Rachel Sargent
1. What does the line "You show another school of beauty" on page 59 of War
Music mean and what is the signifcance to the larger themes of the poem?
2. Socrates demonstrates that "if something's changed in some way or affected in
some way, it's not changed because it's a changed thing; rather, it's a
changed thing because it's changed (pg 16)." Is this true in all cases? More
specifically, is it true in the instance of piety and the god-loved as Socrates

discusses it?
3. Euthyphro's family says it is impious for him to prosecute his father while
Euthyphro claims that it is impious not to prosecute those who do wrong,
regardless of what relation they are to the prosecutor. Are these views
necessarily mutually exclusive? That is, Euthyphro's family assumes
prosecuting
one's father is committing some wrong against him, and what they really protest
is a son wronging his father. Is a prosecutor necessarily wronging
someone in prosecuting them or can the prosecutor in fact be helping the
prosecuted?

Nilima
In class we discussed the idea, held by Socrates, that if one's beliefs are
truly consistant, they will be right. Professor Bailey suggested that some
people could be consistant in their "truly heinous" beliefs. My question is for
you to come up with such a situation. I think about very racist and xenophobic
people, like in the KKK. They might say something like "america is for
americans" using the Socratic method, you could prove that, they too came from
immigrants. So, basically I agree with socrates, but if you can think of an
example that proves otherwise, make sure to include a broad range of questions
and answers to show that people (preferably in real-life example) are
consistant and evil.
Bailly: This is a topic of great interest. Being "right" could mean one of two things: 1) morally good or 2) true. There might be several incompatible ways to be morally good. And yet we usually think that truth is unique: two things that are incompatible cannot both be true. So perhaps we could find two belief sets that are consistent within themselves individually but incompatible with each other, and yet both morally good in some sense. Or perhaps there is only one moral truth and it is consistent.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR KATIE!

In Euthyphro, there is a long discussion on whether something is, for example,
loved because it is lovable, or lovable because it is loved? This seems to me
the the chicken or the egg debate, do you agree with the way Socrates handles
it? Is it relevant to his point, or is it simply a wordy way to get Euthyohro
to concede?
Bailly: This is a terribly important point. This is a key difference between Greek and Judaeo-Christian-Islamic ethics. Namely, Plato is here claiming that there is piety (wisdom, justice, bravery, etc.) which exists independently of what god says it is. The Biblical tradition on the other hand is usually taken to mean that the ten commandments are right because god says so. God's saying so MAKES them right! That is a completely different position. The question Nilima asks is about the passage in the Euthyphro which establishes the point about good being independent of god(s).

Socrates in essence says that he is knowledgeable because he knows he's
ignorant, which is superior to being ignorant to the fact that one is ignorant.
There is a contradiction here because he is saying that his type of knowledge
(that of his ignorance) is better than the normal worldly knowledge. He seems
to be saying that knowledge of the realm of the soul, is more important than
that of the body, or is he saying something else? Discuss the dicotomies
between his teaching and professed ignorance, and the way he goes about his
teaching.

Graham Budd
1. Given what we've read what are the pros and cons of the Socratic Method of teaching? What circumstances lend themselves to this method of teaching if any?
Bailly: be careful to distinguish what is perceived today as "Socratic method" and what Socrates does in the dialogues.

2. Do you think Socrates would have supported Euthyphro's decision to persecute his own father? He does say that all guilty people should be punished.

3. Socrates claims he will not defend himself using language "arranged in fine words and phrases" yet it seems to me he then proceeds to give his defense using very finely constructed phrases and patterns. Is Socrates just falsely presenting himself to gain sympathy? What is his motive for this statement?
Bailly: Socrates means that he will not present a rhetorically impressive speech that is designed to wow the jurors. Rather, he will give argument and what he sees as truth. Now, that said, he uses a lot of rhetorical techniques.

