gdp's Comments

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Thanks Prof. Long - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:36:56 +0000

Professor Long, Thank you so much for everything that you have done this semester. You were always encouraging and attentive to each and every one of us in the class. I have been, and continue to be incredibly impressed by how you make a personal connection with every individual. You know everyone's names, their individual ideas they've contributed, even their activities outside of class (I was very pleasantly surprised by your attention to my singing!). Your enthusiasm for the subject material was not only infectious but also enabled us to learn so much from you. You have been encouraging and inspiring to every single one of us. I think that, even more so than the format of the blog or the way you structured the course, has made each of us more responsible for our own education and engaging ourselves with the material. I have really enjoyed having you as my teacher and I hope I'll be able to learn more from you in the future. Thank you for the dynamic you created inside and outside the classroom.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Honing the Metaphor - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:12:06 +0000

Jordan, your metaphor is very reminiscent of Aristotelian ethics. I personally really resonate with Nicomachean Ethics, and find many of the models outlined in the text a helpful and (I think, more importantly) practical way of living well. In the text, various "forms"of virtues are detailed. Each has corresponding vices which are defined as the form or quality in excess or deficiency. In order to achieve the particular virtues so that we may live a Good life, we must continually strive for the mean. This is perfectly illustrated by your arrow metaphor. Each virtue is likened to a bull's eye, with the mean being the center, excess and deficiency surrounding. In order to achieve virtue (and more generally, the Good), we must aim at the center of that bull's eye. As an addition: according to Nicomachean ethics, we must also take into account our own person and our own tendencies towards excess or deficiency in regards to various characteristics. Understanding where we are and where we come from allows us to more accurately aim and compensate for whatever way we may tend towards.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Memorization - The Digital Dialogue

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:08:23 +0000

I'm so glad that everyone has been receptive to this music parallel. Mike, I think you are correct in your comment. The aside you included was very interesting as well (I didn't know Bruce used monitors!!). In response to Kit's comment, while extemporaneous expression is often a good test of someone's knowledge or skill, I don't think that is always the case. I am someone who prefers to do things off the cuff, but time and time again, a little forethought has put me to shame, especially in regards to performing! I can't count how many times I thought I would be fine (because I knew my music, words, etc...) but slip ups occurred. Things like this can be prevented by a little forethought and preparation (to which memorization is foundational). And in case anyone is interested, here is the website for my acapella group, None of the Above (NOTA) : http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/nota/Home.html and our youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/NoneOfTheAbovePSU The current music from this semester will be up in the next couple of weeks...!

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Diagnosing Socrates - The Digital Dialogue

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:33:03 +0000

Haha a very funny idea. In our time I'm sure Socrates would be considered a little bit of a nut. Funny enough, however, he was a little odd even back then... But bringing up mental disorders is kind of interesting. As a Psych major, I am really fascinated by different psychological disorders, and what I find to be an important component to understanding mental illness is that the functioning (or rather misfunctioning) of the minds of those afflicted with mental disease are often eerily similar to the thought patterns of a "normal" person. Those with disorders just get a little extreme. So while Socrates may have been diagnosed with mental disorders, his ideas may not be so off the deep end. Maybe we should not only recognize how more similar we are than different from those with mental disorders, but also try to be like Socrates and question and reflect and orient ourselves towards the Good.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Eros and Socratic Midwifery - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:23:29 +0000

Tony, you have cultivated a very striking and interesting idea. On the surface it seems as though it may be different, this birth of discovery and love, but the more that I reflect upon it, the more they seem to coincide. But I think at the crux of the issue is a need to really pin down love or eros. As all the speeches in the Symposium show, there are a multitude of facets of love. I don't doubt, however, that the particular kind of love and birth of discovery you detailed coincide.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Phaedrus and Socrates - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:54:33 +0000

Another quote I forgot to include: "S: Where's that boy of mine I was talking to? He must hear also, lest from not hearing it he go and gratify the one who doesn't love. P: He's always here, right beside you, whenever you want him. S: Now then, my handsome boy..." (243e) Thoughts?

