Spring 2009 201 Sample Student Work

Return to Human Nature main page.

Student Journals

Journal 1

In the Apology by Plato, Socrates has two separate charges against him. His first charge is being a curious person and studying things in the earth and in the sky, and his second is teaching/corrupting others. These charges were brought to him because he did a study to confirm what the god at Delphi said to his friend Chaerephon; that Socrates was the wisest. Socrates then did a study on the politicians, poets, and craftsmen in the community and found that each of them had the same fault. Because of the success of their craft, they thought themselves “very wise in other most important pursuits, and this error of theirs overshadowed the wisdom they had.” To his defense he says that he is to be as he is. Which means that he doesn’t pretend to have any special wisdom or ability.

A detail in the excerpt that I found especially interesting was how Socrates was not afraid to die and how calm he was when he heard his conviction. I thought it very inspirational when he talked about the story of Troy. Even though Socrates knew that he might die at the end of the trial, he was much more afraid to live a coward on earth.

In Socrates defense he says that he in no way misleads or “brain washes” people. He doesn’t pretend to have any special ability, but he is what he is. He calls out the politicians and poets by saying that they came to the accusers to convict him because he questioned their wisdom. Which he did and found that they pretend to know more than they actually do, and in turn threatened them and their position. He defends himself by saying if he corrupted anyone then why hasn’t anyone come forward. Which I thought was a very good defense. He backs it up by pointing out many of his followers in the court who are there in his support. I am very surprised in the end how they actually convict him of the crimes he was accused of and put to death.

The part of the excerpt that I had a question about was when Socrates says if he has corrupted anyone, then why hasn’t anyone come forward? He goes on to say that many of the people who learn from him were there in the courtroom supporting him. How could the jury accuse him on “here say” and gossip? Was the jury convinced that he was a “brain washer” because he had superior speaking abilities? The part of the excerpt that I sill wonder about is what really did Socrates get convicted of? Was it because he was very wise and could speak the truth, or was there a corrupt jury?

Nicolas Gutierrez

Journal 1

In Plato’s Apology, two different sets of accusations are brought against Socrates. The fist of these two was the informal charges. Socrates had been a longtime enemy of many of the aristocracy in Athens, so many of them claimed Socrates to be a Sophist. Sophists were known for being paid teachers and masters of rhetoric (qualities not looked upon fondly by Athenians). A man named Meletus headed the new formal charges brought against Socrates up. Meletus and the other Athenian aristocracy claimed that Socrates was corrupting the youth and a believer in gods not supported by the state. In fact they claimed Socrates to be an atheist at one point. The defense Socrates uses is actually quite simple. With regards to the old accusations, Socrates makes the point that he cannot be a teacher because he does not know anything, and the boys that listen to him speak only do so out of entertainment. Socrates also points out that masters of rhetoric are excellent orators, and in his first few lines he states that he is not a skilled orator at all. When the matter of dealing with the second set of charges, Socrates approaches the religious charge first. He speaks about what he believes is a mission given to him directly by the god Apollo through the oracle of Delphi. He is in fact trying to understand why the oracle of Delphi has claimed that no other man is wiser than Socrates. In the end Socrates discovers that it is his knowledge that he does not know everything that makes him the wisest of them all. By sharing this story with the jury, Socrates states that there is no way he can be an atheist when his whole life mission is based upon his belief in the Athenian gods. When Socrates deals with the accusation that he is corrupting the youth, he simply states that he is not a teacher, and if in fact he has corrupted them, how come they themselves have not come forward as witnesses or if not them, a relative. In my opinion, Socrates’ defense was very well played. He used just enough to get his point across, while burying things he could not really answer. I do however, think that his emotions took the best of him. He did not have to die, but his poor behavior after hearing the verdict pretty much put the nail in the coffin. Socrates was a great man that clearly swayed numerous of the Athenian aristocracy in his defense. Unfortunately too much bad blood was just enough to produce a guilty verdict.

By Andrew Krug

Journal 1

In the Apology, it becomes clear that Socrates becomes falsely accused by the Athenians. The charges brought up against Socrates included such things as that he was guilty of “wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others” (18). All of these charges were brought upon Socrates simply because he contained a certain wisdom. The wisdom that Socrates speaks of is very simple, it’s not necessarily how much you know about the world around you, but more that you are wise enough to admit to yourself and others that you do not know everything. Socrates found himself getting into trouble with the Athenians when he decided to go around through the town testing people on their wisdom. This caused people to dislike him greatly.

