There are three readings for this section:
1) The Apology of Socrates.
2) Book 1 of Plato’s Republic.
3) Book 1 of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
All of these selections are in the textbook, listed on the syllabus, Classics of Western Philosophy, 8th ed. Steven M. Cahn, ed. Also, you can find all the readings by doing a simple Google search. Altogether it’s about 90 pages of reading.
INSTRUCTIONS: First, locate the readings, either in the textbook, or on the internet, either way is fine. Then read them over (a good trick is to read over the questions first, so you know what you are looking for when reading). After that, go to the questions below. Pick one question per reading and write a paragraph. So: on the Apology of Socrates, pick one question, write a paragraph; on the Republic, pick one question, write a paragraph, and so on. The written part is short, and I’m not writing questions that require you to read every last word of the selection. You can be strategic. But I’m also writing question that require you think. As for due dates, just start this section–and each section–as you see it posted. In this case, because our time is short, I’ve posted all the assignments at once.
[order_button_a]
Here is a brief summary of each of the readings of the Ancient Section, so you have an idea of what to expect.
1. Apology of Socrates. It’s a courtroom drama, written by Plato to represent Socrates’s trial in 399 BC. Transcriipt? Artistic license? Probably both. Socrates defends his way of life, philosophy, before a jury of 501 Athenians. The defense is a failure–or is it. Socrates hints that he is ready to move on to the next world anyway, so it’s all to the good. The charges are atheism and corrupting the youth. Are these crimes? It has always been noticed that Socrates does not really put up much of a defense. The reason it that Socrates is arguing that there is no crime. Saying ” didn’t do it” implies that something was actually done. Socrates’s main argument in any case, is that far from corrupting anyone, or not believing in the gods of the city, he is in reality the city’s greatest benefactor–sent by the god Apollo, no less. Philosophy is a the greatest good for the city, but one of the main take-aways from the Apology, is the antipathy between philosophy and society.
2. The Republic. It is a grand complicated discussion among several characters on the topic of justice. They try to construct a perfectly ordered model city. Is it Utopia or Dystopia? It’s hard to tell. Can such a city be realized in the real world? Only when philosophers become kings, Socrates says. Is that a good idea? Again, you see the theme of the relation between philosophy and society. It’s a very troubled relationship. Should society be governed according to “knowledge,” or “Truth?” In principle, it seems like a good idea.
But does anyone have this knowledge? Socrates, you will find, claimed to know only that he didn’t know about such things. We will read Book 1, though, which sets up the main ideas: What is a just life? Can it be known? Or is it just a naive waste of time to search? Is justice a real thing? Or is society nothing but the powerful making the rules for their own advantage? You will have to decide.
3. The Metaphysics of Aristotle. It’s a totally different animal from the Republic. It is written like a textbook or a nonfiction science book, not as a dialogue. This is significant, but there isn’t time to go into it. Book 1 defines “metaphysics.” You will notice, however, that Aristotle does not use the word “metaphysics.” That’s because the word was added on as a title by Medieval scholars. Aristotle used the term “universal science,” or, more simply just “wisdom.” If you know the universal causes of all things, according to Aristotle, you are wise. It does not look like moral knowledge, which the word wisdom seems to imply. But also notice, for Aristotle, the ultimate cause of things is the Good. Can it be known? You will have to find out.
[order_button_b]
Here are three sets of questions, one set for each reading.
I. Apology of Socrates: Write a paragraph one of this question.
3. Was Socrates innocent or guilty? Why or why not?
II. The Republic: Write a paragraph one of this questions.
2. Thrasymachus has two arguments: 1) in society, “justice is nothing but the advantage of those in power, ‘the stronger.'” And 2), on an individual level, “the life of the unjust person is better and happier than the life of the just.” It’s better to cheat if you can get away with it. The question is, do you think he has a point?
III. Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book 1. Write a paragraph on the following two (2) questions.
1. Aristotle claims that all people desire to know. Do you think that is true?
2. For Aristotle, theoretical knowledge is the highest kind of knowledge. It is higher than practical knowledge in the sense that theoretical knowledge is morally better, more explanatory, more “ultimate,” etc. To a modern ear this sounds inconsistent, because we tend to see the value of science as leading to a new technology. If it doesn’t do that, then what’s the point? Do you think Aristotle is right about his hierarchy of knowledge? Is pure theoretical knowledge, knowledge that leads to nothing practical, superior knowledge?
[order_button_c]