Philosophical Classics 2017

Plato argues that most of us are like prisoners in a cave who are bound in such a way that we can only see shadows of objects projected on a wall. Not only can we not see the objects that cast the shadows, we cannot even see the objects outside of the cave. A more modern analogy might have the prisoner's watching a movie or perhaps "plugged in" to a virtual reality program. What is Plato claiming about the ordinary person? What is our epistemic state? Do we have any hope in escaping? And most importantly, is Plato correct? In short, what is your interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave and is the allegory the correct way to view the human quest for knowledge?

Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?

Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, advocates some radical views about woman in Chapter 7 of the  Republic .  In particular, he argues not only that women can be guardians, but that they can have equal duties (more or less) and an identical education.  The only exception he makes is for physical difference between the sexes.  These views are in stark contrast to a woman's place in 5th century Athens, in which a woman was prohibited from a political life and confined to the domestic household (and had a similarly limited education).  Does it make sense to call Plato a feminist (and does it depend on your notion of feminism)?  Or does Plato still miss something important about women?  Furthermore, have we in 21st century America realized his ideas?

In Chapter 6 of the  Republic  Socrates defines morality in terms of the proper functioning of the mind.  He states that "[i]ts sphere is a person's inner activity; it is really a matter of oneself and the parts of oneself"(443d). A person is moral if and only if the parts of her mind work together and the rational part guides and directs the other parts.  Given such a definition, Socrates proceeds to show that such a mind is healthy and a disordered mind leads to unhappiness.  Yet is Socrates' definition of morality correct?  Is that definition close to your working definition of morality?  If he fails, where or how does he fail?  Is the connection between morality and mental health as tight as Socrates argues?

As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in  The Republic  to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there  any  form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?

I believe that Plato's argument brings up interesting points, but it mainly relies upon a perfect world which does not exist. An example of this is how Plato's argument relies upon the "it is or it is not" mentality to prove certain arguments. For instance, how people in the "moral city" are part of castes that can only have certain traits is illogical. When certain people are split between three groups: "guardians", "soldiers", and "citizens" they cannot just be assigned a trait. Since each caste has a certain role they need to fulfill in this perfectly moral society, this trait (that cannot be defined before they become mature and even then, being mature is being able to accept other views and correct yours if you are wrong) must be taught and engraved into them. I believe that this way of arguing is completely based in fantasy. Most people will change their stances on life and being in a caste would be counterproductive and p...

September 3, 2017 I firmly believe that most of what Plato is arguing is based on the literal meaning of the argument, without taking into account the practicality of the situation. Plato has been trying to find the answers to the "why be moral" question with many well-constructed statements to render his opponents arguments false. However, while formulating some of his statements, he goes to the extreme to prove his point without thinking pragmatically. For instance, Plato tries to define a perfectly moral city in order to define a moral person. While doing so, he stumbles into the problem of having to protect the moral city with a guardian, someone who is brutish/passionate by nature. While trying to prove that the guardian needs to have some sense of morality, he relates the mentality of animals with the mentality of humans; if an animal is able to be both "gentile and passionate," then humans should be able to act the same way. However, this line of reasoning ...

At the moment, my opinions of Socrates’ presentation of an ideal city as an explanation for the goodness of justice are conflicted. In general respects, many of Socrates’ ideas seem reasonable, from education being a far more effective way of deterring bad behavior than laws to the harms of both wealth and poverty. Yet, the reasoning behind why these are good is what is lacking. There can be no definitive proof for one pedagogical philosophy being better than another, as there is valid justification on either side. One can argue both that a violent protagonist is bad as it will lead a child to act violently themselves and that a violent protagonist can be good as it allows children to tackle the concepts of good/evil and the complexity of human behavior in a safe, controlled environment. In other words, while there may be a solid argumentative foundation underlying what Socrates says, it in no way means that it is a universal truth. However, the second level of this application se...