Friday, April 16th
Choose ONE to journal on:
1. Considering the beliefs of the pre-Socratic philosophers: what are the basic building blocks of life? What are examples to prove that these items are the basic building blocks? What are examples to disprove that these are the basic building blocks?
2. Were the Sophists wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success? Should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical uses appropriate as well?
3. Plato hated the Sophists. How might the relativism they introduced have contributed to the decline in society that led to the execution of Socrates (Plato's theory)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I would like to direct my response to the 2nd question in regards for the Sophists' work, I believe that being able to argue any sort of idea is an invaluable skill that humans beings should use. Not only does it expand the mind about different ideas, but it also helps a person find weaknesses in their theory they're defending so that they can exploit them if in an argument against said theory. The Sophists I believe were teaching advanced communication and critical thinking techniques, but their intention of challenging philosophy was so infuriating to many that most didn't realize the education they provided. Philosophy is a concept of thinking in my opinion, so I believe using for practical reasons is almost necessary to grasp everyone's different thoughts. Practical thinking is a great way to challenge ideas and truth, much like Socrates did by making the opponent explain their argument more clearly. Overall, philosophy doesn't need to concern itself with macro level ideas such as What is real? or What is being? all of the time, but it should balance with practical questions and opposite theories to strengthen its educational value overall.
The pre-Socratic philosophers had varying opinions on what the basic stuff that makes up the earth is. Some, like Thales, understandably argued that water was what most of the world is comprised of. One piece of evidence to prove this would be that pretty much all forms of life need water to survive. The earth is covered mostly with water, and the Greeks held Poseidon, the god of the sea, in great esteem. One hilariously straightforward criticism of this theory is that if everything was made of water, then everything would be wet. And we know that some things are dry. Therefore, water cannot be the basic matter. Others believed that the world’s basic matter was fire, because fire is not simply one substance, it is constantly changing. Because they believed that the earth was in a constant state of flux, it seemed logical that something like fire would comprise most of the earth. Others disliked this theory because they rejected the thought that the earth was constantly changing, and believed that life was unmoving and stable.
3. I think that Plato hated the Sophists because they started to bring an end to open discussion and free thinking. The Sophists traveled and taught people how to argue their point, rather than how to talk through something. They were under the idea that they were right and wouldn’t really listen to any other points. This led to Socrates’ death because the Athenian leaders stopped listening to his points and considered his way of thinking wrong. I also think that the Sophists teaching people how to argue made their students arrogant. When Socrates would talk to them and not argue and prove them wrong, that angered them more than it did before.
I don't think the Sophists were wrong to teach the Greeks about speaking skills. By teaching as many Greeks as possible about speaking skills, it allowed for the Greeks to have higher level argument and an overall better level of education. Since the Sophists tried to educate the Greeks as a whole, then certain Greeks would not have an advantage over others, since they would all be able to argue equally well. By being equally educated, they would all be able to attack each others arguments. Speaking skills are a valuable tool and it is important that the Sophists were trying to extend argumentation skills to more people than had access to it before. I think philosophy should be applied to many different issues, because otherwise it becomes too limited a discipline and might become outdated. It is important for it to be used in different circumstances so that more people can have access to it. Philosophy can sometimes have an intimidating aura so it is good for people to see philosophy used in different areas so that certain people might relate to in a better way. Using philosophy in different areas helps it achieve a broader audience who then might be pulled into the more complicated and higher-level issues as well.
I am going to answer question two about sophists. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity for success in their life. Even if someone doesn't take that opportunity the point is that they had the chance at one point and by teaching Greeks speaking skills gave them the opportunity for success. Philosophy shouldn't be just used for higher things but also things that help us in our everyday life. Things that help guide on us through the day. Not just questions like what is existence but practical uses that may make our lives better.
I am responding to the second question.
I do not believe that the Sophists were wrong in teaching speaking skills. It is possibly to have the best idea in the world and find yourself completely incapable of expressing it. Speaking is an essential skill in society. Other things that the Sophists did or said may not have been the most wise at the time, and reaction to the Sophists is generally based off of these other things. Teaching speaking skills was a good idea.
