| Author |
 Topic  |
|
non
Journeyman
72 Posts |
 Posted - Jul 18 2007 : 11:27:28 PM
|
Hey, sorry -- I've been gone for the day. Looks like you've been keeping busy though.
Also: My questions aren't just for Tom, kids. Anyone who wants to take a crack at this stuff is welcome to try.
So: 'Eros' (Big "E") is a proper noun. Neato. The name of a god. Fine.
Does it refer? I'm guessing that if it does at all, it refers to eros (little "e"). But I'm not sure that exists. Again, I'm quite sure the Sun exists, and so identifying a god with the Sun makes it hard to dispute such a god's existence. But identifying a god with eros?
For any of you following along, I'm saying something crazy here, and I'm sure that a number of you would object to my central claim here. Tom broke Love into a lot of different pieces, and so said that Love, as a single thing, doesn't exist, but that any one of its many senses could still exist. I'm claiming here that at least one specific sense of Love, that designated by 'eros', erotic desire, doesn't exist.
Now, I'm betting the argument for its existence will go one of a few ways:
1) "But I've felt erotic desire! You can't deny that I feel what I feel!"
I don't admit that feelings exist at all. I think they're shorthand for a complex situational perception (or maybe 'perceptional lens' is more what I'm thinking) that in no way exists as a thing in and of itself, no more than the color purple or F# (I don't admit those as things that exist either; they're things, sure, but not existing things). This is an ontological problem. A problem of Being. We have to ask ourselves, do these things exist? Is that the sort of being they have?
2) "But surely you've experienced erotic desire at some point!"
Sure I have. That doesn't make it something that exists. Existence is a special kind of being and I'm not going to grant it to just anything. Really, I'm not being anywhere near as strict as some have been. Martin Heidegger decided that the only thing that had existence was Being-here, the thing that each of us is, (as soon as you start talking Heidegger, you have to twist your mouth (or fingers?) in crazy ways to make sure you're not putting words in his mouth that he wouldn't approve of...) and so if I'm willing to grant existence to the Sun and the Sky, then I'm being much more open to existence than he is (perhaps to my ultimate detriment, we'll see what sort of slicing and dicing happens here in a bit).
3)"You're just being crazy about what existence means!"
Maybe I am. But maybe it's important. Maybe it makes a difference. Maybe we should figure out what we're talking about here.
But then I could be jumping the gun.
Maybe all I was going to get next is what part of speech 'eros' is. But that would hardly satisfy me.
And just for fun I'll give you all a clue, expose a chink in my armor as it is.
Even if we're ok with erotic desire not existing (perhaps I'm just too stubborn there, I have my shield raised high, as it were), clearly it has some sort of being. No one would deny that erotic desire happens.
But even so. I think there's more to say.
Until tomorrow though. It will have to wait.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
Edited by - non on Jul 18 2007 11:42:53 PM |
 |
|
|
Jessica Yost
Apprentice
48 Posts |
|
|
Paul Hodapp
Moderator
86 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 10:01:11 AM
|
Tara, Tom, and everyone [continuation of my earlier post]:
Power is the ultimate apparent erotic desire. But power over others is the apparent desire, and power with others is the real thing. In the modern economy, institutions such as universities and nations offer individuals immense power over others. Administrators, including myself, are motivated by the thought that they will receive a real human good for harming some humans for the sake of others' monetary pleasures. But they are wrong because they are wrong about what it is to be human.
Tara, do you think American presidents are like Hitler and Stalin? Up to 4 million people were killed in the S.E. Asia wars, most of whom were innocents or freedom fighters. We may be nearing a million in the Mideast wars, which are predicted to continue indefinitely. Why do you and I support these wars with our silence? Do we suffer from a wayward idea and the socially conditioned desire to carry out these ideas because we have no desire to discuss democratically with one another our reasons for our ideas?
I admire Socrates because he had the courage to confront these people in high places in his society. I am ashamed of myself because I do not. I will not flunk out students from Monfort U. because of my failings and his, not theirs. Secondly, I admire Socrates because as a teacher he tried to educate his older students, starting with their actual abilities and motives (witness the progress of sophistication in Books 1 & 2 in the Republic). So I don't know if anyone would flunk out of Socrates U.
