Ok so socrates was pointing to the diagonal for the slave boy... which is an irrational number... where as the sides are are rational numbers... similarly socrates is pointing in towards that which lies beyond clear and distinct understanding... beyond conceptual understanding... if that makes sense... maybe I'm totally off the mark... but thats just a thought that came up...
Dunno.. how far you guys are on the readings... but I've gotten myself bogged into a few pages... so here goes the start of some idea sharing...
It seems to me that Meno is not as concerned about what virtue is but rather on how the answer sounds... the words are what give Meno his convictions of truth and knowledge where as Socrates seems to be searching for something beyond the words. It seems to be almost a case of attitude, Meno approaches it with the attitude of one who already knows versus Socrates' attitude of skepticism (maybe too harsh a word... but what exactly seperates a skeptic from socrates? The way I see it Socrates - questioning what we know -> questioning what can be known -> questioning whether we know what we know. Skeptics - doubt - which entails questioning what one knows. Skeptic as used here: not to be confused with one who thinks nothing can really be known.) Meno starts with the assumptions that (1)things can be known through conversation and that (2) he knows or can know. Socrates seems to have the assumptions: 1)things may be knowable but 2) at any point of time he may never fully know/understand something.
I don't know if this makes any sense, but I just watched Hotel Rwanda and draw a parallel here that might be far fetched... The main character, Paul, starts of with the assumption that he knows how the world works... but through the course of the movie realizes his knowledge of humans, politics, hatred, life... are drastically narrow... he never expects the people he lives amoungst would ever commit genocide... never expects the international community to remain silent...never expects racial/ethnic discrimination for whose lives are quote on quote "more worth saving." In many ways a Meno in terms of approach...
Now comparing Paul to teh journalists of the bbc... who starts off with an attitude of cynicism seems actually to have a better understanding of people and politics than Paul... was it the cynicim that allowed him to see the worst?
and finally tying it back up to virtue, did Paul have the better set of virtues? which is clearly what the movie is aiming for... it is hard to say that he did not have the best set of virtues in the movie... but he had it without really knowing anything about people and politics... versus the journalist who had the knowledge but seemed lacking in virtue...
would it be a correct inference to make that one does not need to know what virtue is to be virtuous?
and does knowing anything about virtue change/make you more virtuous?
Hope this makes some sense... I am all about a movie marathon...
I hope some of you have seen the movie...
If we have stuff to read for Pemberton's class on Friday, maybe we should scrap the show and tell. I plan to watch a stanley kubrick film and a foreign language film once each week this spring. You all are welcome to join me in these little exercises. Sunday evenings after dark/dinner. I definitely want company for A Clockwork Orange. I think I'm going to watch them sequentially according to release date. The title of this blog is the epiphany to which I came this evening, and it has nothing to do with Pemberton's class or my Kubrick obsession. Well, maybe that's not entirely the case with my Kubrick obsession.
Mission/Objective/Direction/Ideal....
we set out to investigate the importance of philosophy in the lives of
our teachers and peers and the influence that it has on the young and
budding minds of students in the modern university. wendell berry
points to the decline of the liberal arts education in today's ivory
towers, but we at W&L claim to have held onto the tradition of a
broadly disciplined mind. within this context, we seek to survey the
place of philosophy, according to philosophers -- both young and old.
The way/route/path/road/highway....
to that end, we have designed a course in which we will confer with one
professor each week, regarding their perspective on the methods, aims,
and effects of philosophy -- as they define it. each professor will
assign a series of readings intended to inspire or provoke us. we will
meet with each professor twice, one hour or more each sitting. the
first will have a lecture-based tone, the second will be discussion
oriented. we will write weekly responses in a blog forum, visible to
each other and the advising professors. to provide a sense of
direction and unity, we will meet with professor emeritus harrison
pemberton for two hours (or more as needed) each week. he, too, will
assign readings and guide us in an effort to coalesce our meanderings.
our first assignment is to read the meno and a commentary written by
professor pemberton. he has also assigned a puzzle for us: to
construct four equilateral triangles using only six unbroken
matchsticks.
as our coup de gras we will present what we've found to the university
community. the form of this performance, speech, reading, is to be
determined by the readings and discussions. the message of the the
presentation will be: why we do (or do not do) philosophy. it will, in
a sense, be an evaluation, meditation, and/or reflection on the meaning
of our formal education within this discipline.
the tentative schedule ---
week 2: mahon
week 3:
week 4: sessions
week 5: gregory/griffith
week 6: kosky
I've pasted tallies and mine email on the general idea of the class here.
PHIL 403 -- BEING A PHILOSOPHER: THINKING, LIVING, AND THE ACADEMY
(or something along those lines)
we will ask everyone in the philo dept (plus kosky & eddie v -- the
displaced shamans)
to present to us, the most brilliant & curious of students, what MOVES
them in philosophy
why did they get into it, why do they do it, what is so goddam valuable
about this discipline?
additionally, we'd like to meet with harry each week for continuity's
sake
and because he's the shit, knows his shit, and is fun as shit
shit shit shit
each prof will present their own personal views on the topic stated
above
they may or may not require readings from other authors
(maybe we'll read their own stuff?)
we will ask to cap the page limit at 100 & request they supply a
suggested-reading list
(anything that may help us understand more clearly what each prof
thinks)
we can tell them that this will be "their week to shine"
they will have the opportunity to be people, not just professors
to breakdown the hours:
spring term classes have 6 contact hours per week
so, we'll spend 2 of those with harry
these will be regularly scheduled & preferably @ the cabin, @ UVA, in
DC, somewhere exotic
which leaves 4 for each prof's session with us
the best way to break it up is TWO 2-hour meetings:
the first meeting shall be in the acedemy: a more formalized
lecture/introduction
the second shall be in the vegetable market / woods / rooftops / palms
for discussion & reaction.
we've ordered them as follows: gregory, boggs, mahon, griffith, kosky,
velasquez, sessions
as for the evaluation process... we want to do a one/two pager for each
prof
of course, it'll be free form in nature, and by nature
THEN, get ready:
a presentation open to the campus
not a paper, not a poopy spring term downer shitty mctitty
but a full-of-life, brimming-with-wisdom show of what we've learned
not on paper, not on a computer
rather... in front of PEOPLE, precisely the way they introduced us to
philosophy
multi-media, media-less, who knows! (exclamations)
we shall leave ourselves open to change
we've devised a plan with structure and flexibility
now, we (all four of us) should send an email to the aforementioned men
& woman to ask for their help