Abraham Lincoln quote
Dear Phil & Co.
My husband has an antique plaque with the following Abraham Lincoln quote:
“I do the very best I know how; the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing so until the end.
If the end brings me out alright, what is said against me won’t amount to anything.
If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
Hedy’s comment: It is an interesting proposition that the determination of the properness of a moral/ ethical decision is not based on community approval or on divine approval but on efficacy/ moral outcome. Isn’t this the same logic as refusing to return weapons to a madman? Do others have different interpretations?
HBW
September 2008 Plato – Republic – audio recording
Here’s the audio recording for the September Plato call. Listenonline or download the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on youripod.
Thanks for the great call, 5 pages a day method
Folks,
Thanks for the great call last night. I look forward to speaking to some of you today, Wednesday at 3pm NYC time in our call with Prof Susan Neiman.
For those of you having trouble keeping up with Plato reading, then I might suggest you consider the 5-pages-a-day method. I used this in the reading for the first three books of Republic and found it very helpful.
I read five pages a day – no more, no less. I’m referring to the page lengths in our shared edition. If you are reading a different edition, then it might be 3 pages or 7 pages, I don’t know.
But in our edition I have found that I can read about 5 pages before I lose focus.
I’ll note that some of the readers who are keeping up say this method doesn’t work for them. They prefer big gulps. I personally can’t handle the big gulps. I get lost. But I can handle 5 pages.
I’ve just read this morning the first 5 pages of Book IV – 1052 – 1056 (I count the actual pages I read – so 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055 and 1056). Tomorrow, Thursday, I’ll read 1057 – 1061.
Join me – give it a try if you are having trouble keeping up.
Phil
notes on books 8 and 9.
All,
Have to confess to a little twinge at reaching the end. Looking forward to closing things out. This is a great group and I hope to join all of you again for Thucydides. I have really enjoyed all your input and learned a lot from the experience. Specific notes are attached. In general, I found fascinating:
The ongoing saga about Xerxes watching the troops; how his not being there made the troops fight less before and how the troops were frightened to not do well in front of him. Ultimately this observation gives us the “men have become women, women have become men” quote after Artemisia rams/sinks another Persian ship. The Artemisia saga is a psychological study all of its own.
Another ongoing theme that Xerxes and other Persian leaders violate the boundaries of nature: spanning the Hellespont (making land of the sea) then whipping it in retribution; halving the eldest child of (can’t remember the name) then marching the army through the body; castration of Panionios; and on and on…
I also especially like the way the oracles have evolved. H. mentions (9.33) that Teisamenos misses the point of the Oracle’s remarks (remember Croesus anyone??), while at other times he finds the oracles “plain spoken” and, in the instance, I agree.
Finally, Strassler makes a Freudian slip in one footnote (which I can’t find again now) by noting that the Persians are referring to Thermopylae, which they consider a victory. Well, it was a victory for the Persians.
Cheers,
Tim
Thrasymachus outline part 1
Folks,
Below is my beginning of an outline of the debate with Thrasymachus. I only cover from 336c to 341c – only the first part of the debate. I’ll try to finish this outline tomorrow, Tuesday but don’t hold me to it.
Outlining the debate with Thrasymachus is more difficult for several reasons:
– it’s longer than the Polemarchus debate
– it’s more complex
– and it’s some of the most demanding reading in The Republic
I hope that at least this outline from the first few sections help you in your reader. Note that Thrasymachus’ definition of justice – advantage of the stronger – comes right out of the Melian dialogue in Thucydides.
Thanks,
Phil
———-
key
———-
T – Thrasymachus
P – Polemarchus
S – Socrates
———-
quick outline
———-
– T roars
– T’sjustice: advantage of the stronger
– S pursues whether it’s just to obey the rulers
– S traps T in a logical error
———-
Thrasymachus roars
———-
– P and S are frightened as T “roared into our midst” (336 c)
“What nonsense have you two been talking, Socrates? Why do you act like idiots by giving way to one another? If you truly want to know what justice is, don’t just ask questions and then refute the answers simply to satisfy your competitiveness or love of honor.”
– S protests and says they were not willingly “giving way” but if anything incapable (336d)
“Don’t be too hard on us, T, for if P and I made an error in our investigation, you should know that we do so unwillingly.”