[Edited to enhance readability as much as possible -TT] |
|
|
|
Tara Adler
Apprentice
24 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 10:10:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Trelogan
quote:
Originally posted by Tara Adler
[T]here are and always will be students who think they can cheat the system, as well as students who don't care about being better people, but care only about getting a good job so they can make lots of money. That's why a lot of people come to a "vocational school" like UNC or CSU -- not to better themselves, but to find a way to make more money down the road.
Tara, are you saying that this is all these people want, or are you saying that it's all they're capable of wanting? If it's all they want, then the obvious thing for us to attempt to do is educate their desires, i.e., help them become people who want something better. If it's all they're capable of wanting, then as educators, we can only throw up our hands. In fact, in that case we should actively drive them out of the university (by flunking them out, of course -- not with anything like rocks and pitchforks!) if we think it's really impossible to disabuse them of the idea that a university is just a vocational school. UNC and CSU really aren't vocational schools. (Not, mind you (pace Paul), that I would claim that everybody who ought to realize this -- such as all of the members of our administration -- really does realize this.)
I think it's all people want. There are people who want other things but I know that there are many who are just interested in the money. But some of these people want betterment in the form of riches, not mental capability or personality. Most of the people who go after their desire for money come to schools like UNC because they know that their professors will educate their desire for money. I don't feel that the people who come to college to make more money in the end are becoming better people or have the desire to change themselves if they aren't good people to begin with.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 10:12:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by non
Tom broke Love into a lot of different pieces, and so said that Love, as a single thing, doesn't exist, but that any one of its many senses could still exist. I'm claiming here that at least one specific sense of Love, that designated by 'eros', erotic desire, doesn't exist.
All righty then. First of all, I object strenuously to this characterization of what I did, and I also object strenuously to this characterization of what you are doing.
If we're going to talk about words and expressions and whether they refer or not, we've got to keep the distinction between (1) those words or expressions and (2) the things, if any, to which they refer clear in our minds. When I speak of a word or an expression, I will always place it inside quotation marks. Thus, if I want to say something about your name, Non, or mine, I'll put it inside quotation marks, thus: "Non" begins with an "N";"Tom" does not begin with an "N." Here, I'm talking about our names, not us. If I want to say something about us, I'll just use our names in the usual way, thus: Non, being a human being and not a name, doesn't begin with a letter at all; Tom teaches at UNC.
I didn't break anything into pieces. Instead, I observed that "love" (the word "love," not love itself) has many senses. Those senses aren't pieces or parts of the word; they're meanings that it has. Words have meanings. Some words have single meanings (or senses). Some words have many meanings (or senses). "Love" has many meanings -- many senses.
I didn't say that love, as a single thing, doesn't exist. I said that there is no such thing as love. I also made it plain that what I meant in saying this is that we never use the word "love" in the one and only sense it has, and indeed that we couldn't do so because it doesn't have just one sense.
I also didn't say that any one of the many senses of the word "love" could still exist. I said that in saying that there's no such thing as love, I'm not denying that when we talk about love in any of the word's many senses, we're talking about something that exists. Puppy love -- I think that exists. The love Kant calls "the love that can be commanded" -- I think that exists. (Incidentally, I'm using the word "exist" here in the ordinary, garden variety way, not in any special way at all. When I say that a thing exists, I mean that it's one of the things there are -- not that it has some distinctive sort of being).
Finally, you're not claiming that at least one specific sense of ["love,"]* that [which just is the sense of the word]** 'eros', erotic desire, doesn't exist. I feel confident that you think that the word really does have that sense, and if it does, then there's certainly such a thing as that sense. What you're claiming is that love in that sense of the word doesn't exist, i.e., that there's no such thing as erotic desire. You get it right when you say that you're claiming that erotic desire doesn't exist. Your mistake is in (carelessly) identifying erotic desire with a verbal sense.