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Art and the Divine - The Digital Dialogue

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:36:40 +0000

I think in Socrates' second speech he is qualifying another aspect of madness that is not necessarily evil. One of which, being divine inspiration leading to artistic perfection. I agree with a lot of what has been said about "art" in general; I believe its definition is very debatable but often an innate "gift" leads to true esteem. However, I think characterizing the most esteemed artists by their natural "gift" is rather narrow. While it is true, many artists seem to possess their abilities innately, I think much has to be said for hard work and perseverance in attaining artistic excellence. Perhaps it is a very western way of looking at things, but I think many of us can identify with the belief in hard work. In this country it is ingrained in us that we can achieve whatever we put our minds to. I think in many respects, this extends to artistic achievement as well. In regards to your post, John, you pose some really great questions. In Socrates speech, I think his examples of "madness" (including art) are to tributes to piety in the way that they are linked to the divine (and divinely endowed). While upon my initial reading, my impression was that each instance of "madness" was merely an example of how it may not be evil. But after reflection, I think the examples of madness speak the underlying tone of piety and respect for the divine. In regards to art, I think Socrates would characterize excellence in art (and being divinely inspired by the Muses and such) as yet another way to transcend human mortality and reach to be closer to the divine.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : A Slave For Love - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:07:43 +0000

Personally, I'm assuming love to convey its meaning in the broadest sense of the word. I must agree with a lot of what has already been said, but I think there is also another component to love enslavement that hasn't been brought forth completely. While many individuals do anything to find love, I think even more so, many people are addicted to being loved in any way they can. Whether it be as harmless as shamelessly flirting with someone for their attentions (even though you may not be interested in them) or as serious as reckless one night stands, our society is full of empty gestures of affection. It seems as though we are slaves to wanting to feel loved and just do things for the sensation and excitement.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Equality of Love - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:54:33 +0000

While I agree with you about maturity levels being important in compatible partners, I think there is some truth and wisdom to what Socrates says. Age is only a number, but we are also subject to different stages in our lives. These stages often fall in common spans of our lives. I think all of us can attest to the big difference between high school and college, for instance. In regards to partners being equal or superior, I think it is a question that doesn't have a simple answer. Additionally I don't think individuals are strictly defined as being better or worse than one another. I think the relationship of superiority and inferiority of partners is a constant dynamic struggle. I think Socrates' depiction is rather superficially simplistic.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Why are you here? - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:46:36 +0000

I'm sorry that was so incredibly long!!

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Why are you here? - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:46:17 +0000

While Philosophy may not be "practical" in regards to guaranteeing a lucrative career, my study of it has solidified my belief in it's incredibly pervasive nature. While I enjoy reading and discussing the various philosophical theories, the greatest thing that I take from studying philosophy is an ability to think. I love trying to shift my perspective and critically analyze things, and studying philosophy continually strengthens my abilities to do so. But while I enjoy the study of philosophy, it is also a good path to law school for me. Hopefully it'll help me do well on the LSATs, and, let's face it, completing the philosophy degree requirements isn't exactly grueling, so I'm planning on coming out with a pretty decent GPA. But as I continue down this path, there is always the question of what else? Last semester I added on a Psychology major as well, simply because I enjoy the subject and I thought it would complement my philosophy degree. But maybe there is a tiny bit of me that likes that it is a little more practical (even if marginally so). I enjoy what I'm studying immensely. But I also recognize that I can't expect to guarantee myself a comfortable life unless I get myself to grad school. So that's the plan. And while I know it may not shed favorable on my character, I would be really pleased if everything went according to plan and I start out making 6 figures at a big law firm someday. So I'm doing everything I can to make it happen. But what I think I keep being pleasantly surprised by is how much I enjoy every step. Every semester, I start out feeling like I'm just taking these classes because I have to. And whether I intend to or not, I end up engaging myself in such a satisfying way that what I'm studying becomes my focus here and now. While I have my focus on my future, I like the think that I can shift my focus to what is going on now and take value from that, in and of itself. Tony - I thoroughly enjoyed hearing your path to philosophy. And I really liked the quote that Jordan extracted. While I wouldn't adopt it as my own view, I do appreciate the way that philosophy takes us on journeys and often does nothing but leave us with more questions. Anna - I was incredibly blown away by not only your honesty, but your commentary on some difficult introspection. I think many of us enjoy learning for the ability it gives us to "show off" in some respects and display our intellectual superiority. While many of us may be able to admit to that, I think it takes a great deal of courage and introspection to say that our desire to shine may encourage our academic achievement. I know I'm guilty of that. Jordan, thank you for starting off such a probing discussion. I wasn't expecting it, but it's been really rewarding, at least for me.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Why are you here? - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:46:10 +0000