– S says justice is more valuable than even gold and for gold they would not willingly give up
“If we were searching for gold, we’d never willingly give way to each other, if by doing so we’d destroy our chance of finding it. So don’t think that in searching for justice, a thing more valuable than even a large quantity of gold, we’d mindlessly give way to one another or be less than completely serious about finding it.”
– S says rather they should be considered incapable (337a)
“Hence it’s surely far more appropriate for us to be pitied by you clever people than to be given rough treatment.”
– T laughs at S
“I knew, and I said so to these people earlier, that yu’d be unwilling to answer and that, if someone questioned you, you’d be ironical and do anything rather than give an answer.”
– S responds by saying the question was a setup (337b)
“You knew very well that if you ask someone how much twelve is, and, as you ask, you warn him by saying “Don’t tell me, man that twelve is twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, for I won’t accept such nonsense.”
– On it goes
———-
T finally offers his definition of justice: advantage of the stronger
———-
– T: “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c)
– T explains that each city makes laws to its own advantage (338e)
“Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws…And they declar what they havemade-what is to their own advantage-to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule.
– S agrees that just is some kind of advantage
“I agree that the just is some kind of advantage.” (339b)
– But S wonders about “of the stronger”
“But you add that it’s “of the stronger.” I don’t know about that. We’ll have to look into it.
———-
S pursues whether it’s just to obey the rulers
———-
– S to T: “Don’t you also say that it is just to obey the rulers?”
– T: “I do”
– S to T: are rulers infallible or liable to err? (339 c)
– T: “No doubt they are liable to error.”
– S: then some laws are right, some wrong?
– T: yes
– S asks definition of good or bad, right or wrong law (339 d)
“And a law is correct if it prescribes what is to the rulers’ own advantage and incorrect if it prescribes what is to their disadvantage?”
– T: yes
———-
S traps T in a logical error
———-
– S then springs his trap
“Then, according to your account, it is just to do not only what is to the advantage of the stronger, but also the opposite, what is not to their advantage.”
– Others debate the logic and whether T is trapped
P says “T himself agrees that the rules sometimes order what is bad for themselves and that it is just for the others to do it.” (340 a)
———-
T denies it and calls S a false witness
———-
– T denies S’s trap (340 d)
“That’s because you are a false witness in arguments, S. When someone makes an error in the treatment of patients, do you call him a doctor in regard to that very error?”
– T tightens up his definition (341a)
“A ruler, insofar as he is a ruler, never makes errors and unerringly decrees what is best for himself, and this his subject must do. Thus, as I said from the first, it is just to do what is to the advantage of the stronger.”
– T challenges S to “practice your harm-doing and false witnessing” on his new definition (341c)
– S responds: “Do you think that I’m crazy enough to try to shave a lion or to bear false witness against T?”
Outline of Polemarchus justice debate
folks,
here’s my quick summary, etc of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates on justice (331d – 336c) or pages 976 to 981 in our edition.
below my signature is a detailed outline that helps you follow the debate and turning points more closely.
———-
quick summary:
———-
– polemarchus is the first person Socrates debates on the topic of justice in the republic
– the debate starts after cephalus quotes Pindar and then Socrates asks …is justice speaking the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred?
– along the way they debate debt repayment, friendship and myriad other topics
– the conclusion: it is never just to harm anyone
———-
interesting questions
———-
– what does it mean to pay debts (if a sane man lends you his weapon and then, when insane, asks for it back, are you obliged to return it?)
– how you define friend (someone who you consider to help you or one who does truly help you whether you realize it or not)
– and, of course, on the key question – what is justice? is justice an “eye for an eye” or is it never just to harm anyone whether real or perceived enemy/unjust person?
———-
quick outline
———-
– Is justice speaking truth and paying debts?
– giving an insane man a weapon?
– should enemies get what is owed? appropriate?
– “appropriate” leads to “craft”
– P’s redefinition of justice: benefits to friends, harm to enemies
– is justice useful in peace?
– yes….for money matters
– definition of a friend
– P’s definition of justice is shown to have problems
– S offers a redefinition yet again: just to benefit “just” and harm “unjust”
– P redefines friend and enemy
– S then asks whether just people can harm anyone
– Does causing someone harm do good or make them more unjust?