So much for my basic objections to the way you've described what I did and what you're doing. I think you're also changing the question -- not changing the subject, but changing the question. Originally, you wanted to ask whether there is such a thing as eros. Now, you want to ask what sort of being eros has. It's an interesting question, but let's save it for another time. Let's stick for now to the question whether there is such a thing as eros.
Recapitulating the earlier discussion: you had asked what sort of word "Eros" is. I replied:
quote:
Well, "Eros" with a capital "E" looks like a name to me: a proper name like "Tom" or "Non" (or "non," if you really must, you old e.e cummings lover, you). If it's to be the name of a god, then I think that's what we've got to say that word is: a proper name. (I don't mean, by the way, to prejudge the question whether Eros is like Ouranos in being something that clearly exists (whether or not it's divine). I myself think it does exist, but we'll come to that, by and by.)
So far, so good? If so, I'll go on to what I take to be the next question: what sort of word is "eros" (with a small "e")? Shall I take that one up next?
I assume we're ready to go on.
The word "eros" with a small "e" is plainly not a proper name. It's what grammarians call a common noun. In that respect, it's like the word "zebra." But there are two importantly different kinds of common nouns: count nouns and mass nouns. Count nouns, such as the word "hand," for example, are used for counting things: one hand, two hands, three hands, and so on. They have easily understood singulars and plurals, distinct forms that are to be used to mark the difference between one and many. Mass nouns, such as the word "pus," for example, are used to refer to things that can't be counted because you can never have either one of them or many of them. All you can have of such things is some. One pus, two pusses...talking this way makes no sense. One can't count pusses. The word "pusses" itself is plainly ungrammatical. "Pus" isn't a count noun. It's a mass noun. (Mass nouns do sometimes have plurals, but they are used for a purpose different from that served by the plurals of ordinary count nouns. Consider "wood." When we use it to talk about the raw material we get from trees, we use it as a mass noun. We talk about having some wood or no wood, more wood, or less wood (all appropriate ways of talking when we're using mass nouns) but not about having thirteen woods. One can't count woods...well, except that in a sense, we do: we characterize oak, maple, and pine as different woods, as three very different woods. Clearly, though, this is special case, in which we use a mass noun as a count noun to count things of the sort we ordinarily use the mass nouns to refer to. What are these things? They aren't particulars. That's the crucial point. Ordinary count nouns are used to count particulars. Mass nouns are used to refer to things that aren't particulars. When we count things of that sort, we're not counting particulars. There it is in a nutshell. )
Most common nouns that have multiple senses are count nouns in some of those senses and mass nouns in others. "Zebra," for example, is a count noun when we use it to refer to those wild horses with the black and white stripes that are native to Africa. We can talk perfectly grammatically about zebras in the plural or the singular. We can count 'em: one zebra, two zebras, three zebras, and so on. On the other hand, when we use the word "zebra" to refer to zebra meat, we're talking about something that can't be counted. We can talk about one or two helpings of zebra (which shows that the word "helping" in this sense is a count noun), but not about one or two zebra. (Compare the way we can count pigs, but not pork.) We can talk about more or less zebra ("I think you should cook less zebra tomorrow night; people just didn't eat all that you cooked tonight), but not about larger and smaller numbers of zebra (zebra meat), more or fewer zebra (zebra meat)."
Now what about "eros"? Would that my Greek were better than it is, but as far as I can tell, "eros" is as intractably a mass noun as is "pus." (Not to suggest that there are any similarities between eros and pus themselves!)*** Does this mean that the Greeks thought that eros was something material, something like wood or water, meat or bread? No. The only point I've been making is a grammatical point. Mass nouns are used to refer to material substances -- stuffs in the broad sense of the term, but they're used also to refer to all sorts of other non-particulars. They're used, for example, to refer to qualities, both the qualities of physical things ("color," "height," and "weight" are all mass nouns), and the qualities of such non-physical things as people, policies, governments, and so on ("justice," "wisdom," "courage," and "temperance" are all mass nouns). They're also used to refer to all sorts of other things thata are neither stuffs nor qualities. "Space" and "time" are used as mass nouns when we're not speaking of particular spaces or particular times but of space and time themselves. And the list goes on (and on and on...it's a big, long list!).
