I have to say that all of y’all are making my days with your comments and ideas: keep it up. JAB 1/31 

I would like to examine I quote I loved form Gorgias: “...one that merits much praise, to live your whole life justly when you’ve found yourself having ample freedom to do what’s unjust” (526aGorgias5-6). This, to me, seems like a very Christian idea of piety. Living justly, for some people, seems to be the whole purpose of their life. The idea of ‘just’ though can differ from person to person. It goes back to Socrates idea of hedonism and the ability to act in an ‘unjust’ manner and to call it goodness. This can also relate to the Christian idea of temptation from the devil. In both cases, it is seen as ‘just’ to not give into selfish desires, but to live with the intent of being unjust. The ability of one to restrain oneself is part of what makes someone ‘just’. Although, there is no clear ability to discern what should be avoided and what should be approached.  Ally Liles 01.31.2023 

As I finalize my Euthyphro argument analysis, I am searching harder in my own mind for the answer to the question, “What is piety?” As we live in a secular age, I have translated this question into “What is moral goodness?” because I believe that this question is a more accurate representation of what Socrates was trying to ask. I have come to an unsatisfactory conclusion, much like Socrates, that moral goodness cannot be defined. Much like Socrates’ argument that all gods have different interpretations of what is good and what is bad, people have different interpretations of what is good and what is bad. If everyone had the same moral code, which is not the case, then maybe an answer would be clearer. However, everyone has a different definition of what is morally good and what isn’t, and while many people may share morals, there isn’t a consensus. Who determines what is right and what is wrong? Where does this sense of morality even come from? Is it altruism? Is it a survival instinct? Jonas Tenzer 1/31/2023 

Responding to Jonas’ comment: It is interesting to think about how Plato’s ideas can be applied to modern life. By questioning what is piety, perhaps Plato was using this as a way to poke holes in the logic of there being any gods without being labeled as a heretic. Alex Kaplan 2/2/23 

Allys quote from above has got me thinking because I like her perspective on how Christianity can be appealing, by giving an obvious purpose to life. Dominic Iorio 01/31/2023 

On the one hand, I appreciate that this class seems to have answers to questions raised by both the students and Plato/Socrates. I became frustrated with an ethics class previously because I walked away feeling like there weren’t solid answers to some of the questions that were raised. So far, that seems to be less the case here. On the other hand, trying to find some of those answers (e.g., what’s Plato/Socrates conclusion in 10d-11b) is really difficult. I never thought I could spend so much time tinkering with a 120-word document. Joseph Goodwin 2/2/23. 

The conclusion of Euthyphro where we decided that piety and god-love are two separate things and that Euthyphro was wrong by saying they were the same was interesting to read. Raeann Suranofsky 2/2/23 

I came away from Gorgias thinking that, compared to the previous two dialogues, Socrates comes off as significantly less convincing in the narrative. That is, I, for the most part, tend to agree with him, but I’m never under the impression that he has swayed Gorgias and Callicles. It can also be difficult for me to tell when Socrates is making poor assumptions because he actually believes them or if he’s just doing so to expose a flaw in his interlocutor’s logic. Noah Krason 02/02/23 

To reply to Noah, its odd how Plato seems to only have Soc. begin to be more assertive with his claims when he is threatened by the interlocuters' claims. It often seems that he holds his cards so close to his chest that it doesn’t serve a purpose for the person he’s talking to. Mason Kosman 2/2/23  

To reply to Mason and Noah’s comments (now on the website), I wanted to say that I would definitely agree with Mason’s argument that Socrates was establishing more rigorous conceptual separation in Athenian thought. I think this is especially important in relation to piety, as a concept with deep philosophical meaning but also as one that is often only considered or felt intuitively if not brought to question. To reply to Noah, I’m glad you caught who I was alluding to!  I also couldn't shake Lacan’s symbolic structure of language, especially regarding Euphythro’s own struggle to express his belief in his words despite his utmost personal conviction. I agree that applying his highly modern psychological perspective can be unnecessarily problematic or potentially unfair in analyzing ancient philosophy, but the same questions of desire, lack, and language seem to have been equally fascinating to Plato even if he lacked the framework that Freud would provide to interpret them in the same way. Lea Greco 2/2/23  