After first reading this post, I was a little skeptical. The idea seemed nice in theory, reflecting on why we are here, blah, blah, but I guess I was just a little worried that it'd just boil down to either caring about the money or the substance of what we're studying. But as I read your comments, I was rather touched. The nature of this online dialogue is not my first choice; I would much rather have a discussion face to face. But as I read all of your comments, I began to see how we can still be real, live people, typing away. And in some instances, it seems as though this format allows us to not only reflect more deeply on what we are saying, but also be very honest and open. I was always pretty successful at school. I don't think it was because I was particularly good at any one thing, but I've always known how to "work the system" to do whatever I needed to so that I would succeed. In high school the goal of getting good grades was the get into a good college. But once I got there, I didn't really know what to do. The plan had always been to go to law school. I made sure I was successful in school, participated in mock trial, etc., etc. But when it came time to decide what I was going to study as an undergrad, I frankly started to freak out. I spoke to every lawyer I knew, asking what would set me up on the path to getting into an ivy league law school, what courses I should take, what clubs I should get involved with, when I should do certain things... I was a mess for a little while. And the advice I was getting wasn't making me feel any better. I was told to study what I liked, what I was good at, that I could basically study anything. But the scope of my high school studies was so narrow and basic that I didn't know what I was good at, I didn't know what I liked. The end goal was just to get a good GPA to get into a good law school. After the nightmarish college application/acceptance debacle, I begrudgingly came to Penn State as a philosophy major. I chose philosophy almost randomly (I had enjoyed what little I knew of the subject and some lawyers said that logic and reasoning were good things to study, plus, philosophy majors aren't a dime a dozen - I thought it might make me a little more interesting on college applications...). When I came to University Park, I jumped right in. I wasn't super enthusiastic about going to a huge school where half of my highschool went, but the school really surprised me. While the school was huge, I was finding that one could make it as small and intimate as you wanted. I was involved with tons of things and I loved being busy and engaged in my a capella group, mock trial, NRT shows, and classes. I had always enjoyed school (for the most part), so it wasn't hard to get into things, but I at first, I had this nagging feeling in the back of my mind. I was a philosophy major, but I didn't really know much about my major at all! In the spring of my freshman year, things really started falling into place. I was taking two more "serious"philosophy classes. I'll never forget the first day of Irene Harvey's Phil204 class. I wanted to drop dead right there. She was throwing around names and philosophical movements like they were the most commonplace topics, while I felt like she was speaking another language. I didn't know what to do. But somehow, I threw myself into it, and along with the guidance of Dr. Colapietro, I finally started feeling like Philosophy was the right fit for me. I felt my mind expanding and learning how to think in so many different ways. And I loved it. Philosophy started out being a random choice, but I definitely lucked out.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Philosophy VS. Politics - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 04:51:04 +0000

I definitely agree with the relationships that appear between politics and rhetoric. It's almost impossible to ignore. But while reflecting over your post, the title seemed to pop out to me (very fitting, I must say). I feel as though politics and philosophy tend to be pitted against one another. This may be in part due to the characters that are giving them voices in this dialogue. We have Gorgias and his associates, advocates of rhetoric, bringing to light politics; and Socrates, philosopher at heart. But I think this division underplays the pervasiveness of philosophy. I think that philosophy very much so provides the foundations for other institutions, politics included. It just is interesting that in this context that they are pitted against one another in a way.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : The Crooked Teacher - The Digital Dialogue

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 04:40:03 +0000

I agree that Gorgias seems to set himself up to be found in contradiction. But I think perhaps it was not intentional. I think in many senses, this dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias brings to light many ideas and angles that never really occurred to Gorgias before. Perhaps these kind of distinctions never occurred to him before and he had not been prepared to account for them in his dialogue. With that being said, however, I think Gorgias makes some hasty concessions that do not show his intellectual prowess. I think the first quotation you used, however, could be portrayed in a variety of ways. In such a dissection, it does appear to be almost in contradiction with itself, with "freedom"and "dominance"in use. But I think he was merely speaking to the powers that the use of rhetoric holds. I think there is this trend to want to rigidly pin down rhetoric, but I think it is a slippery thing by nature. It very much so is subject to the wishes of the wielder. But it will be interesting to see how it all gets hammered out...

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Care of the Soul & Body - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 04:24:58 +0000

Perhaps I didn't take sufficient time to really mull things over, but my initial reaction to Socrates' drawn out explanation seemed to be an over complication of things. I don't really agree with the idea that rhetoric is "the experience... of the production of a certain grace and pleasure,"(462c). Socrates goes on to describe how its business is "a certain pursuit that is not artful but belongs to a soul that is skilled at guessing, courageous, and terribly clever by nature at associating with human beings and I call its chief point flattery," (463b). He paints this villainous picture of deception to which rhetoric belongs to, and I simply find it hard to follow and agree with. I think it finally brings to light his deep set bias against rhetoric, which in a way undermines the dialogue that he seemed to be trying to engage in. While he always claims to not have knowledge, he very decisively gives a very bold and damning definition of rhetoric. His definition of things outlined in the table definitely changed the dynamic of the dialogue for me. But at least Socrates is answering questions instead of pelting others with them, I guess...