So. The word "eros" is a common noun, specifically a mass noun. Does this provide us with grounds for thinking that eros doesn't exist? Hardly. All sorts of things exist that are quite properly designated by mass nouns. They just aren't particulars -- i.e., "thises." Zebra meat, for example, exists. Now, can such things be experienced as gods? Pretty plainly, they can. The Greeks had no difficulty experiencing eros as something divine. Now, to the extent that "experiencing something as a god" means experiencing it as a person, the names of these gods (such as "Eros") wind up being used as count nouns! This is because they have to be able to function as the subjects of verbs that take persons as their subjects. We have to allow ourselves to start talking about "what Love loves," for example...something we couldn't do if we were simply talking about erotic desire in the usual way. "Erotic desire desires..."? Clearly ungrammatical.
So there's the story, I think, about what sort of word "eros" is. It's not the whole story, to be sure, but it's enough of the story to provide us with a handle to use for the purposes of this discussion, wouldn't you say?
And as Non says: this isn't a private discussion. The rest of you should feel free to join in.
_____________
*The point of this emendation is that that you're talking about the word, not the thing, hence the need for those quotation marks.
**The point of this emendation is that no word designates its sense (or any of its senses, if it has more than one).
***A bit more research convinces me that this is not true -- i.e., that it's not true that "eros" is always a mass noun. Apparently it's sometimes used in classical Greek as a count noun the plural form of which would have roughly the same meaning as "amours", i.e., the meaning of "loves" in such phrases as "the life and loves of so-and-so." Does this call for further discussion? [Note added at 9:45 p.m. on 7/20]
|
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 10:38:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jessica Yost
Sorry, what I said didn't mean what I wanted it to. I am trying to ask if the shame that we are talking about is something Socrates makes people feel when he starts interrogating them.
No, what they feel when he starts interrogating them is far more likely to be annoyance. The shame we're talking about is something he makes them feel by getting to a certain point in his interrogation -- the point, namely, at which they contradict themselves. But you know really, the shame the interlocutors feel isn't anything Sokrates makes them feel. What makes them feel shame is their awareness of an undeniable fact: the fact that they have plainly contradicted themselves. Study that passage in Republic I in which Sokrates "makes" Thrasumakhos blush and you'll see what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessica Yost
How do we enter quotes?
Here's what I told Kerrie a few days back:
quote:
[T]o quote the whole of someone's message in your reply, just click on the little icon with the red arrow right above the message you want to quote. then put your cursor immediately to the right of the last tag (which consist of a left square bracket followed by a backslash followed by the word "quote" followed by a right square bracket) and start typing your reply right there. When you post your reply, there'll be a nice space between the quotation and the first line of your reply.
That should do it.
If you want to quote something in your own message -- maybe a longish passage from the Symposium -- type it, select it, and press on the little button above the editing window that features a red arrow sticking out from the right of the page. That'll enclose the passage you want between those lines inside a pair of quote tags, and the browser's rendering engine will take care of the rest.
...
If you want to see what the code looks like, go to one of your own posts that has a quotation looking right in it, click on the icon that lets you edit your message (it'll be a little document with a pencil on it), and study the code.
|
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 10:52:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Hodapp
Power is the ultimate apparent erotic desire.
Do you mean, perhaps: "Power is the ultimate apparent good"? Surely power isn't any kind of desire.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Hodapp
But power over others is the apparent desire, and power with others is the real thing.
Do you mean, perhaps: "But while power over others is only an apparent good, power with others is really good"? |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 19 2007 : 11:02:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tara Adler
Most of the people who [just want] money come to schools like UNC because they know that their professors will educate their desire for money.