One rhetorical example from the Gorgias really stood out to me as an investigation of how human desire functions: Socrates’ example of a man taking bitter medicine doing so not out of a desire to take the medicine itself but to be well, in exemplifying the argument that people desire outcomes of their actions rather than the performance of the action itself. Interestingly enough, I think another aspect of desire-one’s unconscious desire-is exemplified in this example too. I feel this is relevant to investigate as it problematizes the idea Socrates posits that people only perform intermediate acts that these intermediates are only desired in pursuit of ends they desire, rather than as I argue often also as an aspect of that same desire. In this case the individual maybe consciously feel their desire simply for one thing, to get better. However, this desire on another level may also encapsulate what they do not consciously desire, the same unpleasurable aspect of desire that causes them pain, the bitterness of the medicine. For, presumably, if that same man upon being prescribed a medicine, took it and found that it was tasted very pleasant instead of making him feel uncomfortable as expected, he may feel concerned that the medicine was not effective or genuine, and that he will not get better. If the man's desire was only to get better, the enjoyment of the medicine should have little effect or be taken as a positive, but instead he may find that his desire was not just to get better, but to have security in the belief that he is getting better. The only thing that distinguishes the two is the unpleasantness of the medicine, so implicitly, if the man consciously desired to feel better, he too unconsciously desired that the medicine makes him feel unpleasant. I related this idea to Rudsebusch’s idea that you cannot satisfy an appetite unless you have the appetite. In this case the man's desire is to feel he is getting better and also to recover. Regarding desire as an appetite, it creates the necessary requisite for its satisfaction; without the sense of sickness, the man could not desire to get better. Without the bitterness of the medicine, he cannot enjoy the security of health. Lea Greco 2/2/23  

I found the point brought up on morality and its existence in relation to temptation particularly interesting. I think I agree that one cannot make moral choices unless they are faced with these temptations, just how good cannot exist without evil. My thoughts on Jesus’ place in this discussion is that he was fully human and fully god (in the typical Catholic sense), and I think he is oftentimes defended in this argument by the fact that the temptations he faced were not a result of corrupted human nature, which he did not have, but rather some type of desire that was exempted by sin. Now that I’m thinking about it, it seems a little unrealistic for him to be a leading example if he is already above everyone else in that sense. Cameron Boisture 2/2/23 

I want to put on paper how difficult the argument analysis was for me. Not in a bad way, but I was surprised how much critical thinking went into such a small assignment. I think it’s a really good skill to have to be able to pick out an argument from any paper or book and present it in a way to yourself that makes sense. I’m happy that we get to do more so that skill can be refined. Jackie Coburn 2/2/23 

I was very interested in the discussion comparing Plato’s works with more modern philosophers such as Kant.  I am taking intro to philosophy this semester and have recently been reading Hume, and I think the biggest difference is the fact that Hume and his contemporaries are interested in the search for answers, but more than that interested in sharing and arguing for what they believe to be the answer. Plato’s decision to write in dialogue draws a parallel between his work and the common human thought process, which is essentially dialogue with yourself. For this reason, I think Plato is still incredibly important in today’s world, and interestingly does a better job than many modern philosophers in his ability to make one think independently. Blake Hobson 2/2/23 

I was interested in one of the important questions of Gorgias: is philosophy useless beyond simply developing mental muscle for more important tasks? I have actually been thinking of something similar to this since the class started. I keep asking myself what is the point of this class? Even if there is an answer what does it do now? I have, though, found myself using some of the things from Gorgias in my everyday life. For example, my parents have covid right now. Do I want them to get better because I want them to get better or do I want them to get better because it will make me feel better. Despite this use, I do wonder what philosophy is good for. What action will it spur on? A change in how every person sees the world? No doubt it makes people think differently about the world, but what do you do beyond that? All that is really left to do is either delve into the realization that there are no answers, or you become an orator. Maybe philosophy will have its best impact spoken aloud. A philosopher can also be a good speaker and still be respected. Ally Liles 02.02.2023 

Dr. Bailly asked us why we were taking this class, what were we looking to get out of it? I think the overwhelming reason for me is to improve my critical thinking abilities. Dominic Iorio 02/02/2023 

