Crito and Public Opinion

In the dialogue Crito, Socrates' friend Crito says that one of the reasons Socrates should escape is because the general public would think very poorly of Crito and other friends of Socrates. Socrates did not seemed fazed by this at all however in fact his point of view was that only the opinion of the important people should be considered, this is a position that I think more people need to hold as their own.  
     Their was a lecture this evening given by Dr. Douglas who is from the university of Samford, his lecture was on rumors, now in this case they were political rumors, but rumors all the same. One of the things he discussed was the destructive effect of false rumors, this I thought was very important, but I believe we can at times take these rumors to be more than they actually are. I think that sometimes people are to quickly offended by false rumors and are to worried about public opinion, It is my stance that we should all try to take on the attitude of Socrates and not pay attention to the general public's opinion, but the opinion of the people that are most important to us.

PS: I commented on Jamie's post (Morality, Justice, and Grace)

Morality, Justice, and Grace

I haven't completely wrapped my brain around everything Euthyphro, and I'm not quite sure exactly where to start with trying to get a grasp on the text as a whole, but one thing that kept popping into my mind while reading the text was (at least as far as I understood) an absence of grace.

The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates, at its core, was about justice.  The two talk of how no man would say a guilty person who admits to be guilty should go unpunished, nor would a man claim to be guilty and then ask to be let off.  Socrates then asks "And is, then, all which is just pious? or, is that which is pious all just, but that which is just, only in part and not all, pious?" So, what is moral and ultimately good is not always equal to what is just.  

My ultimate question, however, is how do the concepts of grace and forgiveness fit into an equation where piety is ideal, justice is ok in a pinch, but there is no thought of another option.  What I began to see at the end of the text however, if that even though it is not explicitly said, was that Socrates seemed to be leaning toward some type of grace, forgiveness, or at least a different image of justice by implying that unless Euphyphro completely understands the nature of the gods, he shouldn't charge his father with murder. It is ultimately God who has the right to decide what should be done. When "speaking of men..." evil doers should never be let off, but It is God's right to offer grace.

Commented on Mallory's "The Law."

Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit

      So I'm going to go off from the assigned reading just a bit, I've enjoyed reading Plato, but something in today's lecture really captured me attention. Today when we were given the backstory and meaning of the Honor's Motto, the word Receptum.

      From what I understood, receptum means recapturing, and Dr. Clapp used the powerful illustration of the Roman army going in and recapturing their standards or banners from their enemies. The Roman standard was their symbol of life. The loss of their standards was the loss of themselves.  To lose a standard was to be without purpose, and likewise for the standards.  This is a great parallel of what Christ does for mankind. We are like the standards, captured by the enemy, we are lost and without knowledge of our purpose, held in darkness.  When Christ, our Victor and Light comes in and reclaims and recaptures us.   He strengthens us and molds us into something which cannot be shaken.  Then our quest begins to love, serve and bring glory to Him with our whole being.
     One way to do that is to serve Him with our minds, which is one thing we strive to do in Honors. While in Honors, I ask, "How can reading this literature serve Christ? How this apply to my life? What can I learn from this?  How will this strengthen my faith?" Before I know it I have a lightbulb moment (those are the most valuable learning points in Honors). In Honors we also try to recapture what has been lost in the Darkness, we search for hidden knowledge, we search for wisdom, we search for meaning. When we find it, we recapture that which was lost. This becomes part of our lives, alters how we perceive the world. We then ourselves alter our world.  Only what is recaptured from the darkness will stand, or Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit.

P.S. commented on Emily's post

The Socratic Method (And a Bit of Ranting)

