus: "Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension."
Unemployment Office Person: "Oh. A bullshit artist!"
Comicus: "Uh...Yeah."

There is one thing that has been specifically plaguing my mind (if it can be called such a thing) since I first read it in the Protagoras, "But here it's a question of something more precious to you than your body - your soul, the thing that determines (by turning out either good or bad) whether your whole life goes well or badly." (Pg. 10, 313a) This quote appeared in an earlier posting as well, and once again, as it stands it put me on edge. What bothers me about this quote, and what I feel should bother everyone, is the second part, in which Socrates declares that the "soul, the thing that determines (by turning out either good or bad) whether your whole life goes well or badly." This raises, to me at least, the question of the drive behind being a good person, or possessing a good soul.
From the quote, I almost feel as though the reason behind one being a good person, to Socrates at least, is not for the sake of doing good or to uphold some higher moral code, but, instead, to insure that ones life goes well. This screams of an egocentric view of morality, and furthermore a relativistic morality, as what defines a life turning out well is relative to the individual. That being said, it is possible to look at any action and mentality as being "good", as it is the individual who decides the wellness of his own life. Take a serial killer, for instance, who spent years hunting and killing people, but managed to evade police until the day he died. To him, his life would appear to have turned out well, while to others it did not. Furthermore, lets say he was hunting one particular set of individuals, such as prostitutes (something like Jack-the-Ripper) and even others see the work which he is doing as good. Thus, a justification can arise for some terrible atrocities throughout history, as long as the subject of those actions found that life turned out "well" for him in the end. This is how the quote struck me.
Even were this not to be taken this far, and it could instead be said that what is good or evil is objective, the drive to be good would still remain that of selfish desire, to have a pleasant life. The drive would still remain a selfish drive, and could that person, therefore, be said to be a good person? I would think not, as the intent of an action is just as important as the action itself, and if the intent is selfish, the morality of the action is tainted and unfulfilled. But if this was the case Socrates was making, why would he include that final stipulation, of having a life which turns out well? It seems to me that Socrates is, at the very least, advocating selfish drives as long as the end result is good and is, therefore, creating something similar to a utilitarian sense of morality, one in which the ends justify the means and the drives (which would themselves be a sort of means).

What do you guys think?

How often do we consider the sources of our news and information beyond the brand name (CNN, MSNBC, FOX)? Certainly, there are fact-finding organizations who we trust operate outside of any strong bias to verify or falsify any claims we hear via radio/TV/internet. Unfortunately, these organizations are rarely in control of information dissemination. Instead we put our trust in the corporations that own the various media brands that control public knowledge. Following in the wake of these brands, a new category of news dissemination has developed in the last few years, that of Commentary Reporting. I am primarily thinking of people like, Keith Oberman, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, et al. In a very real sense, a large portion of their respective audiences entrust their 'souls' to the wisdom (if such a word can be used in this context) of these commentators. I cannot imagine how someone like Socrates would respond to the development of this kind of knowledge distribution.

While talking to Hippocrates prior to their engagement to Protagoras, Socrates makes a fairly insightful comment about the nature of knowledge and bias, "If, therefore, you have understanding of what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of anyone; but if not, then, my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying knowledge then in buying meat and drink... [Y]ou cannot buy the wares of knowledge and carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must receive them into the soul and go your own way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited..." (314a)

I am making a gross generalization, but, in my experience people are less suspicious of information from a source that coincides with their paradigms then sources that disagree with their paradigms, regardless of the truth value of the information. Socrates seems to be implying that when someone purchases knowledge, for better or worse, it lingers and shapes our thoughts. Throwing aside arguments about perception occurring prior to observation, and the modern quagmire surrounding the concepts of good and evil, we find a very basic observation from Socrates, that we internalize what we hear from, what we perceive to be, an authority. Socrates gives an answer,"...we should deliberate and take counsel with our elders; for we are still young- too young to determine such a matter." Out of personal experience, I rarely take counsel concerning who I read, watch, and consider authoritative. And, generally, the people who I consider authorities are people who I agree with (Shocker, I know). But I think Socrates offers us some great wisdom that is often ignored. Prior to engaging in any argument, there ought to be serious consideration concerning the origin of our knowledge. If that consideration is over-looked, we might start believing in things like "OLIGARH."

