I'd like to respond first to the question Tony raised. I think that you raise a valid question in asking whether such a thing has happened throughout the year. I would argue that each person has influenced the "dialect" of this blog through their voice, both posting and commenting, and some have certainly influenced this to a greater degree than others. That being said, Every time a person made their voice heard for the first time I feel we at least listened, and I can think of a few examples where my perspective and probably others as well were broadened as a result of new input. When a group such as us is at this long enough a way of operating naturally develops, and unfortunately that may make it a little more difficult for an outsider to communicate fully at first, but I think this is natural. I agree, and I think most of us do, with Cody on the fact that whatever vox deis may have felt regarding how we communicated on this blog, his way of communicating was not appropriate because it stifled true discussion rather than promoted it. I don't believe that he or she couldn't have found their own way of communicating without attacking others.

Regarding Kit's question, I believe that any happening or exchange that causes one to view things in a different light cannot be negative because the more perspectives we experience the more likely we are to discover "truths". As far as Socrates rarely learning anything, I disagree with that notion. For instance, he learns that a previous opinion no longer works for him regarding whether goodness can be taught after his exchange with Protagoras. Sometimes unlearning, or learning that what you thought you learned isn't true is the most valuable thing you can learn. As far as what we've learned about the good from this course, I think that even if we've reconsidered any notion we previously believed then we've taken something positive from it.

I think there are definitely differing degrees of memorization, and the difference can often show through, whether it be in what we gain from our learning or how we perform, etc. I'd certainly agree that lasting, meaningful memorization must involve participation on your part to accompany the internalization. School certainly provides easy examples of this. No matter how effectively we memorize information for a test, if we don't attach meaning to this information and make it relative to our experiences or emotions in some way, the chances we remember it as we move through life are increasingly slim. I definitely see what you're saying about music, too. The songs we truly know by heart are not so familiar to us because we've heard or song the words x amount of times, but rather because we can attach impressions, emotions, situations and add our own meaning to the song.

This is a very amusing an interesting way to potentially view the great philosopher, Cody. Although a person seriously attempting to discredit such a theory could make arguments such as the possibility that many of these things serve metaphorical purposes rather than exist as actual conditions of Socrates, I think you make a very good point. People these days most often tend to look at unique traits or mental experiences as symptomatic of a mental problem of some sort. Thinking--and acting--outside the box these days can often give off the impression that one "isn't normal" and for whatever reason too many people view not being normal as a sign that something is wrong. While there are certainly still innovators and free spirits in todays world, it does seem that we quickly point to the possibility of something being off before we are willing to declare someone a genius.

I think the responses you've received thus far give you a pretty good hint as to what the answer you're seeking is. Sure, anonymous persons, or barbarians, as you've apparently labeled yourself, can do precisely what you have done. They can engage the blog in a way that is upsetting to most of the community, and can disrespect those they engage to the extent that their actual argument loses otherwise-deserved merit due to the immature approach they take. In response to your comments our class members have aligned to reject this approach without personally attacking you, and a few have even been gracious enough to look past your insults and actually engage with the well-designed responses you've laid out.

Now, you could probably make the argument that if enough people began attacking others on this blog as you have done we would eventually have a hard time continuing to hold positive discussions. But what that accomplishes is simply pointless violence, and whether physical or intellectual, the appropriate response is the high road. Given enough violence in any setting--whether it be in the classroom, online, in a society, measures of control are often needed to protect the rights of the innocent. If that is your definition of "doomed", then yes, I believe you could drive this to a point where it simply isn't acceptable for your voice to be heard in this setting.

You may disagree strongly with a person or people's views in our class, maybe you even dislike them personally. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. I believe you raised some very legitimate points in your response to Anthony's post, and could easily let your ideas do the talking for you. Attacking someone simply discredits your own intellect and respectability. As it stands now you have yet to be banned from this forum, which I think speaks more to the maturity of the community than to your demand for attention.

While it is absolutely true that any word or sound we utter has no inherent meaning but instead only a meaning or meanings we, our peers or society assign to it, I do not think this justifies the argument that we do not communicate. In my mind communication is the process of transferring ideas or information from one entity to another, so therefore any time an action--be it a sound, a gesture, whatever--causes the observing person to perceive and interpret new information, communication has occurred. If you are attempting to define communication as the perfect transfer of a concept, picture or idea from one person's brain to the others then of course this is virtually impossible, but I do not believe that just because we aren't achieving this means we aren't communicating.

To use your example, I think the word "dog" is a great example of imperfect communication. The word dog represents a classification of animals rather than any specific animal you or I may know. While we may conjure different images when expressing this word, that is ok because we have other words to specify further if needed. If I want to give you a clearer idea of the type of dog I want you to envision I might say a 4 year old chocolate labrador. Ultimately you are right in suggesting that there really isn't a combination of words I could use to describe an animal so that we would be envisioning the exact same thing mentally, but I don't see what function that would serve anyway. Communication works on a variety of levels, so we only need to be as clear as the task at hand demands. For example, while the sounds chimpanzees make to warn each other of coming predators may not perfectly describe the exact specifications of the predator, it successfully serves the purpose of making their fellow chimps aware of the danger and allowing themselves protection.
That being said, there are obviously limitations to communication. Language barriers are one example; describing complicated things such as emotions are another. We have all probably experienced frustration at one point or another at being unable to convey exactly what we mean to others, whether this is due to an inability on our part to develop a language as complicated as our other mental facilities or for some other reason I do not know. I do believe, however, while communication may be imperfect or fail us at times, it is vital in all of our lives and our society as well as other societies would not be anywhere near as complex as they are today if we weren’t able to successfully communicate to a certain degree.