Philosophy should be used for practical purposes. This keeps philosophy relevant in modern times. Sciences that are not defined as relevant frequently do not do so well. If philosophy is restricted to impractical uses it will likely fade out of use eventually. Practicality is necessary for the survival of philosophy, in my opinion.
According to the pre-Socratic philosophers, the building blocks of life are: water, air, fire, and atoms. The first 3 are elements of the earth, which make up the planet. All living beings are made up of water, which proves that water is a building block. Everything needs air to function, and we would all be dead without it. Fire is considered as a metaphor for the basic building block. It starts small and evolves into a large fire. As history progressed, all species had to evolve as the earth changed. Which, is very similar to fire. All things made on the planet are made up of atoms. Nothing would exist without them. An example that would disprove this theory would be that fire is a gift and a danger. It keeps you warm, but it can also get out of control and burn down everything in its path. Since it burns everything, one could think that it burns down the building blocks of life.
I am responding to the second question. I don't think the Sophists did wrong in teaching the Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success. I believe that they did the right thing because every human being needs speaking skills in oder to communicate with one another. Also, Philosophy shouldn't only be used for the higher things. It should be used all of the time because I think that Philosophy is thinking. So practical uses are appropriate as well.
I am writing in response to question two. The question asks "were the Sophists wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success?" I believe that that the Sophists were not wrong to teach Greeks how to use speaking skills to achieve success. I think this because speaking skills are extremely useful in one's everyday life to achieve any form of success. For example if a person wants to get into an Ivy league college sometimes it is required to have an interview. Without the knowledge of higher speaking skills, you may not get accepted into the college thus eliminating your opportunity for success( in that particular college). The second half of the question asks "should philosophy be used only for higher things, or are practical uses appropriate as well?" My thoughts on this question are similar to the first. I do not think that philosophy can only be used for higher things, I think that philosophy has many practical uses as well. As shown as in my example above.
In response to the second question I think the Sophists had every right to teach the Greeks how to use language in order to achieve success. Being able to form an argument is a fundamental step in the ability to share opinions and have reasoning as to why you have a certain opinion. By teaching the Greeks, the Sophists strengthened Greek culture by allowing them to have arguments. Many people during this time period probably disliked the concept of argument and did not realize its benefits right away. This is why many early philosophers were persecuted. I also think that practical uses of philosophy are appropriate. Philosophy allows for someone to expand on their thoughts and to think critically about their ideas. This is a very beneficial ability if it is used correctly, and it should not be limited to "expert only" use. While Philosophy helps us answer tough, and in some cases seemingly unanswerable questions, this should not be the only use of philosophical thought.
I am responding to the second question on the blog. I don't think the Sophists were out of line at all to use their speaking skills and develop their speaking skills to win arguments. If we look at physical competition, it isn't who was born with the most strength, it is who developed the skills that ultimately win. I think this is applicable to philosophy and debating as well. If somebody is a more skilled debater and philosophizer, then I think that also strengthens the validity of their argument. If the Sophists' argument was TRULY weak, then they wouldn't have been able to persuade people at the level they did.
As I was saying earlier, it makes sense to me that using speaking/philosophizing skills to win an argument is okay. Also, I think that is a pretty big cop-out to blame somebody's rhetorical skills for winning their argument...instead of the actual argument itself. That's like saying, "They only won the hockey game because they had better hockey players!"
Response to question 2:
I think that the Sophists were right to teach the Greeks to use speaking skills in order to achieve success because the way you present an idea can almost be more important then the actual idea. Using strategic things such as the way you speak when trying to persuade people is just a different strategy to winning an argument. Philosophy in my opinion is appropriate to be used in practice life and not only for higher thinking. Someone doesn't need to have a topic that is more educated to be able to question it. Having the ability to question the things and ideas around you should be available to everyone no matter what their education level is or where they come from in life.