– S makes his crowning point: “It is never just to harm anyone.”
i hope this helps you to follow the debate, to see the moments where Socrates takes important turns and to understand (if not agree on) the logic he uses to eventually prove that “It is never just to harm anyone.”
happy reading,
Phil
p.s. detailed outline below
—————————-
detailed outline
—————————-
———-
Is justice speaking truth and paying debts?
———-
– “Yes”
Polemarchus steps in and takes over for Cephalus and answers Socrates’ question with a strong “yes” (331d)
– P restates
“It is just to give to each what is owed to him” (331e)
———-
giving an insane man a weapon?
———-
– S asks about…giving insane man a weapon
“what about giving an insane man a weapon?” (331e)
– P restates
“…friends owe it to their friends to do good for them, never harm.” (332a)
———-
should enemies get what is owed?
———-
– S changes the question
OK…but “Should one also give one’s enemies whatever is owed to them?” (332b)
– P answers “yes”
Yes…”what enemies owe to each other is appropriately and precisely – something bad.” (332b)
———-
“appropriate” leads to “craft”
———-
– S grabs on to “appropriate” and introduces “craft” discussion
(*note – this turn in the debate is confusing…it took a couple of reads to figure out how Socrates got from responding to enemies deserving bad to a conversation about craft)
– S then asks what the craft called justice gives that’s appropriate (332d)
———-
redefinition of justice: benefits to friends, harm to enemies
———-
– P redefines justice to…
“benefits to friends and harm to enemies” (332d)
– S then asks in what work do you give benefit to friends and harm to enemies
– P answers in wars and alliances (332d)
———-
is justice useful in peace?
———-
– S asks if justice is useless in times of peace (332d)
“To people not at war is a just man useless…what is justice useful for in peacetime? (333a)
– P answers justice is useful in peace for contracts and partnerships
– S asks what kind of contracts
———-
yes….for money matters
———-
– P answers in money matters (333b)
– S asks in what kind of money matters
– P says in “safekeeping” (333c)
– S asks then justice is only useful when money isn’t being used?
– P says yes
– S responds…
“…justice is useless when they are in use but useful when they aren’t?”
– P says yes
– S says justice isn’t worth much (333e)
– S turns this around by…
by noting that the same man who is good at safekeeping is also good at stealing
– P gets frustrated with S and says….
No!….”I don’t know anymore what I did mean, but I still believe that to benefit one’s friends and harm one’s enemies is justice.” (334b)
———-
definition of a friend
———-
– S picks up on P’s restating “benefit one’s friends” and pursues definition of friendship
– S asks an interesting question the difference between belief and reality
“Speaking of friends, do you mean those a person believes to be good and useful to him or those what actually are good and useful, even if he doesn’t think they are…?” (334b/c)
– P answers that what matters is what one considers good (not the reality of whether they are good)
– S counters and pushes P – don’t people make mistakes about this?
“But surely people often make mistakes about this, believing many people to be good and useful when they aren’t…?”
– P agrees
———-
P’s definition of justice is shown to have problems
———-
– S jumps at the logical conclusion of P’s agreement
“And then good people are their enemies and bad ones their friends?”
– P says “That’s right”
– S then uses that agreement to show the problems with P’s definition of justice
“And so it’s just to benefit bad people and harm good ones.”
– P surrenders
“…my account must be a bad one.” (334d)
———-
S offers a redefinition yet again: just to benefit “just” and harm “unjust”
———-
– S redefines justice to…
“It’s just, then, is it, to harm unjust people and benefit just ones?”
– P now likes that better than his earlier definition which substituted just for friend and unjust for enemy
———-
P redefines friend and enemy
———-
– P says the problem was in the definition of friend (334e)
– P offers a new definition of friend
“Someone who is both believed to be useful and is useful is a friend.” (334e/335a)
———-
S then asks whether just people can harm anyone
———-
– “Is it, then, the role of a just man to harm anyone?” (335b)
– P says “certainly”
“…he must harm those who are both bad and enemies.”
———-
Does causing someone harm do good or make them more unjust?
———-
– S explores the impact of harming someone
– S starts by asking about horses
“Do horses become better or worse when they are harmed?”