So we've finally arrived upon the philosophical trinity. This is the moment that I've been waiting for. Mixing the tough questions with some of our literature and in doing so creating a new method of thinking in Honors. In this post, I would like to analyze the Socratic method. I've noticed that it's in use in some of my classes, especially in a Mashburn class. This proves the solidity of the method seeing how thousands of years later, it is still in usage today. The reason this method is so effective is because it sparks critical thinking in the questioned. Any one can study a text book and regurgitate information, but the Socratic method questions your core values. Who can rightly give a concrete answer on an abstract idea like Justice or Piety? Who can find that rock-solid definition of that in a textbook?  Socrates asks the tough questions to his companions and in doing so, in my opinion, his friends grow wiser from the experience. If not his friends, the readers of the dialogues grow wiser from the experience. This method tests the limits of our minds, and in all three of the readings for this week, Socrates provides a logical defense for his opinions. Even if we don't necessarily agree with what Socrates believes, we can still understand why he believes this due to his logic. I know that I did not agree with his decision in prison. He had been wrongly put into prison, so why not escape with his life and continue teaching the youth? That's what I would have done. However, I do respect that he doesn't wish to treat injustice with further injustice. That's admirable, and I understand his reasoning but I don't completely agree with it. He could have done so much more good for the Athenians if he would have escaped, but it was not my decision to make. 

That is why I like Honors as much as I do. Though we might have differing opinions, we are allowed to express them to a loving family, and although we may not come to the same conclusions, we can still respect the opinions of the others. This is because in Honors, we are encouraged to use the Socratic method. We are called and encouraged to express our ideas in a logical defense. Mashburn and Schuler, as wise as they are, are not called to be lecturers in Honors. However, they are only the midwives as to draw the wisdom out of us.  As Honors students, our duty is to first read the reading, and secondly, to express our ideas, because we have enough classes that lecture us already. The only classes I have where my voice is truly heard is in a Mashburn class, or in Honors, where the Socratic method is used. We have a voice. In Honors where he have the opportunity, we need to use it.

The Questions of Justice

How highly do we regard justice? I think that is one of the poignant questions of the reading in Crito. Socrates, if he chose to escape his sentence, would nullify his life's work in that singular action. One sees that his search for wisdom, for truth was intended for the betterment of his society. Was his sentence a just sentence? One could debate whether it was or wasn't--but ultimately it does not seem to matter to Socrates. He chose the path he was on, and would be held accountable if he acted unjustly in return. Could I ever hold justice in such high regard that I would hold to it, regardless of whether the world did or not? 

This question surely leads in the direction of pascifism: a belief that challenges me day to day. I think it is an admirable way to go about life, absorbing all the wrong done against you in love, but it is so contrary to our nature. Christ instructs us in this way (though to what degree it can be taken is questionable). It fascinates me that a person without Christ can arrive at this conclusion through philosophizing. It is such a marvel that these truths found in darkness can survive as they do.

For the love of the gods

I find it ironic that Socrates gets put on trial not for killing someone or rendering physical harm to anyone, but because Socrates is a poet and maker new gods and denied the existence of old ones. It makes me laugh cause the "old" gods aren't even real in the first place. If he was even trying to invent new gods, he would have been doing the same thing as everyone else. I think the fact that Socrates questions the gods is the crime itself to the Athenians. While they're giving their offerings and praying at the temple and trying their hardest to win the gods approval, Socrates is over here questioning if the gods are even real. You know what the Athenians would feel like if they found out that all their religious actions have been for nothing? They'd feel stupid, and of course they'd rather not know the truth than know the truth and feel stupid, so they yelled, "Off with his head!" I think it's the same way today. When a revolutionary comes along with a new idea that would make us have to change everything and would probably make us feel stupid, we half listen and then just reject the idea completely. It's crazy that someone could get killed over an idea. The power of thought and mob violence... P.s. commented on the law by Mallory searcy.

The Law.

I have never before been on the side of the laws, and I'm looking forward to class tomorrow. If the law, the upholder of justice, is not given the authority to act, anarchy will reign. Socrates, in defying the law, defys the essence of the law's authority. The issue (for socrates) is not whether the laws are right or wrong, but whether it is right or wrong to disobey them.  For him, the city is higher than man.  The laws themselves can BE personified. Most of us probably would never even think to personify them. We see them as a collection of decisions we made about what we want. This is what Democracy means; "we the people." Socrates says "her, The Law". Under this view, I understand how he as no option but to submit to the authority of the law, but I'm just not sure if that view is right. I understand that laws have to be obeyed so that chaos doesn't rule, but it does seem like there should be a measure of man's reason that can transcend the laws. I've never been exactly sure where that line is.