I took this class because it seemed interesting. I think that it will be challenging in a way different from hard stem classes. This class is a challenge that I am looking forward as it is a class where you have to think for yourself rather than just taking down notes and memorizing. -Alex Kaplan 2/3/23 

I am taking this class because, much like Alex, I believe it presented an opportunity to be challenged mentally and expand my mind and my cognitive processes. Besides thinking about the material, this class has forced me to think in a different way and argue more logically. I enjoy putting puzzle pieces together in this class. Jonas Tenzer 2/4/23 

I am taking this class as someone who’s really interested in philosophy but always found Plato too daunting of a task to take on by myself, but even after a few weeks of this class I already find myself more confident and comfortable with tackling these texts. Not only am I finding myself able to comprehend the general text better, but even discern between my own thoughts and articulate them better. Overall, I am hoping to improve my reading comprehension, critical thinking, and just get to know Plato better. Cameron Boisture 2/4/23 

Although I wasn’t able to make it to class Thursday, it looks like we were asked to consider why we’re taking this class. As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised in a conservative Christian house that really valued systematic theology and studying Christian history. Plato is inescapable from both of those things, at least implicitly if not explicitly. The evolution of Christianity is still deeply interesting to me, so having a foundation in Plato seems to be a good way to also understand the history of the development of various Christian doctrines through a classical/philosophical lens. Joseph Goodwin 2/6/23 

While reading the Republic, I was actually surprised to find that I agreed with something that was said! When Glaucon said that justice is what tyrannical rulers declare for laws, I thought there was a lot of truth in that. People with power make the rules and get to dictate what people think are right and wrong morally. Although I would describe true justice as something more attuned to karma, I do think this statement reflects what we are told justice is. Jackie Coburn 2/6/23 

Thinking about the point that there are no purely internal virtues in our current moral landscape, which prof. Bailey brought up last class, it seems that part of the difficulty of defining justice for the men in Book 1 of the republic is that justice is a virtue inseparable from social relations. Early in the text, a conception of justice as being useful only for war and contracts is proposed. There, being just is only really needed to stave off conflict, whether that means ending a further conflict in war or negotiating between two parties. Later, during Thrasymachus’ tirade, he says, “A just man always gets less than an unjust one. First, in their contracts with one another, you’ll never find, when the partnership ends, that a just partner has got more than an unjust one, but less. Second, in matters relating to the city, when taxes are to be paid, a just man pays more on the same property, an unjust one less, but when the city is giving out refunds, a just man gets nothing, while an unjust one makes a large profit. Finally, when each of them holds a ruling office . . . a just person . . . fines that his. Private affairs deteriorate because he has to neglect them” (343.d). All these factors point towards exterior relations with family and the city, rather than a purely internal state of being. - Mason Kosman 02/07/23 

I’m taking this class because I’ve always been interested in philosophy. I’ve never taken a class like this before, and I think it’ll be a fun change of pace from the stem classes that I have. Raeann Suranofsky 2/7/23 

While writing my argument analysis for Gorgias, I couldn’t help comparing the words suffer and shame in the context of which is worse. While suffering is just used to describe the negative state one is experiencing, I want to know how much pain is truly involved. Socrates states the sufferer will experience more pain, but that the shameful inflictor will experience more badness. While the badness would be much higher, I have a hard time agreeing that the sufferer would be going through a better experience comparatively. 2/7/2023 

I was also wondering about this ^ while writing my argument analysis. I think that maybe that pain is something the sufferer can recover from where as the badness put on the inflictor sticks with them and their character making it worse. Alex Kaplan 2/7/23 

In the Hackett translation Socrates starts using the word ‘beneficial’, which then Polus changes to ‘good’ and Socrates starts using that, giving ‘bad’ as its opposite even though bad is not the opposite of beneficial. Bad can’t be replaced with ‘unbeneficial’ in this logic because an unjust act can be both pleasant and beneficial to the actor, which would make it admirable. Given this we can discard ‘beneficial’ from the definition of admirable and just stick with ‘good’. I liked what I read in Lea’s argument analysis, that Socrates doesn’t question “an individual’s awareness of doing what is unjust or just.” This I think also applies to awareness of what is good and bad, and since ‘good’ does not actually equate with ‘beneficial’, that leaves it very undefined and up to interpretation. Good for the actor?  No for the same reason that it can’t mean beneficial. Good for society? Raphael Weiner 2/7/23 

