I think that the obedience of the horses is directly proportional to the skill of the charioteer. Even the most wild of horses can be trained by a skilled enough jockey (horse trainer? not sure what to write haha). In the metaphorical sense, both our 'horses' want to go in opposite ways and it oftentimes may feel like the 'bad horse' is stronger and is pulling us away from the path that the 'good horse' wants to be on. I feel this reflects the charioteer more than the horse in this instance. Its human nature to want to do what is pleasurable and unfortunately what is pleasurable is often not along the path of the good.

I think that Socrates would propose that following the path of the good is of the highest pleasure. If we can glean the most pleasure from aligning ourselves towards the good, then the influence of the 'bad horse' wouldn't seem quite so strong anymore.

Interesting post, and interesting to consider whether or not Socrates would be accepted into today's society. When I really think about it, any old, dirty man with bare feet who wanders around my hometown all day try to engage others in philosophical discussion is probably a homeless person, perhaps drunk or just slightly crazy. It'd probably be hard to not just tune Socrates out, as I usually tune out random people preaching or putting on displays at the hub when I'm trying to walk to class. However, given time to adapt to his strange new world, I think Socrates would be able to develop a way to engage young people in discussion and speak to them appropriately for their time period.
Although its an amusing thought, I don't really think Socrates had any of those mental conditions, however people in today's society would probably be quick to try to diagnose him with such. I agree with what some of you guys have posted about today's society being transfixed on the idea of being 'normal'. Being different doesn't always imply that something is wrong.

Everyone memorizes things, even people like Socrates who wouldn't see it as true 'learning'. Knowing something isn't nessecarily useful; you have to be able to apply the knowledge. I could memorize a list of physics equations and know them by heart for the rest of my life, but what use are they if I don't know what they represent or what they can be used to compute.
A musician memorizes what symbols on paper correspond to which notes on their instrument. After that initial knowledge is memorized, it can be applied nearly infinitely in the creation of music as well as playing music other people have composed. But not all musicians can read and write music; for example, the legendary guitarist Jimi Hendrix could do neither. However he was able to listen to music and could replicate the notes on his guitar. You may call that true knowledge of music, but consider that he had to play a guitar and memorize what sounds he could make with it before he could listen to someone else and replicate their notes. All knowledge stems from some sort of base memorization, but being able to go beyond what you memorized and apply it to new situations is 'knowledge'.

Well, the simplest way to answer the question about why people tend to live in excess is probably that typically it’s ‘more fun’. Some of the most fun I’ve had at college has been at different parties, and yes, the majority of people at the party had been drinking, and of those people plenty were beyond what may be considered ‘moderate’. However, I’d like to point out that what is moderate is subjective. Some may define ‘getting hammered’ as beyond the limits of moderation while others may think that getting hammered -too often- is beyond moderation. Is it better simply not to drink a lot, or to drink a lot if that's what you want to do, but only once a week, month or even year? Perhaps drawing, yoga or other hobbies would be a more ‘beneficial’ escape to an individual than going out drinking. However, not everyone who goes out, even if they get pretty drunk, behaves in destructive or obscene ways. Instead, they bond with friends, meet new people, and step outside of their daily reality in a fun way. I do agree though that Penn State’s drinking culture definitely compels many kids to go way past moderation.

I think Socrates' definition of a soul can be related to Descartes famous quote "I think, therefore I am". Socrates is saying that something has a soul only if it is constantly thinking and changing. A plant doesn't have a soul because it can never truly change its 'nature'. It’s genetically coded to act certain ways and nothing that happens to it externally can make it change in an unnatural way, e.g. a plant with white leaves can't decide it wants to have blue petals one day because it got bored. A human being has the power to think, therefore he can change himself, his thoughts, and ultimately the condition of his "soul".
I tend to think of the soul and consciousness as one in the same. Consciousness defines being human, and the lack thereof defines something as non-human. It is the only thing in the world that can never be fully shared or observed by anyone but yourself. The ability to think is a personal link between a person and the universe, just as many people think the soul is a personal link between a person and god. I think the innate fear of losing this link is what drives many people to believe in an afterlife because it's very troubling to think about your consciousness being erased from space and time when you die, but that’s another issue.

As for the difference between writing and speeches, a parallel can be drawn with consciousness and non-consciousness. Words on paper can never physically change and they can't defend or adapt themselves. A speech, or more specifically, an orator, can do all of the above. As Socrates can't abide people that think they have all the answers and can't or don't want to change, he disdains writing for the same reason as it is "soulless" and therefore pointless to read when he could have a conversation with the author. I don't know if he thinks that a speech itself should have a 'soul', but rather that a live speech is given by someone else with a soul that therefore it can be worthwhile while writing can never be on its own.

What if you had the opportunity to save the life of a stranger (human being), or a chimpanzee? Or any animal really. I think human nature would make you tend to lean towards saving a member of our own race. In our discussion of human habitat eclipsing those of animals, you gave the viewpoint that basically, it can't be avoided so we should try to minimize the damages. Someone mentioned native americans, who didn't build large cities or roads or cut down forests. We could still live like them, however as we all know, our society could never accept that. In this case and the case I started the comment with, a human will prioritize his species over another. Where then do we draw the line?

Hmm, interesting thoughts. Art is usually considered a gift, regardless of whether the observer believes in a higher power or not. I'm sure we who are not artistically inclined have tried our best at some point to create a great painting, draw, poem, or anything else but haven't come nearly close to what the masters of those respective crafts can do. Art can be taught to a degree, but a vast majority of the most talented artists are just born with that knack to create something other people find beautiful. I think this is why artists are appreciated, simply because their talents are rare, and only certain people are "chosen" to have those traits. The divine aspect Socrates subscribes to is similiar, he reveres those rare few whom the gods have decided to channel their beauty through.

You make a good point, and I suppose some of my points aren't as well founded as I thought. What do you think about the destruction of animal's habitats, and therefore their well-being, to create human dwellings?

As you suggest Anthony, this is a tricky topic. Without delving into the religion aspect of it, I think that human beings have basic dominion over animals. That's not to say that it is moral to treat animals however one wants because I don't believe that. Most people would agree that harming or killing animals for no reason is immoral. However, when we use animals for food, clothing, etc., I think it's 'moral' and part of the circle of life. Just as bigger animals hunt smaller animals, humans 'hunt' less intelligent animals to put their bodies to use in one way or another. Many medical breakthroughs have come at the expense of animal life, but I believe it is for the greater good of humanity. Unfortunately, humanity's progress often comes at the expense of other species'. Even if you are a vegan, don't use products tested on animals or wear clothing made out of animal hides, chances are you live in a city or town that used to be the habitat of many different species, many of which had to migrate and in some cases were killed off so that we could live in that area. Human benefit at the expense of lesser species is inevitable, and in cases where humans gain tangible benefit, such as cures to diseases, I believe it's for the greater good.

I think it's a pretty fine line indeed. If you love something/someone more than yourself and are willing to die for it, I do think that kind of fits in with the definition of obsession that we are working with. After all, if you will give your life up for something, it's safe to say you value death more than life without whatever you're making your sacrifice for. I think true love is more like a mutual obsession.