In Socrates defense he was doing his work in the name of God. He was following the request of God and doing what was asked of him. Socrates in many ways did nothing wrong and he knows that. By Socrates going around to all of the wisest men in Athens he proved that no one man was truly the wisest and that he, himself, was the wisest because he could admit that he truly did not know anything of true value. What really draws my attention is the final lines of the Apology: “Now the hour to part has come. I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, except the god” (33). Socrates was the one trying to show the Athenians that they really didn’t know everything they thought they did. He called them out on their ignorance. The Athenians, you could say, were scared of what Socrates new. And all Socrates knew was that you only have wisdom when you can admit you don’t know everything. If you think about it, that was the one thing the Athenians refused to do, admit that they did not know it all.

Katelan Redmon

Journal 2

The Speech of Phaedrus is the first speech of Symposium and his view is that love with another person “imparts guidance” to living well. He says that he means that, in the eyes of one’s lover, one will do whatever possible to not act shamefully and will gain a “sense of pride in acting well.” He uses mythology to demonstrate how acts of true love are rewarded by the Gods more than any other act. The second speech, the Speech of Pausanius, separates love into two different categories. One is lustful, bodily love, mostly focusing on sex and other pursuits of the body, while one is of the soul and is a much deeper, fulfilling love. He uses mythology and stories of the Gods to justify this, saying that there are two different Gods named Aphrodite. It is honorable to accept a lover that is a virtuous person, even if one is deceived by them. Thirdly, the speech by Eryximachus, supports the Speech of Pausanius by using the study of medicine as justification of the two loves: a good, worthy love and a bad, shameful love. Health is equated to good love and disease to bad love. He goes on to justify that everything as being good or bad because of the type of love present. He says, “…we must attend with the greatest possible care to these two species of Love, which are indeed, to be found everywhere.”

The rationales for the first speech, Phaedrus’ were not what I would have thought would have been rationales for a good love. It doesn’t explicitly say it in the speech, but I assume that Phaedrus is speaking about the subject of romantic love. He says that what drives love is the will to make one’s partner proud, but I don’t buy this explanation. I want to make my professors proud, my mother proud, and my friends proud of me, but I am not romantically in love with any of them. I think that the next two speeches were much more accurate. I agree that there are two types of love and that it is definitely much rarer to find the higher level of love. I also liked the rationales of Pausanius. They sounded very much like an eastern-religious philosophy in that “God is in everything”. But Pausanius substitutes love for God.

By Eric Hofmann

Journal #2

During the speech of Phaedrus, the idealistic and seemingly one dimensional view of love is expressed. In this view, Phaedrus believes that it is love which makes you virtuous and courageous. He provides a rational for this conclusion by explaining how a man in love would never leave his lvoer at the ranks of war, but rather "die a thousand deaths". Phaedrus ends his speech with "the gods honor virtue highly when it belongs to Love". Dissimilar to Phaedrus, Pausnias' speech compares and contrats two differnt types of love; Common Love and Heavenly Love. Common Love is "truly common as such, he strikes whenever he gets a chance". Heavenly Love involves men that have begun to form minds of their own. Not a goal that "aims to decieve him". In his discussion of these two types of love, he states that only one can be praised. Lastly, Eryximachus also portrayed his views on Love. Eryximachus believed that Love is "found everywhere" He described how love was in music, rythm and harmony, love was in the elements and love was divine. "Love is a diety of the greatest importance: He directs everything that occrus, not only in the human domain, but also in that of the gods". Overall, I feel as if I agree with the views of Eryximachus. His belief that "love does not occu only in the human soul, it is not simply the attraction we feel toward human beauty: It is significantly broader pheonomenon" is right on with my beliefs. I think that it is true that love exists in and for more than just humans.

Kerry Hillier

Journal #2

From the speeches provided in the Symposium it becomes clear that all three men, Phaedrus, Pausanias, and Eryximachus, have slightly different views on what love is and where it comes from. Phaedrus view on love is pulled all together at the very end of his speech. Phaedrus states “Love is the most ancient of the gods, the most honored, and the most powerful in helping men gain virtue and blessedness, whether they are alive or have passed away” (12). Pausanias take on the idea that there are two kinds of loves, Common and Heavenly Love. Through his speech Pausanias takes on a discussion of homosexuality and the love committed between a lover and his loved one. The love between a lover and a loved one is neither shameful or vile if the relationship is formed on the idea of make one better in wisdom and virtue. Eryximachus takes his views of love and relates them to medicine and science, then to rhythm and harmony. A simple way of putting Eryximachus thoughts is that “the loved felt by good people or by those whom such love might improve in this regard must be encouraged and protected” (22). This love is produced by rhythm and melodies and should be honored.