Question 1: Pre-Socratic philosophers were just beginning to understand what composed life and where everything in the Universe came from. Thales theorized that everything is made of water, because water constantly and independently changes, as does the Universe. It is remarkable that he would come up with this idea without any modern scientific knowledge about the importance of water and the water content of our bodies - there is no doubt that water is essential to existence on Earth. However, it simply does not make logical sense that everything is made of water; everything would be wet. Obviously there are other substances. Anaximander seems to completely avoid the problem by stating that everything is made of nothing - "the boundless." This mysterious substance is convenient; it seems likely that our Universe is made of something we cannot comprehend. Yet, it is undeniable that there is SOMETHING that makes up our world - it can't be made of nothing. Anaximenes shared this view, arguing that everything is made of air, which condenses to form things. This seems acceptable because air is very abundant, and plays a key role in most processes. However, this theory makes as much sense as everything being made of water - it can't be possible because somethings are obviously not made of air. The theory that makes the most sense to me is Pythagoras's idea that numbers and math can describe and account for everything, because everything involves some sort of number.
I am responding to question 2, which discusses the Sophists and how philosophy should be used. I do not think it was wrong of the Sophists to teach the Greeks how to use speaking skills. The skill of speaking is a very important one that everyone should be comfortable at, at some level. Whether it is public speaking or debating, the skill helps to broaden ones experiences in the world, as well as their comfort level in such scenarios. As for philosophy being used for practical purposes, absolutely. The term philosophy sounds scholarly, and therefore gives of the impression that philosophical ideas should be used in only higher levels, but indeed philosophy can be used in everyday scenarios. For example, Socrates way of questioning to help people reach a point can be used to help small children understand concepts such as sharing, and being nice. All in all, I feel that philosophy can be used in many different areas of life. Even since I've started this class, certain things around me have reminded me of philosophy. That goes to show that philosophy doesn't have to be just for the scholarly.
Question 2:
Of the many higher capacities of humans, the ability to argue well is one of the most powerful, and can make or break a chance to prove a point. I don't believe this ability should ever be held for a "higher" group of individuals. Though the Sophists may not have been wrong in their attempt to give this gift to the general public, they would not have been right to leave logic and reason out of the lesson. When the Greeks were taught speaking skills, it was solely to achieve success, not truth. Therefor the problem arose that many philosophers such as Socrates and Plato had with the Sophists being that many "common folk" were now able to argue well for opinions that had foolish foundations. Yes, practical purposes are appropriate for philosophical applications, but that does not simply mean that ill thought out opinions of the general public should be stretched into a full lawyer-like argument unnecessarily. Philosophy should be used to attain truth, not win debates.
Question 1:
Before Socrates Philosophers tried to answer the question what is the basic stuff of life. It was said that everything was similar to each other, and if everything is similar then they must be made of the same stuff. These philosophers are called Monists. The first pre-Soctratic philosopher in the sixth century B.C. in Ionia was Thales. His answer to the question was water. His theory is supported by the facts: water is a prime importance for the maintenance of life and water can be found deep in the earth. He also supports his theory by explaining the change that occurs in water to link with the change that happens around the world. His student Anaximander argued Thales theory. He believed if everything was made out of water, then everything would be wet, and not everything is wet. Instead, he thought everything must be made of something with no distinct characteristics to limit its ability to take on the characteristics of the objects of the world. He called his "stuff" the "boundless." Another student of Thales , Anaximenes, disliked Anaximander's thought. How could something be made out of nothing. It made no sense to him. It must be something, and his something is air. Air could easily explain change through condensation, and it was a basic essential to survive on earth. He most agrees to Thales first theory compared to Anaximander. Pythagorus is the last philosopher that tried to answer the unanswerable question. He concluded that the world must be made up of numbers. They are the building blocks of ordinary objects. Everything is able to express its relationships mathematically. He backed up his theory with the discovery of musical relationship. The theory that I most agree with is the Atomists Leucippus and Democritus. He was impressed with Parmenides argument that nothing changes and nothing moves, so nothing comes and goes from existence. They came to the conclusion that everything was made from small, indivisible, colorless atoms. Change occurs through the different patterns the atoms created, and that they are unable to be destroyed or created. This theory most relates to the theory in Chemistry today. Each Pre-Socratic philosopher had their own theories and could back it up with their own views, but what needs to always be taken in consideration is, "Is what we see really what is real? Or are we in Plato's cave?" The question, "What is the basic stuff?" is an "unanswerable question."