In the reading for Tuesday's class, Socrates asks Protagoras the exact nature of the service he offers to his students.   Though the questioning leaves Protagoras appearing as if he were a car salesman trying to sell Socrates a used set of wheels with some cigarette burns on the upholstery, Socrates asks a pertinent value question: How will the education that Protagoras provides improve the life of of the sophist's own students? (318d)

In asking this question, the philosopher opens debate on the nature of education.   Is an education primarily moral instruction; or is it instead learning particular skills or areas of knowledge?   (Protagoras charges other sophists as having done this: "[Sophists] take young men who have specifically avoided skilled professions and thrust them, against their will, right back into mere skills..." (318e).   Yet, the initial asking by Socrates not only puts forth this distinction but also whether or not morality and ethics can be taught or exchanged within a student's educational career (319b).

And though the debate is just beginning within the text, this student can't help but think that whatever answers that Protagoras will provide to both Socrates and the reader, the answers will not satisfy Socrates' initial doubt.   And though this post will not elaborate deeply on the essence of morality and ethical living, a brief focus on the movie "The Breakfast Club" allows for some scratching at the surface of the topic.

What point is gleaned from the movie?

Recall the scene of the students escaping from the library and trying to avoid notice of the principal Richard Vernon.  Rather than seeking moral instruction from a higher, established, and accepted authority, Brian, John, Claire, and the rest of the students in Saturday detention run away from instruction and authority both physically and internally.   That is, the students act in opposition and pursue their own methods of learning.   And this learning, at the end of the movie, comes in the form of conversing amongst peers, with personal actions and choices debated and defended.   For the characters of the movie, moral instruction appears not in the form of agreed ideal but rather choosing to act differently--without the aid of an instructor and outside the setting of formal instruction.

So, initially, it seems that moral instruction is rooted upon action and not passive understanding, or the mere act of internalizing a formulated argument.   Is an education really the learning of particular knowledge, then?   If it is, what is the direction or purpose of such an education: practicality and utility?

Yet, is Socrates correct, then, in being skeptical to Protagoras' initial claim: "The course I teach is in good decision-making..." (319a)?

In episode 10 of the Digital Dialogue, I am joined by Allan Gyorke, Ryan Wetzel, and Matt Meyer, the team that has been working with me during my summer faculty fellowship at Penn State's Teaching and Learning with Technology.

In this episode we discuss the video we have been working on this summer, an outline of which you can watch here, the future of the Digital Dialogue podcast and the Socratic Politics blog as we move into the semester and some of the things we learned this summer.

Digital Dialogue 10 with Allan, Matt and Ryan: Summer Wrap-up

Protagoras makes what amounts to a dubious, but at once thought-provoking claim:  that many of the greats of their vocations, from the poet Homer to the athlete Herodicus, in fact hid in their professions like an octopus cloaks itself on the seafloor.  "All these people," says Protagoras, "...hid behind the screens of these various professions, because they were scared of people's resentment" (316e).  Hid what?  They were sophists, swears Protagoras, and his innovation lay in the fact that he practices no such dissimulation: "I freely admit that I'm a sophist and that educating people is my job; and I believe that method of protecting myself -- admitting what I do rather than denying it -- is far better than theirs" (317b). 