– P says worse
– S asks are they harmed in respect to dog virtue or horse virtue?
– P says horse virtue
– S then asks about dogs
“And when dogs are harmed, they become worse in the virtue that makes dogs good, not horses?”
– P says “necessarily”
– S uses that agreement in his shift now to humans
“Then won’t we say the same about human beings, too, that when they are harmed they become worse in human virtue?” (335c)
– P agrees
– S uses that agreement to make his case
“Then people who are harmed must become more unjust?”
– P folds “so it seems”
———-
S makes his crowning point: “It is never just to harm anyone.”
———-
– With P’s agreement that people who are harmed become more unj
ust, S then sets up the logic for his crowning point
– S asks about musicians
“Can musicians make people unmusical through music.”
– P says no
– S asks about equestrians
“Or horsemen make people unhorsemanlike through horsemanship?”
– P says no
– S then asks about just people
“…can those who are just make people unjust through justice?” (334d)
– P says no
– S then makes his crowning point
“It is never just to harm anyone.” (334e)
– And to finish things off he makes an interesting point about where the old notion came from
“Do you know to whom I think the saying belongs that it is just to benefit friends and harm enemies?”
– P says “Who?”
– S answers rich men like Xerxes
“I think it belongs to Periander, or Perdiccas, or Xerxes or Ismenias of Corinth, or some other wealthy man who believed himself to have great power.” (336a)
take “sweet good hope” as your companion when reading Plato
folks,
as you trudge through the republic, take sweet good hope as your constant companion.
one of my favorite lines from the first three books is from the “introduction” where Cephalus refers to Pindar and says…
“…someone who knows that he hasn’t been unjust has sweet good hope as his constant companion…” (section 331; page 975 in our edition)
you have not been unjust so take sweet good hope with you as you tackle some of the difficult debates.
best to you with sweet good hope,
Phil
p.s. we’ve seen Pindar before – not just referenced in our earlier readings of Plato but also by Herodotus. Herodotus quotes Pindar as saying “custom is king of all.” one of my favorite quotes from Herodotus and something I continue to think about. (3.38 in Herodotus)
basic structure of first 3 books (to help in your reading)
folks,
i hope you are having a good labor day weekend.
i know some of you are reading the first 3 books of the republic trying to get ready for our phone call on tuesday.
here’s the very basic structure of the first 3 books:
– Introduction
fun introduction with a discussion on the benefits of old age (having just had my birthday, I enjoyed that 😉
– Debate on justice
strenuous debate on justice with a rotating set of characters that each give Socrates their best shot
– Discussion of ideal republic
Socrates suggests finally that instead of debating justice on an individual level that they should look at the larger level of a city and maybe from that exercise learn something more about justice…so begins the mostly one-sided discussion of the ideal city (suddenly all the debaters stop their strenuous objections and get in line behind Socrates increasingly weird thinking about the ideal city)
one other thing to note: the debate on justice makes for very slow reading especially the discussion with thrasymachus and then with glaucon – end of book 1 and beginning of book 2. have no fear for once you get through those debates – and especially once you get into the discussion of the ideal city – the reading becomes much easier (if not repugnant for some of socrates recommendations).
i’m leaving out all the important content but perhaps by exposing the structure this will help you navigate our reading for tuesday.
have a wonderful weekend,
Phil
———-
Book I
———-
Introduction (327 – 331)
Polemarchus debate on “justice” (331-336)
Thrasymachus debate on “justice” (336-354)
———-
Book II & III
———-
Glaucon debate on “justice” (357-362)
Adeimantus debate on “justice” (362-368)
Debate on justice moves to “justice in a city” – so starts the discussion of the ideal republic (368 – )*
*This discussion continues through all of Book III and continues in Book IV; the numbering system I’m using are the numbers in the margins so if you are reading a different edition you can follow the same numbering
Study Questions for Final Herodotus Call – Books 8 & 9
Dear all,
I hope your summer is coming to a successful close. I am back in the classroom, kicking off another school year with my Latin students, and enlightening them with the wisdom of Herodotus from time to time. I just wanted to remind everyone about our next call:
1-866-628-8620 112431# Mon Sept 8 @ 8pm ET
and I wanted to offer these Questions for Books 8 & 9 to you as you finish reading Herodotus. Herodotus really hits his stride here. His style in Book 7 is extended in Books 8 & 9 (albeit still with his curious digressions), but I think his writing style improves even more. A great ending to a great book! Sincerely, Andre
1. In Book 8.40-65, Herodotus narrates the momentous conference of Greek leaders – the Salamis conference – as they debate whether to fight the Persians at sea near Salamis, or to defend the Peloponnese at the Isthmus of Corinth, a natural defense. Has Herodotus embellished the decision to fight at Salamis in view of the victory? What of the role of Themistocles and his tricks?