Do you mean that they know that their professors will teach them how to make money? If you really meant exactly what you said, could you explain to us what educating their desire for money would amount to? I assume you don't mean what I was talking about recently in my exchange with Paul, that it would amount to talking them into the proposition, or in some other way showing them, that money is only an apparent good and not the real good -- or that money, though certainly something good, falls short of being the highest good? |
|
|
|
Tim Sexton
Fledgling
12 Posts |
|
|
Paul Hodapp
Moderator
86 Posts |
|
|
Emily Holland
Apprentice
26 Posts |
Posted - Jul 20 2007 : 1:41:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Treloganquote:
Originally posted by Tara Adler
[T]here are and always will be students who think they can cheat the system, as well as students who don't care about being better people, but care only about getting a good job so they can make lots of money. That's why a lot of people come to a "vocational school" like UNC or CSU -- not to better themselves, but to find a way to make more money down the road.
Tara, are you saying that this is all these people want, or are you saying that it's all they're capable of wanting? If it's all they want, then the obvious thing for us to attempt to do is educate their desires, i.e., help them become people who want something better. If it's all they're capable of wanting, then as educators, we can only throw up our hands. In fact, in that case we should actively drive them out of the university (by flunking them out, of course -- not with anything like rocks and pitchforks!) if we think it's really impossible to disabuse them of the idea that a university is just a vocational school. UNC and CSU really aren't vocational schools. (Not, mind you (pace Paul), that I would claim that everybody who ought to realize this -- such as all of the members of our administration -- really does realize this.)
I must say that I agree with both of you guys. First, yeah, I think most people do go to college to be able to make money. Today money is such an important thing. Everyone wants to outdo everyone else. Not many people today go and study something they want to do because it makes them happy. I personally have always wanted to be a nurse, but I will admit that the money nurses make attracts me to it more than, say, being a teacher. I do agree though that UNC and CSU are not vocational schools. By going to these schools you can make a good living for yourself; you're not just learning [a trade (?)] to make it through life.
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 20 2007 : 8:34:39 PM
|
AnnouncementSorry about this, but once again, I've fiddled with one of my lectures -- this time with Lecture Six (The Higher Revelations -- The Education of Desire), which went up late last night (i.e., late on the night of July 19). So if you’ve already downloaded it (note that this is the lecture for Week 11, not the lecture for next week or this week), you should download the new and improved version and replace what you already have with it. |
|
|
|
Megan Lusardi
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - Jul 20 2007 : 11:26:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jessica Yost
When this class first started, I got angry because I thought that Socrates was questioning everyone and everything. It was so annoying. Then I learned he is just helping people prove their points and have evidence to back them up.
So is it shame, or someone just not being able to prove his or her point, when he starts questioning them? If the person Socrates is arguing with has a valid argument and facts to back it up, there should be no shame, and Socrates should actually admit to being wrong.
Jessica, I completely agree when you say that it seemed as though Socrates was just questioning everyone and everything, and it also made me a little frustrated because it just sounded like he was going nowhere and he was completely improvising. But as the course has gone on I have also realized that he is just trying to completely define someone’s point of view and he wants to make it as clear as possible to the person he is trying to prove his point to. This conversational style ties directly into elenkhos because that is exactly what Socrates is doing. He is trying to put to shame or disgrace his opponent (Agathon) by showing that his train of thought about a certain idea is wrong. And to answer your question Jessica, I believe that if one had enough knowledge about something, one could probably prove that it is how one says it is. As for whether Socrates would ever give up and "admit he was wrong," I do not think that would ever happen, unless he was talking to someone he knew was more knowledgeable then he. I think that Socrates is too stubborn to give up so easily, and I suspect that he would want to work out every little detail about someone's opinion/standing on an issue. I think he could probably argue forever.
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Tara Adler
Apprentice
24 Posts |
Posted - Jul 20 2007 : 11:45:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Hollandquote:
Originally posted by Tom Treloganquote:
Originally posted by Tara Adler
[T]here are and always will be students who think they can cheat the system, as well as students who don't care about being better people, but care only about getting a good job so they can make lots of money. That's why a lot of people come to a "vocational school" like UNC or CSU -- not to better themselves, but to find a way to make more money down the road.