I agree with the arguments Tony and Cody have been making here. The speakers certainly seem to emphasize a more intellectual association with the love of another man as opposed to the more animalistic desire associated with deriving sexual pleasure from women. Tony aptly points out that this smoothly parallels the charioteer allegory and thus subverts the status of women within Greek society. I definitely haven't noticed any negative textual commentary on this stance so far, so it doesn't seem to me that the text disagrees with the point being made. I also can't definitively account for why this is, but according to the text this seems to be a fairly uncontroversial and accepted facet of the philosophers' principles and ideals.

I would have to agree that there is a certain lean toward the shameful type of love in our current culture and I believe it has led, to a certain extent, to the misconception that it is the more important of the two. You truly can't look anywhere in our culture today (television, movies, the internet, magazines, etc.) without witnessing a hyper-emphasis on the physically attractive, and as a result intellect or positive mental traits can often fall by the wayside. The staggering divorce numbers in America certainly suggest that such belief is misplaced, however. Ultimately a relationship based on shameful love sits on shaky foundations due in part to the simple concept of aging. Generally speaking, as people get older they become less in shape and less attractive, so how can relationships based on looks hope to survive when the looks are no longer present? Regardless of how attractive a person may be to someone, if they aren't able to connect on mental levels between times of physical expression a relationship will more often than not become strained and fall apart.

However, that isn't to say that physical attraction doesn't play an immensely important role as well. Rather, such attraction is often what draws people to one another and allows for the opportunity to find out if they are mentally compatible with one another. I don't know about how things happened in ancient Greece, but in my personal experience I'm not aware of many instances where two people were initially drawn to each other by their dizzying intellect and then later found the physical attraction to be there as well; most times it happens the other way around. As greedy as it sounds I think both shameful and noble love need to be present, at least in the early stages, for a relationship to be successful. Your partner doesn't need to be the most attractive person in the world and a deep love developed over time can often negate the negative effects of your partner's aging, but it seems that both need to be present to a certain extent to make things work.

I definitely agree with the stance you are taking regarding where the responsibility ultimately lies when dealing with sales and marketing. In our current society the tools are available for us to become savvy purchasers and decide what is worth our money and what isn't, and it is on us whether we choose to equip ourselves with these tools or not. While advertisers may use a variety of techniques to try and persuade someone into purchasing, that person is still often aware on some level that what they are buying is not as good as promised or they don't necessarily need it.

But getting back to the original question, I don't think the issue of whether the salesman's act is aligned toward the good and whether we are responsible for making informed decisions when dealing with them are totally connected. Socrates claims that the knowledge of a truth is only half the battle; what we do with this truth ultimately determines our orientation toward the good. Thus a salesman's knowledge of a given truth--say problem A exists and product B can alleviate this problem by X percent--gives them the opportunity to present this truth honestly for the betterment of others or to spin the product a certain way to make it more appealing to the public. I know that in a capitalistic economy like ours it's hard to label everything likes this as 'bad' since the point is to make money and you need to make whatever you're selling more appealing in order to succeed, but when dishonesty is frequented for personal gain over the betterment of other people I certainly wouldn't label it as 'for the greater good.'

I think certainly a large amount of the time the modern act of marketing and sales is artless in the sense that it is not directed toward the good. Usually when you sell something it is not because you genuinely wish for the people you are selling to benefit from the product or service, but rather because you want to make money for various reasons. And because products are often not superior or high-quality enough to "sell themselves", salesmen need to employ various tactics - some honest and some not - to close the sale. This correlates pretty directly to the rhetor who seeks only to use the truth for selfish gain rather than to enlighten those who don't yet possess it.

I think you raise a very good point by asking this question, and I also agree with Cody's assessment about open dialogue in contemporary context. In many ways Socrates seems to be arguing that to truly philosophize you must be constantly developing and reforming your beliefs and arguments. If you truly have invested time and energy into developing a philosophy then you will of course be able to put up a strong fight against any who challenge the validity of your ideas. At the same time, though, someone who establishes a superior counterpoint is doing you a service because the dialogue has led you closer to knowing the "greater truths". This was definitely a key point in Socrates' dialogue with Protagoras. At the end of their dialogue neither person agreed wholly with the stance they originally took. The difference, however, was that Socrates desired to continue discussing so that they could approach a greater bit of knowledge whereas Protagoras wanted no part of this, probably because he was more interested in an invincible argument rather than obtaining a greater truth. I think there is an implicit argument made by Socrates that the visible difference between those seeking the good and sophists lies in whether they hope to gain selfishly from rhetoric or whether they hope to use it for the pursuit of justice and goodness.