1a. Themistocles later sends another message to Xerxes. Some of this writing by Herodotus may be more commentary on the Peloponnesian wars than on the Persian Wars. Do you see that? What does Strassler think? How does the conflict between Athens and Sparta influence Herodotus’ writings of the earlier Persian Wars?
1b. Regarding references to the Peloponnesian wars, the chapter ends with the Spartans urging the Athenians not to seek treaty with Xerxes. They say: “Again, it would be an intolerable thing that the Athenians, who in the past have been known so often as liberators, should now be the cause of bringing slavery to Greece.” (8.142.3; page 661). By the time of the Peloponnesian wars, Athens was seen as a leading democracy that enslaved its empire – supporting freedom for its citizens and slavery for its possessions.
1c. Note: further reference and irony related to this aforementioned quote in Herodotus comes from the fact that the Spartans later make an alliance with the Persians against Athens – and that Persian support plays a critical role in the Spartan victory against Athens.
2. In the debate that Xerxes and his councilors have about the impending naval battle at Salamis, Xerxes seeks the opinion of Artemisia – a “wise advisor” and the only woman naval commander and combatant that is referenced. Her advice to Xerxes is not to hurry – that he can win if “you keep your ships near land, or even if you advance to the Peloponnese” (8.68.b). She also goes on to observe a key leadership fact: “bad slaves tend to belong to good people, while good slaves belong to bad people” (8.68.g) What does she mean by that? Do we agree? What do we think of the role of women in Herodotus and of this woman in particular?
3. Given Xerxes’ stubbornness and dedication to invading Greece, why does he flee after the loss at Salamis? Does his earlier initial hesitation to invade come back to haunt him? Does he remember his dreams? Why does he now seem to follow the advice of his wise advisors Artemisia and Artabanus?
4. In one of the most astounding reversals in military history, the Battle of Plataea (book 9) resulted in a resounding Greek victory. What is the interplay between Athens and Sparta in the events leading up to this battle? How had the battle affected relations afterwards between Athens and Sparta? What can Herodotus tell us about the Greek city-states in general at this time before his Histories abruptly end?
4a. Note: Plataea, the site of Greek united victory in the Persian Wars, plays a tragic role in the Peloponnesian wars – remember, this war between Athens and Sparta had likely begun by the time Herodotus was finishing his book.
Herodotus Confession
Hi all,
Just wanted to confess to something: I DIDN’T READ MOST OF HERODOTUS.
But that said, I did attend most of the call-in discussions, and I really want to thank each of you for all that I have learned in this process, which for me, was my first book group experience:
It has been amazing to share in your passion for books and knowledge. This, first and foremost, was truly inspiring to me.
Through each of you, I feel as though I am really “learning how to read.” Books like Herodotus present challenges, so it was fascinating to hear how some of you took notes, or reread passages to fully understand meaning and context.
It was actually nice to hear that others had to work to fit this book into their busy lives. It meant that it was “okay” if I experienced the book on my own terms, as long as I tried to learn and contribute.
It was interesting to hear the phone-calls evolve. In the beginning, it was more light and pleasant, and towards the end, the topics were very specific, with some real debates going back and forth. I loved each of these.
It is one thing to read this book alone, but another entirely to chat with others to understand its meaning in the context of TODAY. It really was amazing to see how much “herodotus” came up in everyday life once I was aware of it, and how elements of it pertained to our culture and everyday existence.
So again – THANK YOU. I will be on the call next week, and am looking forward to joining an upcoming book group, with the goal of actually READING MORE OF THE BOOK!
Baby steps…
– Dan Blank
02. September 2008 by Arrian
Categories: Commentary, Herodotus | Tags: Herodotus | 1 comment