Outside of the veracity of his claim, I think that Protagoras is onto something more structural, which lends itself to not only our current thread of conversation about respectful dialogue, but to Socratic dialogue and Socratic politics generally.  Straightforwardness and integrity seem to be ideal vehicles in such forums, regardless of the cargo that they carry.  To identify a poisonous element when one sees it is half the battle, and many politicians and other power-holding individuals have recognized this and capitalized on its vulnerabilities.  We find several handy examples in current American politics -- I literally peruse the headlines every morning and find at least one, if not more.  Friday's New York Times offers an easy one, an oft-talked about issue in recent weeks: the recent cases of gratuitous CIA abuse in its interrogations of "enemy combatants."  I find that the article, entitled " Abuse Issue Puts the C.I.A. and Justice Dept. at Odds," illustrates my point well.  You see, the point I am trying to make is one that Protagoras makes quite clearly in our text:  "Now if you try to get away with something, and don't succeed, and instead get found out, that shows it was a pretty dumb idea even to make the attempt, and it's bound to make everyone even more hostile, because people look on someone who tries that sort of thing as being dishonest on top of everything else" (317a-b, my emphasis).  This is precisely the issue under the proverbial magnifying glass in the CIA abuse cases: the CIA has not only lost credibility as a foreign intelligence agency, subject to global opinion, but it has lost faith from American citizens, politicians, and, as is the case demonstrated in this article, its closest counterparts.  The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is seemingly avoiding President Obama's cues, along with those of CIA director Leon Panetta and other high-ranking Washington officials, and considering pursuing the appointment of a prosecutor to investigate what was recognized as excessive measures in the interrogation of possible enemy combatants.  These measures are not unfamiliar: the ubiquitous waterboarding, of course, but also things such as wall-slamming and the brandishing of pistols.  The crimes -- if they are so determined to be -- are not the issue here, however; rather, the principle of CIA policy is.  Not only is Holder at pains to avoid revealing what amounts to torture in the eyes of most, he has been deceived as well, thus igniting what amounts to an "interagency debate" (Baker, Johnston, and Mazzetti).  President Obama himself "disavowed the harsh methods, like waterboarding and wall-slamming," note the authors, but even he was pragmatic.  "...[The] legal opinions were filled with embarrassing details about the C.I.A.'s aggressive approach. Mr. Panetta sought to heavily edit the memos before releasing them but was overruled when Mr. Obama sided with Mr. Holder, who wanted more detailed disclosures" (Baker, Johnston, and Mazzetti, my emphases).  As you can see, Holder is simply seeking full disclosure.  The article notes that the Justice Department and Mr. Obama were fully prepared to avoid the issue, but it seems that Holder is largely concerned with setting a new precedent; one in which the CIA is held accountable to at least be straightforward, whether its acts are criminal or not.  It seems to me that Holder, Obama, and the Washington political scene in general are starting to decry something that, more so even than wholesale mistakes and policy errors, is detrimental to sound politics.  Sure, torture is unacceptable, but the masking of this torture and the sweeping under the giant political rug of documents and video is what will poison the system.  Just as Protagoras notes that to be honest at least gains one respect, Washington and the United States citizenry in general acknowledge that we fail miserably if we can't at least have straightforward discourse.  It's the most common complaint of American politics:  politicians and agencies are never straightforward; they hide their true motives and actions behind a smokescreen of pleasantries, rhetoric, and inauthentic patriotism.  Most of us recognize that the American political system just can't work if ideas and actions -- bad or good -- are never plainly promulgated.  The same goes for our discussion, and for Socratic politics certainly.  It's trite but true: Honesty is the best policy, or at least the healthiest.  

I used both my knowledge of the backstory and the above article as a source in this entry.  The article can be found at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/us/politics/28intel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th      

What has been the base for several of Socrates' arguments, throughout his books, has been the perception of objects through the use of words.  This is a very big deal, for when any of us converse, we expect the other person to know what we are talking about.  A "book" is something that we all have a pre-existing image of in our minds; we don't call something a "book" that doesn't resemble a book.  If a cup of water is "cold", we don't tell another person that the cup of water is "hot".  This is why Socrates finds sophists dangerous; they are able to transform ordinary speech into something that can be used against the ordinary people.    

In Socrates' dicussion with Hippocrates, Socrates is attempting to justify the reasoning behind Hippocrates rush to talk to Protagoras.  Socrates states, "But here it's a question of something more precious to you than your body - your soul, the thing that determines (by turning out either good or bad) whether your whole life goes well or badly." (Pg. 10, 313a).  This dialogue, I believe, has foreshadowing of what one needs to prepare for when attemtping to converse with a sophist.  Notice how Socrates says "good or bad".  These two words are opposites, but what a true sophist can do is combine the meaning of these words, or even change what we believe the meaning is.  Socrates does not imply that there could be a mutual ground, it's either good or bad.  This has direct correlation with the dialogue where Protagoras says, "...if you become my pupil, what will happen is, the very day you start your tuition, you'll go home better than you were before..." (Pg. 16, 318a).  What exactly is better from nothing?

From this point, we can see how important the use of words are and how dangerous they might be if in the wrong hands.  For if the ordinary people lose their way of representation, they must rely upon another.  "Want of a science, that is, ignorance of causes, disposeth, or rather constraineth, a man to rely on the advice and authority of others.  For all men whom the truth concerns, if they rely not on their own, must rely on the opinion of some other whom they think wiser than themselves (and see not why he should deceive them)." (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan; Chapter 11, Of the Difference of Manners).        

 

If a sophist is able to gain control over the use of a word, our ordinary speech becomes useless to us. 

In his book on Plato aptly entitled, Plato: Dramatist of the Life of Reason, John Herman Randall recounts the famous story of Plato's dream:

Shortly before he died, Plato dreamed that he was a swan, flying from tree to tree and causing much trouble for the bird-catchers who tried to capture him. 