I find the differences between what Thrasymachus defines as just and unjust very interesting. By his definition, justice has nothing to do with internal feelings and has everything to do with how a person is portrayed externally. This is important in the discussion of all of philosophy. If everything is external, then why is everything so internalized? Thrasymachus has an interesting way of looking at life that I believe he does not even believe. To believe as he has suggested would indicate that this person has a lack of knowledge that comes from an entirely external view on the world. After that, everything can be defined as selfish and selfless if everything is determined by actions. Those actions do not occur without thought though. Ally Liles 02.07.2023 

Going off of what Raphael just said above, I’ve found that Plato and/or the translators sometimes play fast and loose with words and their definitions, which can sometimes be a little infuriating. For someone so concerned with finding singular definitions, Plato could probably have a little more to say about language. Noah Krason 02/07/2023 

I’m glad to have gone over what was expected for our argument analysis because I had the wrong idea about what was expected. 02/07/2023 WHO SAID THIS? 

I haven’t yet started to read the Republic, but I, much like the comment above me, was glad to go over the expectations for the argument analyses and review my Euthyphro analysis. I think my understanding of our assignment was inaccurate. I am now able to heavily change my Gorgias analysis based on my knowledge of the assignment. Also, I found it very interesting in Gorgias how Socrates and Polus concluded that doing what is unjust is more shameful than suffering it. Besides the claim that shamefulness is defined as what is more bad or painful (which I don’t necessarily agree with but can’t disprove), I don’t understand how they conclude that because doing what is unjust is more bad, it is also more shameful. What if the suffering surpasses the unjust action in terms of pain? If both pain and badness describe shamefulness, then neither is more powerful than the other in the definition. If the suffering surpasses the unjust action in pain, but the unjust action surpasses suffering in badness, then they would both simultaneously be more shameful and more admirable than the other. Can someone please help me clarify this. I feel like I must be missing something. Jonas Tenzer 2/7/23 

I don’t think I have received my argument analysis comments back yet, but I am glad I had a bit more clarification in class today. I think I will really struggle with putting the argument in my own words without convoluting the argument. I guess I also worry that if I reword it too much, I will stray too far from the original statements made in the text. Also, after reading the above comment, I am a bit confused too. Where in the argument does it elaborate that the badness/pain of unjust actions is always more severe than that of one suffering from the unjust action? Are we just supposed to assume and accept this perspective already? Cameron Boisture 2/7/23 

I was disappointed with the direction of Book 2 of the Republic. It started out posing a question I was curious to hear an answer about, but then it turned into a dialogue about how a community might start and what a functional community might look like and the reasons for that trajectory. Regardless (and separately from the above thought), in the context of that initial discussion of what might constitute a community and the ideas around wages, compensation, etc., I found it difficult to not think about Marx. I realize the following sentiment is an overly simple summary and distillation of Marx and [some of] his views. However, the notion that capital and goods and services are intrinsically tied with some human civilizations for thousands of years before the development and rise of capitalist economies makes it difficult to take Marxist thought seriously. However, it’s equally disappointing to realize that issues surrounding labor, wages, and economic inequality can’t be fixed by a simple reversion to “the way things used to be” and returning to some proto-community. Rather, fixing issues such as elitism and economic inequality requires both an awareness of where states and civilizations have come from and an ability to develop fresh solutions about where humans might go rather than trying to default to some imagined, idyllic past of rural communalism. Joseph Goodwin 2/8/23 

Joseph’s comment about returning to “the way things used to be” makes me think of an interesting critique of Platonic essentialism more generally. To me, it has always seemed that the Platonic goal of reasoning towards the essence of something can be conceived as discovering a transcendental “way things used to be” and the way that they ought to be. To me this becomes incredibly problematic when applied to something as contingent as justice and history in this dialogue. -Mason Kosman 2/9/23 

I found it interesting that in Gorgias Socrates was talking about how inflicting harm on someone is worse than suffering from something because it is more shameful. Inflicting harm is a bad thing to do while suffering is a painful thing, so even though suffering would feel worse it’s worse to inflict pain because it makes you a bad person. Raeann Suranofsky 2/8/23 