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Justice, Chimera of the Courtroom - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:47:02 +0000

I think there a few distinctions that need to be made. In my opinion, lawyers are not charged with upholding justice. Judges and juries are; hence, why they make decisions and rulings. Lawyers are the means through which different perspectives are rationalized. It is their job to communicate to a jury or a judge why their perspective is consistent with the law. While law is a profession, of course, personal interests play a part, increasingly so in today's world. Lawyers often do not have the luxury of choosing cases that coincide with their moral convictions. But it is their duty to do their best to portray a side of a case (as logically and reasonably as possible). Granted, there will be instances where they will be having to defend a murderer, simply because it is their job to do so. More often than not, cases are much more complicated than that and there are many possible interpretations of facts and circumstances. I agree that sometimes courtrooms are the place where justice and injustice are pitted against one another. But more often than not, courtrooms are the place where justice (and the laws) are applied to conflicts of interest. One of the most important reasons why I chose to study Philosophy was because of how it teaches such a variety of ways to look at the world around us. There is such a diversity of Philosophical thought and it stretches our ability to reason in a wide array of ways. I think this is often very consistent with what lawyers have to do on a daily basis.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Do the ends justify the means? 2.0 - The Digital Dialogue

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:36:44 +0000

The question you pose is a very good one, although wrapped in many complicated implications. While I feel as though there are a multitude of different opinions on where the line of "dishonesty" is, for me, I think intent plays a large role. In the second example you cited, I think Rigoberta Menchu was not intentionally being deceptive and I find it hard to fault her for her own cultural meaning of "us". On the other hand, if one utilizes knowledge of the audience and knowingly is deceptive, I think that is fairly in the territory of dishonesty, regardless of the end result. While the element of intent seems rather straightforward (especially in regard to your examples), it is very difficult to pin down someone's intent in their manipulation of facts without getting into their heads. (Perhaps this brings us back to the theme in "Protagoras" when we have to rely on every person's having a sense of right and wrong? )

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : The Feasts of War - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:51:56 +0000

I like the point you make about Socrates' possible allusion to the battle to come. I think the initial dialogue is agonistic, but I think Socrates' response is playful in nature. Internally, perhaps, he is anticipating a "battle" that is yet to come. I think this is characteristic of Socrates' style of discussion. While he may appear to be agonistic and competitive, he is merely trying to stimulate an engaging dialogue in his own playful way.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Do the ends justify the means? - Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:03:29 +0000

I think you make a very good point that is central to a lot of discussion surrounding rhetoric. Do the ends justify the means? That is all a matter of perspective. I think that is directly linked to civic duty and responsibility to make the best decisions we can when presented with situations like you detailed above. I think often, we don't have the time necessary to seek out all the information ourselves, and is often acceptable to rely on what others have to say. But in crafting rhetoric in such a way, one must toe a fine line. In reference to rhetoricians, Gorgias says "It is just, then, to hate, expel, and kill the one who uses it not correctly," (457c). There is always a component of deception that can not be extracted. No matter how large or small, one's own perspective is intrinsically linked to how one communicates to others. While I feel as though tangibly, it is often the case that the ends do justify the means, it is always better to err on the side of caution. Objectivity allows for individuals to form their own opinions, free from being manipulated by rhetorical devices. This isn't to say that such devices are intrinsically negative, either; as you outlined above, they often are very effective and succinctly get across important ideas.

Socratic Politics in Digital Dialogue : Be Prepared - The Digital Dialogue

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:22:44 +0000

I found your idea that both Gorgias and Socrates were working with prepared material to be quite intriguing. In a sense, I think you are absolutely correct. While it seems easy to see how Gorgias would be using "prepared material" it seems as though Socrates would be seen in this light as he follows (and demands, in this case) the same format of dialogue. But while I think Socrates may be reverting to his tried and tested way of dialogue, I think that style is, by nature, one that lends itself to new exploration of ideas. Socrates' method relies on a push and pull between the two conversing and their ideas. I think he very much expects for something new to be brought forth when their ideas come together in dialogue.