Tara, are you saying that this is all these people want, or are you saying that it's all they're capable of wanting? If it's all they want, then the obvious thing for us to attempt to do is educate their desires, i.e., help them become people who want something better. If it's all they're capable of wanting, then as educators, we can only throw up our hands. In fact, in that case we should actively drive them out of the university (by flunking them out, of course -- not with anything like rocks and pitchforks!) if we think it's really impossible to disabuse them of the idea that a university is just a vocational school. UNC and CSU really aren't vocational schools. (Not, mind you (pace Paul), that I would claim that everybody who ought to realize this -- such as all of the members of our administration -- really does realize this.)
I must say that I agree with both of you guys. First, yeah, I think most people do go to college to be able to make money. Today money is such an important thing. Everyone wants to outdo everyone else. Not many people today go and study something they want to do because it makes them happy. I personally have always wanted to be a nurse, but I will admit that the money nurses make attracts me to it more than, say, being a teacher. I do agree though that UNC and CSU are not vocational schools. By going to these schools you can make a good living for yourself; you're not just learning [a trade (?)] to make it through life.
Ems, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to be a nurse too -- because nurses make a lot more money than teachers do. But I also came to UNC to better myself as a person. I've wanted to be a nurse not just because I want to make money but because I want to help people. I know that yes, some people die, and I might not be able to help everyone. But there will be some people whom I will be able to help, and that's why I really want to be a nurse, not just to make money. But I feel there are students who do just want to make money and who don't care about going into a profession that will make them happy.
[Edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
|
Megan Lusardi
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - Jul 20 2007 : 11:58:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tara Adler
Ems, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to be a nurse too -- because nurses make a lot more money than teachers do. But I also came to UNC to better myself as a person. I've wanted to be a nurse not just because I want to make money but because I want to help people. I know that yes, some people die, and I might not be able to help everyone. But there will be some people whom I will be able to help, and that's why I really want to be a nurse, not just to make money. But I feel there are students who do just want to make money and who don't care about going into a profession that will make them happy.
Tara, I agree with you that there are some people who go to college hoping only to get more money in the long run, and there are also people who want to better themselves by becoming well-rounded adults who have not only the schooling but also the knowledge to have a semi-good life. What I mean by "good" is being able to be someone who when confronted with the elenkhos style of conversation would be able to refute his or her own opinions [sic -- Megan, did you maybe mean "defend his or her own opinions"?]. I would like to think that I am going to college for the experience and knowledge, and hopefully in the long run, for the better money, but that is a dream that I have, and I do not share it with everyone. Some people waste their time in college and do not put their all in, but in the end it just ends up hurting them because they do not better themselves.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
|
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 22 2007 : 08:38:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Megan Lusardiquote:
Originally posted by Jessica Yost
When this class first started, I got angry because I thought that Socrates was questioning everyone and everything. It was so annoying. Then I learned he is just helping people prove their points and have evidence to back them up.
So is it shame, or someone just not being able to prove his or her point, when he starts questioning them? If the person Socrates is arguing with has a valid argument and facts to back it up, there should be no shame, and Socrates should actually admit to being wrong.
Jessica, I completely agree when you say that it seemed as though Socrates was just questioning everyone and everything, and it also made me a little frustrated because it just sounded like he was going nowhere and he was completely improvising. But as the course has gone on I have also realized that he is just trying to completely define someone’s point of view and he wants to make it as clear as possible to the person he is trying to prove his point to. This conversational style ties directly into elenkhos because that is exactly what Socrates is doing. He is trying to put to shame or disgrace his opponent (Agathon) by showing that his train of thought about a certain idea is wrong. And to answer your question Jessica, I believe that if one had enough knowledge about something, one could probably prove that it is how one says it is. As for whether Socrates would ever give up and "admit he was wrong," I do not think that would ever happen, unless he was talking to someone he knew was more knowledgeable then he. I think that Socrates is too stubborn to give up so easily, and I suspect that he would want to work out every little detail about someone's opinion/standing on an issue. I think he could probably argue forever.
