Please click the link to access my final paper for this course.
http://www.wineanorak.com/philosophy_of_wine.htm
I have a movie/documentary on Derrida that has a bunch of interviews of him. I think it would be worth our time to sit down and watch it. I've only seen 15 mins or so of it, but the part I saw has a distinction between speaking and writing. Derrida seems to believe that writing precedes speaking, but his idea of writing within this context seems to be rather different from what we understand as writing. Either way, Derrida seems of the belief that writing contrary to speaking is something that can allow a deeper insight. This is in opposition to Scorates in the Phaedrus who places speech over writing. The contrast between Derrida and Scorates would thus be a rather interesting one, given the time difference and the understandings of symbols between them.
Plato seems to be unique among the philosophers,
1. he is the sole owner of the socratic character
2. He has a philosophy is inextricably intertwined with socrates
3. He was a poet
4. Western philosophy is almost entirely founded on him
We have convered 2 dialogues and a part of the republic. I think that is only a small chunk of Plato. The idea of getting more Platonic dialogues is interesting... but I would prefer readings the profs. themselves pick out, Plato or not.
I agree that the presentation should incorporate a lot of Plato but I am not sure as too how we should. Plato is more like a rock on which everything else we have read stands on. But I would like to see if there is anything that we have today that is beyond Plato.... or is the rest just elaborations on the suttle points in the dialogues? I don't exactly know what "beyond Plato" means...
Also, a theme that has been prevalent throughout our discussion has been on the question of knowledge. How do you get it? what is it? is it a turning around? memory, creativity and knowledge? what do they mean? what am I talking about? hmm... I feeel this is very inadequate discription, but I will try to add more later this week.
I just finished the Gregory reading. It took me about 3 hours to complete.
First, I'm curious about what Prof Gregory will say about the First UU Church of Austin sermon. This piece was a serindipidous choice given Naders message Thursday evening. Fascisism seems to be the new buzz word of the left. I'm not sure that I do or do not agree with this claim. It would be prudent of us to brush up on some current economic matters (read The Economist) before this class. I'm really interested to hear the reasons for his choice.
It's also important to see the similarities between these works - they all deal with proper and improper methodology with respect to both philosophy and science. Plato's allegory of the cave is an excellent introduction to these selections. We must first turn around our souls before we can begin to enquire about the more nuanced and specific questions regarding philosophy and science, the relationship between these two disciplines, and the role philosophy is to play in an empiricist's world. These are only some preliminary thoughts. I originally found the reading to be a bit formidable (length, etc.). Although I confess that the diagram-laden selection escapes my grasp, I am eager to tackle these topics.
What do you all think about a common Platonic theme for the presentation? It seems that this is pehaps the most insistant philosophic voice of the course so far. Would it be prudent for us to request that the remaining professors select at least one Platonic dialogue? I think it is of no concern if we have already adressed a particular dialogue with another professor; it's important to gain many perspectives when studying Plato. Let me know...
We meet the problem of transworld depravity in Plantinga's God, Possible Worlds and the Problem of Evil selected for us by Professor Mahon. We discussed this work and a Nagel work for our first meeting. Previously, I have played the role of secretary for our little exercise in thought, but in this entry I hope to solve the problem of transworld depravity or at the very least gain more clarity with respect to the scope and severity of the problem.
Plantinga's Transworld Depravity argument is the following:
A person P suffers from transworld depravity iff for every world W in which P is significantly free and always does what is right, there is a state of affairs T and an action A such that
(1) God strongly actualizes T in W and T includes every state of affairs God strongly actualizes in W,
(2) A is morally significant for P in W,
and
(3) If God had strongly actualized T, P would have gone wrong with respect to A.
"What is important about transworld depravity is that, if a person suffers from it, then it wasn't within God's power to acualize any world in which that person is significantly free but does no wrong - that is, a world in which he produces moral good but no moral evil." (Plantinga, "Which Worlds Could God Have Created," 550).
Why is it necessary that God have anything whatever to do with his creations. Couldn't it be the case that God, and omnipotent omniscient God of the kind Plantinga describes, could create a world in which he is not a part. For instance, if I make a sandwich I am not, in any way, a part of my sandwich. It is entirely my creation, but I am not necessary for its existence once created. It's essence, once created, has nothing to do with me. The actual world and any possible world does not require the existence of God in that world in order for God to still exist. God could exist independent of any and all possible worlds. Returning to the problem of transworld depravity, then, it seems it is not actually a problem if we grant that God could exist independent of any and all of his creations.