Zuzana Srostlik
1.Chomsky has many radical ideas, most of which can't be quite proved wrong, but which many people oppose. Socrates also opposes the general point of view of mainstream Greece (for his day). Can they both be seen as opening doors and allowing their respective societies to progress socially, politically, or in any other way? Or are either, or both of them, wrong (how or why or for when)?

2.Is Plato's Socrates right in asking other people about his questions in philosophy - or is there any other way (possibly an introspective one) that he could have tried to discover the answers to his questions?
Bailly: why can't you carry out the same kind of question and answer inside of yourself? I often examine a position and it seems to me that one part of my brain supports it and another comes up with possible objections. Or maybe the same part just switches roles. Be that as it may, it feels like an inner dialogue.

3.What is piety, really, when you have gods that oppose each other? Even in the case of monotheism, what really is piety? Based on what Euthyphro said or what Socrates said, what do each of them seem to think? Remember that Socrates believed in a divine spirit which stopped him from doing things that he might have wanted to do. He also referred to gods or a god in all of his dialogues and proved his beliefs in Apology. Since he had preexisting beliefs, he already had an idea of what piety might be. Did that change during/after the dialogue?

Liz Guenard
1) How does the selectivity of principle in Chomsky's works contradict with Socrates' concept of principles?

2) How does thought control fit into Greek culture and Plato's Socratic dialogues? Under what circumstances? as a result of what beliefs?

3) Compare and contrast Chomsky and Socratic approach to discussion. What are their standpoints (ie. on questioning of the future, on knowledge)?

Nathan Mahany
1) Consider the following quote: “the unexamined life is not worth living for a
human being.” –Socrates Is Socrates referring to an individual person’s life,
or to life as a whole? Does this concept of self-examination exist in modern
society or has it become outdated and forgotten?
2) During the Apology, Socrates compares himself to Achilles. Wisdom aside, is
this a good comparison? Explain?
3) In Crito, Socrates states that “to be just is to do whatever your city or
fatherland commands or else persuade it as to what is really just”. If
Socrates were a modern day American, would he still hold this belief? What is
your personal opinion?

Joe Briggs
1. Chomsky is critical of the media and the selective stories they report. This can obviously alter the way that everyone views the world. Is this fair to citizens? How many news sources should citizens have access to, or in this day of the internet is it that the only ones who are uninformed are those who don't really wish to know?

2. In one article Chomsky scolds the US government for constantly changing positions when it comes to relations with other countries, especially in the Middle East. This seems ignorant to the world of politics, as often times it is necessary to support one nation if it will help to constrain a more dangerous nation. For example, we had to join forces with the USSR in WWII despite their horrendous dictator and it helped to win the war. After the greatest threat was gone, we turned on the USSR and the cold war began. These short, beneficial friendships seems reasonable despite the hypocrisy. Is it?

3. Chomsky uses this analogy to portray the government's habit to ignore tragedies in some parts of the globe: "If I'm walking down the street and step on an ant, it would be incorrect to say that I "tried" to kill it; rather, I took that possibility to be so insignificant that I paid no attention to it. The same holds in this case. It simply doesn't matter, particularly when planners can have reasonable confidence that the consequences will not be reported or investigated seriously, if the past is any guide." If the US government ignores humanitarian issues all over the world, and US citizens do as well, is that really a problem? If the citizens are not troubled by the moral issues presented, what reason does the government have to act? Surely it's not allowable for governments to impress their own morality on the people?

Lauren Barnett's Interesting Questions 02/24-02/26

1.) If, as Chomsky claims, humans have innate ³deep structures² that are played upon by the learning of languages, do you think that he would say the same of literacy? Are oral cultures lacking in the indulgence of these ³deep structures,² or at least a facet of them since they lack the written word?

2.) Is it a possibility that there is room for misconception in the term ³true beliefs²? How does one really know what is a true belief and what is not?

3.) Can you think of any country in the world that does not operate under Chomsky¹s definition of ³selective principles,² or really any person for that matter? It is impossible for humans to operate under steadfast principles?