Responding to Reann's post: I also thought that Socrates identification of shame as the central reason for why inflicting injustice was worse than suffering it, especially because it seemed to only make an effective logical argument for Socrates to contest Polus’ own beliefs with rather than one on which to strengthen his own. From the start, Polus, after conceding that doing what is unjust is shameful, refuses to allow Socrates to easily equate what is shameful is also what is bad. And from there, to allow the other man to be correct in his claim that suffering injustice is worse. Socrates then spends the rest of the argument slowly twisting the definition of shame to be agreed upon as a synonym for what is bad. I found this troubling as although I agree with Socrates' claim myself, his argument is not a very convincing one, and only really seems to work if one agrees with how he specifically defines shame. Additionally, the idea that one may not feel shame committing injustice at all, or not even be aware of it, are not even mentioned despite this question of intentionality and awareness being something that Socrates himself frequently uses to pick apart the arguments of others. Lea Greco 2.8.23 

I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of Joseph’s comment, although I do think it’s important to point out that the society laid out in Plato’s republic is pretty starkly different from an actual capitalist economy at any point in history, and doesn’t really anticipate the rise of capitalism in any meaningful fashion. For starters, there is no large class comprised on unskilled wage laborers—it is only the very small number of skilled craftspeople that make something similar to our contemporary idea of “wages.” The bulk of any unskilled labor is performed by slaves. Land is also not viewed as a capital investment, and indeed craftspeople and artisans may make and sell their products in the commons. Noah Krason 02/09/2023 

I’m finding that I enjoy the Republic more for some reason than the other dialogues. Maybe it’s because the argument is something more relatable than piety. It actually got me thinking about what I would say justice is - I didn’t come up with their conclusion haha, but I’m seeming to get the most out of this dialogue. Jackie Coburn 2/9/23 

Yeah, I also tend to enjoy the topics that are more relatable to modern life. Although piety was very interesting to me, I feel a lot more invested in this dialogue than any of the previous ones. Dominic Iorio 2/9/2023 

When talking about bad versus shamefulness, Socrates tends to make a more rational approach. I know his goal is to make a more rational society, but I feel as though his point could have been made better if he appealed to feelings more than clear cut examples. This is probably the opposite of what he wanted to do, but I feel like it is the whole background of the question. Pain is a mental thing and all of the feelings he talks about are internal. Human emotion is core to this question, but it seems to be confronted in a way that does not allow for discussion for human emotions at all. This seems to be one of the big holes in the argument, since in Socrates' mind every person feels the same about what they do. Obviously this is not true, but the failure to account for the feelings of individuals makes this argument less stable than it would have been. Ally Liles 02.09.2023 

I found the last bit of our discussion really amusing, trying to discern who has a say what is good and evil, and ultimately the answer falls into that the universe does (along with the Guardians.) I agree with the comment above, Socrates leaves the perception of humans out of the question too much, but then says they should learn what good and evil is. I just don’t understand how that is possible for them in that case. Cameron Boisture 2/10/23 

I agree with Cameron's comment above, it’s interesting to try to decipher what Pluto meant by the difference between good and evil. I understand it’s hard for us to grasp that just knowing what is good makes you good, but after thinking about it some more the statement does make sense. Someone who is bad wouldn’t know what being good is, so just by knowing what good is makes you a good person. Joumana Fadel 2/10/23 

Thursday’s discussion tied in well with some of the Stoics I’ve read – Marcus Aurelius and Seneca and the idea that doing what is right is doing what is in accordance with nature. Aquinas’ section on Natural Law in his Summa also draws heavily on notions of naturally-revealed morality, which implies that moral living is that living that’s done in accordance with nature (at least before Christ appeared and provided specific, revealed morality, according to a Christian framework). All that tangential rambling aside, it’s hard to not find some aspects of Stoicism appealing, especially the notion that sometimes you just have to try hard. Which I suppose all comes back to Plato. The argument analysis, for instance, is consistently difficult for me. But I suppose the reward comes from trying hard, which I think Plato would espouse as a good thing. Joseph Goodwin 2/10/23 

I feel obligated to point out the irony of reading about Plato’s Cave inside my house on a sunny 40 degree day when all my friends are in the mountains. I don’t think this is what Plato had in mind when he wrote about caves. 