My argument places the existence of God in question, but I am not concerned with arguing for or against the existence of God. Stictly speaking, I sought to argue that the problem of transworld depravity is not, in fact, a problem at all in any possible world.
Todays nugget:
The diagonal is to the slave boy, as the slave boy's ability to enquire is to Meno.
We also discussed the difference between rhetoric and speech, dialogue and writing. Specifically, we discussed Plato's claim that "anything written should not be taken seriously." This is both a defense/explanation of the form in which he writes and advice on the proper way to approach his writings. To say that we should not take writing seriously is to view the written word as a catalyst for ones own thoughts. Good writing does not answer questions, but instead it poses questions where one did not see the possibility for enquiry before. Philosophical texts are tools by which we can wonder and ponder. Descartes, for instance, recommended one consider the first part of the Meditations for a year before reading on.
We compared the Meno to the Phaedrus, and we are still left with questions about the role of the cidcadas. Professor Griffith suggests that the myth of the cicadas is to bridge the transition from Socrates's soliloquy and the second dialogue about rhetoric. But we have yet to decide exactly what that means.
May 3, 2005.
Professor Griffith
I read the Phaedrus for a class once last year, and I found it to be very tough. After reading it again last night, I found it to be much more accessible, but I still had what I thought were some important questions. Upon my second reading, I still didn't have a comfortable grasp the Charioteer metaphor, the cicada metaphor, Plato's choice to break up the dialogue with long soliloquies by Socrates, or Plato's choice to make homosexual love the example of eros. Since it have studied Plato for Plato's sake, I wanted to ask Professor Griffith to compare this work to other Socratic dialogues. Finally, I hoped that we would discuss the role of nature and Socrates's tone toward Phaedrus in this work. This work always seemed unique to me, and also less analytical (I suppose by that I mean more Continental, though I'm not sure if anyone really knows the difference between these two branches of philosophy. To be sure, there appears to be much overlap. [I have begun to think of the difference between them to be about as significant and easy to articulate as the difference between Republicans and Democrats] But I digress).
We touched on these and other themes of the work. I would like to share some of the things I learned today that either gave me a great deal more clarity with respect to this work or that left me with more complicated considerations on which to deliberate.
1. This dialogue is unique in that it does not begin with at "frame conversation." Most Platonic dialogues begin with a retelling of recent events/conversations had by either Socrates or solicited by Socrates from his partner in conversation.
2. That the homosexual physical "love" which Socrates speaks of considerably is actually Pedernasty. I mean Pederasty. The most amusing part of today's discussion were the linguistic dances we performed around this topic.
3. We usually expect to arrive at a "reorienting insight" with a Platonic dialogue - exiting the cave, the turning around of the soul, etc. In the Phaedrus, Plato does not explicitly give us an example of "reorienting insight."
4. Socrates's long speeches are rare in dialogues, especially ones which wax poetic about nature and love. The Phaedrus gives us Socrates the artist, to some degree.
5. "nothing written will capture the Truth (whole, objective, all encompasing Truth), but that is not to say that Truth does not exist." If the Truth could be taught, suppose that anyone who wanted to learn it could. If everyone knew the Truth would we have any reason for language, since language/discussion the means by which we grasp for Truth? Also, can we think without language either before we are able to use language or after we are able to use language?
6. Plato asserts in this dialogue that philosophy is a process of collecting and discriminating things. This is how we classify examples of concepts appropriately. This kind of grouping is the way in which we learn language, and it is also the way we are able to make judgements about our environment in a somewhat crude way. But I am not sure that this is philosophy. There seems to be a bit more to it than conceptual taxonomy. What about the great system builders? Is this just very advanced collecting and discriminating? I think we are missing the move toward seeing and/or making similarities after we have completed "discrimination."
7. Techne is often translated as art, but this 'art' is a broader concept than our modern 'art.' It could also be translated as "creative mimesis."
8. The myth of the cicadas is meant as a bridge between Socrates's long soliloquy and the dialogue that follows.