Simmias, a companion of Socrates who had died 52 years earlier, interpreted the dream to mean that all men would desire to catch the spirit of Plato, but none would succeed (Randall, John. Plato: Dramatist of the Life of Reason, p.vii).

As we turn our attention to Plato this semester and begin to engage the texts we have inherited under his name, we would do well to keep this dream in mind and to approach these words not so much with a desire to possess the spirit of Plato, but with the desire to allow them to move us toward a deeper understanding of his thinking and the complexity of the human life his writing depicts.

I found one exchange in the Protagoras very interesting.  After forcing Hippocrates, via a little midwifery, to admit that he's simply interested in learning non-technical skills -- namely, the art of rhetoric -- from Protagoras, Socrates asks, "So do you realize what it is you're about to do?  Or hasn't it occurred to you?" (312b).  Hippocrates replies, "How do you mean?" (312b).  "Well," says Socrates, "do you realize you're about to let a man take care of your soul?  A sophist, you say -- but what is a sophist?  I'd be surprised if you knew.  But if you don't know what a sophist is, then you also don't know whether you'll be handing over your soul to something good or something bad." (312b-312c).

In the spirit of igniting my contribution to this blog, I figured I might start by linking the initial reading for the PHIL/CAMS 200 class to the acts of dialogue and learning we will be performing together in that class and this blog for the next few months.  I find it interesting that our translator for the Protagoras, Adam Beresford, chose the phrase "take care of your soul" in denoting what amounts to a corruption of character (footnote 14, p. 144).  The double meaning of this English phrase allows us to toss it around in our minds a bit and meditate on what (else) Socrates is trying to say.  Conspicuously, Socrates is telling a young and perhaps naive Hippocrates to watch out for schemers, especially those who take one's money.  A man who takes one's money for learning will teach one things in the interest of propagating further business -- in other words, he offers a product, which he has marketed and sold to others.  This pedagogical commodity is not something that must provide nourishment to the soul, but rather satisfaction to the seller and apparent satisfaction to the buyer.  But, as Socrates might say, while one might feel satisfied with the meat one buys from the merchant in the market, this does not preclude its being spoiled.

However, Socrates might also be alluding to the "taking care" of each other's souls that is inherent in dialogue and learning.  For instance, we as a class will be entrusting the care of our souls to Dr. Long.  We are taking a chance that he might "take care" of our souls in a corruptive manner, but we are under the impression, and therefore have surrendered ourselves to the idea that he will in fact take care with our souls.  In this digital dialogue, as we read each other's contributions and consider each other's viewpoints, we hope to responsibly take care of each other as we attempt thoughtful replies and comments, and even attempt to offer sometimes fresh and innovative viewpoints.  It might be worth it, then, to recall Socrates' word choice as we move on with this blog:  Are we taking care with each other's souls -- student to student, student to teacher, teacher to student -- via thoughtful exchanges and constructive debate, or are we taking care of each other through non-participation, ad hominem verbal jabs, and other harmful devices?  Most of all, we should all remember that caring is sharing: we have to expose ourselves to each other via our intellectual contributions and our devoted engagement to the course in order to help each other succeed, especially with this digital dialogue project.  Here's to a great semester of blogging.  I look forward to the results.   

Today was the first day of class for both the PHIL/CAMS200 Ancient Philosophy undergraduate class and the PHIL553 graduate seminar. Both classes have a digital expression component to them and my hope is that this blog will over the next months become a rich site of discussion and dialogue about the question of Socratic politics.

In episode 8 of the Digital Dialogue, I am joined by Shannon Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy, Women's Studies and African and African American Studies here at Penn State. Shannon is also the Head of the Department of Philosophy.

In episode seven of the Digital Dialogue, I am joined by Leigh Johnson, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis. She is working on scholarship related to human rights and what she calls "weak humanism."  In the podcast we discuss the meaning of this term and the whether we need to appeal to a sense of commonness to ground claims of human rights.

http://readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.blogspot.com/

When I began this project earlier in the summer, my Teaching and Learning with Technology team and I talked a lot about how I would be exposing my ideas to the public in ways that would make me uncomfortable. Well, here is a case in point: the mockup of the video we are trying to produce about a dimension of the Socratic practice of politics. The video is designed to reach out to a broader audience than either my traditional scholarly work or my work in the classroom.