The pre-Socratic thinkers seemed to decide that everything was made up of something. In a sense, they were right. Democritus and Leucippus came up with the concept of atoms, which ended up being pretty much right on. But they were also wrong. They though that elements made everything up, like water or air (Thales and Anaximenes.) The water argument was shut down because not everything is wet. Air made about as much sense. Then you had people like Anaximander who thought, like the atomists, that there was something sort of particle (the boundless) that made up everything, but to him, the boundless was an agent of change. People differed on whether or not things were constantly changing, like a fire (Heraclitus) or things couldn't change (Parmenides.) However, most seemed to think that there was some common factor that linked everyone together. Turns out there is. Hooray for the atomists.
The Sophists were wandering teachers of rhetoric that believed in teaching others how to argue and persuade. They taught moral flexibility and believed everyone had their own truth. The Sophists disagreed with the idea of objective truth, and believed that things affect everyone differently. In response to question 2, I believe that the Sophists were an invaluable asset to their society and that knowledge should be taught to everyone.
The Sophists generally taught males in society how to participate in democracy, read literature and write well. They believed all people could be taught rhetoric, and I agree with this. Philosophy in itself is a search for knowledge and truth involving thinking and arguing. This can and should be taught to or be available to everyone. I believe philosophy, knowledge, and thinking are all important to the world and democracy, as the Sophists believed.
While I understand the argument that the Sophists were giving success to those who didn't teach themselves, I believe that success and advancement in the world should be available for all. These speaking skills provided more men for arguing about philosophy and promoting ideas about democracy. Arguing and debating are a large part of philosophizing, and the more educated the people are the better a society can be run.
Philosophy can be used for everything. Arguments and debates promote thinking and knowledge, which can advance any part of society. Philosophy should not just be for the elite.
I'm responding to question's number 1. The Ionian school first began with Thales who believed that everything was made of water. He also believed that gods were within people and part of people. Anaximander built on this by also bein part of the ionian school, he thought that not everything is wet, so it cannot all be made of water, and that the world is to varied to say it is all made of just one thing, so he decided that it could not be one in particular, that it must be boundless. Anaximenes thought that this substance might be air. While all of these ideas seem strange to those who believe in the scientific advances that we've made in our modern time, to those back then these were very advanced ideas, especially the idea of boundlessness. Although they are not scientifically true, I still think they provide good food for thought about how these philosophers got to their ideas about these things. I think democritus and leucippus were the most advanced in that they came up with the idea of atoms long before science could show that they existed. But no matter for any philosophers, the idea of what things are made of automatically leads to a discussion of if there are things that we cannot perceive. These are the ideas that pythagoras, heraclitus and zeno discussed.
I am going to answer question number two. Well, the beliefs of the pre-Socratic philosophers were varying in their content. Philosophers' beliefs on what the basic building blocks of life were ranged from water, to air, to fire (change). Thales believed that water made up everything in the world. And this could have been believable back then, too. Water is a necessary element to the Earth's existence. Everything in the world seemed to need it, and in everything in the world, they could find water (i.e. animals, trees, etc.) Even us humans, they saw, needed water to survive. Plus, water could transform into any of the three states of matter, solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (water vapor). This single element actually seemed to be able to be found in anything and everything that existed. What disproved this theory? People tried to imagine everything made of water. Some could, yet others could not. These opponents' argument was simple. "If everything was made of water, does that not mean that everything should be wet? When I touch most things, they are not wet." This question was one of the powerful arguments against this theory.
In response to post 2,
I think that the Sophists were right in teaching the Greeks speaking skills to obtain success. It made a lot of sense to do so, and it is probably part of the reason the Greek society was so sophisticated and valued education. They started an ideal of societies that has continued on today. To me, it makes a lot of sense to use philosophy in every day life and for practical uses. I think that a lot of philosophy is based on common sense, and if it can be used by not just those with higher level thinking, it will be very beneficial to society. I think using philosophy expands the mind, and helps people learn about themselves and their surroundings, and how to deal with situations. The main focus of philosophy shouldn't as much be the bigger questions, but should focus on practical philosophy, and how everyday people can use it.
Post a Comment