Jessica and Megan, you clearly both now have a much more sophisticated understanding than you did in the beginning of just what Sokrates is doing in passages like the one in the Symposium in which he cross-questions Agathon about his claim to the effect that Love is both beautiful and good. This would be a good time to go back to the passages in Book I of the Republic in which he cross-questions Kephalos, Polemarkhos, and Thrasumakhos about their claims regarding justice to see if those passages look different to you now from the way they looked to you during the first half of the course.
There's just one thing I think you still haven't seen as clearly as one should: Sokrates and his interlocutors aren't very often thinking of what they are doing in terms of what we have in mind when we talk about someone's trying to prove his or her point. Some of the interlocutors come close to this at times. Perhaps Agathon comes close to this in the Symposium in the context of his speech. There, he does offer reasons for thinking that Love is beautiful and good. But note that Sokrates doesn't really seem to care about that argument. He never talks about it all, and he never suggests that Agathon should work on coming up with a better one. Instead, he takes the claim for which Agathon has argued (that Love is both beautiful and good) and tries to show Agathon that he himself is really of two minds about this -- that he himself doesn't really believe what he believes, that he himself can't believe what he believes, not if he also believes something else that he said, namely, that Love is the love of beauty.
If Sokrates has a "point" he's trying to prove in this particular context then, it certainly isn't a point about love. It's a point about Agathon. It might be expressed as a point about love. One could, after all, put what he's trying to show Agathon this way: if Love is the love of beauty, then Love cannot be either beautiful or good. But why should that claim make Agathon feel ashamed of himself? Unless he'd already implicitly rejected it, it couldn't. No. What Sokrates is trying to get Agathon to see is that if he thinks that Love is the love of beauty, then he cannot also think that Love is both beautiful and good -- whatever evidence he might have to back that claim up with. In other words, he's trying to show Agathon that he's made a mistake he couldn't possibly have made if he really knew what he was talking about, or even if he'd really just thought carefully about what he was saying. |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 22 2007 : 11:33:33 AM
|
An Unexpected Offer!It's one thing to talk about the techniques of Sokratic conversation. It's another to get experience with these techniques first hand.
In Lecture One, I talked about Sokrates' techniques of internal criticism (pp. 7-9) and rational persuasion (pp. 9-10), and in Lecture Four, I've tried to describe the Sokratic method of elenkhos in detail. Toward the end of that lecture (p. 7), I put you on to Sokratease: The Game of Dialectic as one thing you might use to a get a more concrete feel for what's involved in such conversation. It's fun to play (well, I think it is), and as I said in Lecture Four, it might be possible to play it online. But now another idea has occurred to me....
Paul has repeatedly invited you people to "use your Socratic skills." In fact, just a couple of days ago, he posted a message in which he said: "I do want you to use your Socratic skills to challenge me and yourselves." But what if you got a chance to cross-question Plato and Sokrates themselves about the things they've done and said in the readings you've been working with in this course? What better way to hone those skills? What better way to turn yourself into someone who could rise to the Hodappian challenge?
The idea of seeing if I could arrange this so excited me that I e-mailed both of them this morning to see if they'd be willing drop by the Forum and have you do this, and they've both agreed! They both insist that they have nothing to tell you themselves as authorities of any kind. They both refuse to lecture. They also say that you mustn't suppose that they're here to clear up your problems for you -- personal, philosophical, or academic. But if you'd like to cross-question them in a genuinely Sokratic fashion, then as real lovers of philosophical conversation, they'd be delighted to answer your questions. |
|
|
|
Platon
Administrator
1245 Posts |
Posted - Jul 22 2007 : 11:36:40 AM
|
| I'd be delighted to do this. People have been talking to one another about my writings for very long time, but it's been ages -- really! -- since anyone wanted to talk to me about them. So I'm really looking forward to your questions. |
|
|
|
Sokrates
Administrator
7341 Posts |
Posted - Jul 22 2007 : 11:39:10 AM
|
| Yes! By all means, fire away! I don't think any of us should let a day pass without engaging in this kind of conversation. |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - Jul 22 2007 : 11:41:04 AM
|
| Who wants to go first? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Week 9: Eros and Elenkhos
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