The discussion on Thursday about the difference between good and evil was a confusing yet entertaining one. It's hard to think that just by knowing what is good makes you a good person because people can know the difference between good and evil and still willingly choose evil. So just because they know what’s good doesn’t mean they are good people if they don’t want to choose good over evil. Raeann Suranofsky 2/12/23 

To add onto the comment above, I also found Thursday’s conversation very interesting. It really made me think about how no one does something because they think it is bad, they must think it is good rather than bad. Even in addiction, you know that what you are doing to yourself is bad, however the opportunity cost of it being bad is outweighed by the goodness of feeling you will experience. Jonas Tenzer 2/12/23 

It is interesting how Plato’s idea of the three separate parts of the soul can translate to Freud’s concept of the id, ego and superego. Its cool how the same concept has repeated throughout history. I wonder if Freud was influenced by Plato’s writing. Alex Kaplan 2/13/23 

In response to Alex’s comment, I didn’t think of that! But I think that is a really interesting theory. I totally think it’s possible that Freud was influenced by Plato, and humans a lot of the time think in threes. I haven’t explored anthropologically why, but that would be something I’d want to look into. Jackie Coburn 2/13/23 

In response to Alex’s comment, I also noticed how the three aspects of the soul appear to mirror the 3 divisions of the ego, but I don’t think that they quite form a one-to-one relationship with Freudian psychoanalysis. To me it seems that the part of the soul which inclines towards anger as well as the part which is inclined towards the appetites would both be a result of the freudian Id. Plato also seems to believe that the soul is fully knowable by the subject. - Mason Kosman 02/14/23 

One of the things that really stood out to me when reading the republic was how cognizant Plato seems to have been of the fragility of ancient Greek society. When making his arguments for how society is to maintain itself in Republic IV, education is central to his model, specifically as he believes good education and upbringing are what allow a society to compound upon its growth, and to produce a better next generation in turn. However, Plato is also keen to highlight the inverse relationship: that poor education, when perpetuated, only results in the gradual destruction and disintegration of a society. Plato specifically points to lawlessness, which once established, first flows into ways of life, then private agreements, and then into government itself, until it overthrows all order. I thought that this insight was particularly worth note as Plato essentially identifies the process of decay which would bring humans out of the classic period and into the Middle Ages. This would in fact become true especially regarding the use of his own teachings and those that sought rational conceptions of life like, which once lost meant a recession in logical argument and philosophical rhetoric which would only compound itself over time. Unlike many believe, the descent into the low period of learning and study which many equate with the Middle Ages did not occur suddenly but was rather a gradual process of education being lost and misconstrued, again, and again. I thought that the accuracy of this observation to the historical processes we are now able to retroactively observe, and the degree to which Plato conceives of his society as one which changes generationally rather than a static entity were worth note. Lea Greco 2.13.23 

The soul is one thing on its own, but it has three parts that function separately. The three parts are appetite, rationality, and spirit, and they control the desires that we have and how we respond to these urges. Raeann Suranofsky 2/14/23 

That’s an interesting topic Raeann brought up. But I think that maybe those three parts function together rather than separately. For example, appetite could affect a person's rationality. A starving person would become increasingly more desperate, potent8ally causing this person to disregard and previous rationales they may have had. Dominic Iorio 2/14/23 

One thing about the argument of three parts of the soul is that there seems to be no explanation for the personalities people develop. The question is never asked of how a soul even arrives to the state it is in when Plato speaks of it. How does this soul even form? Would its formation not have any effect on the soul itself? Would it be its own part? Plato develops his ideas fully in other texts, but here it is not explored as to how the soul works. If this would be explained, it would make the argument stronger. As it is, the different parts are there but no reason as to how and how that may lead to more parts of the soul. Ally Liles 02.14.2023 

To what extent are one’s qualities determined by education/experience/knowledge as opposed to something more “innate”? Plato seems supremely convinced by the power of education and the infallibility of learned knowledge, and yet also advocates for the “best” citizens to mate with the “best” citizens, the lower citizens with their own “kind,” etc. I don’t have the page in front of me, so I’m sure that’s a pretty brutal reduction of what was being said, but I think my question still stands…maybe! Noah Krason 02/14/2023