From all of the ideas and thoughts brought up by all three men, it is my opinion that Eryximachus brings together the clearest explanation of what love is. In one of his early statements he declares “It [love] occurs everywhere in the universe. Love is a deity of the greatest importance; he directs everything that occurs, not only in the humans domain, but also in that of the gods” (20). This idea just shows that love is all around the universe spiritually and physically. Love needs to be cherished and honored and not wasted on stupidity and greed.

Katelan Redmon

Journal 2

Plato’s Symposium contains numerous ideas on the nature of both love and Love. The first speech in the dialogue, by Phaedrus, delves into the sheer power of the god, Love. His central idea revolves around the power of love to control not only man, but the gods as well. In Phaedrus’ eyes it is love that inspires strength and virtue in men. The second of the speeches come from Pausanias. He does not refute Phaedrus, but rather deals with the duality of love. His basis lies in the existence of a Heavenly Aphrodite and a common Aphrodite. It is Love’s involvement with both of these deities that brings about the dual nature of love. Heavenly love is based on the motherless daughter of Uranus, Urania. Her purely male decent lead Pausanias to believe that it is male love that is more honorable, however love with young boys is not. It is the bond shared between an elder with one coming of age that breeds the best in men. Loyalty and honor are found in this relationship. Love associated with common Aphrodite is simply a matter of lust. Eryximachus, the third speaker, agrees with Pausanias in general terms, however, he decides that the honorable love is in conjunction with good health, while debauchery is related to disease. Based on this rationale, Eryximachus exclaims that medicine in a guided power of the god Love due to its power to bring about good health. All of the rationales given by the first three speakers in Plato’s Symposium are well supported. I do however think they have brought about to much focus on male love. Even though it was commonplace for homosexual affairs in ancient Greece, we do see very famous stories about heterosexual love. The story of Troy is an excellent example. Was it sheer lust that drove Paris to abduct Helen, or was there some other aspect of love in this story. As for Eryximachus’ view on love and its enabler, medicine, I have a hard time agreeing with him. Disease has nothing to do with dishonor and health likewise has nothing to do with love. Science may have been lacking in that era, but even the noblest and most honorable man can still fall ill. It has no bearing on love.

-Andrew Krug

Journal #3

In Socrates’ questioning of Agathon, he is challenging the extravagant claims made in Agathon’s speech describing the essential qualities of Love. Agathon describes Love as our “most beautiful leader and the best!” (37), but through Socrates line of questioning, Agathon concedes: “I didn’t know what I was talking about in that speech” (43).

The questioning establishes some basic premises that lead Agathon to conclude that love does not contain beauty or goodness in itself. Love must be directed at some object, just as a father must be the father of a child. These objects are not currently possessed, or if they are they will still be sought in the future, and there would be no sense in having love of something that there is no desire for. If Love is the love of such things as beauty and goodness, then Love does not already embody these qualities, and falls short of the ideal image Agathon creates of the god Love.

The questioning method used by Socrates has a strong emphasis on logical reasoning, rather than empirical arguments. Early in the questioning Agathon uses the word “likely,” to which Socrates responds: “Instead of what’s likely, ask yourself whether it’s necessary that this be so” (41). This focus on necessary, solid grounds of reasoning is a characteristic throughout the dialogue, as Socrates creates a set of concrete premises that lead to a radically different conlusion about the nature of Love.

-David Schrieber

=Journal #3

In his questioning of Agathon, Socrates examines Agathon’s views about love. Agathon seems to think love is only a wonderful, beautiful thing. Socrates turns this argument around by saying that we only desire what we need but don’t have, and therefore love can’t be beautiful. Socrates also talks about love as a preservation of what we already have; if you’re strong, you want to be strong in the future as well. However, Socrates doesn’t think it’s necessary for a strong man to remain strong; it’s just what he wants. I would say that Socrates’ arguments appeal primarily to logic. He uses a lot of reasoning in his argument (if this, then that, etc.) and not many sensory examples. -Katherine Ross

JOURNAL #3 In this passage, we have our first experience with Socrates’ use of the dialectic method in the Symposium, as he questions Agathon. The main argument that Socrates is trying to make is that he is trying to decipher if Love is love of an object or if Love is love of abstract things, or that, “Love is the love of something”. Along with this argument, he is also arguing that a person does not necessarily desire the things they already have, but they desire to continue to have the things they have into the future. “I want the things I have now to be mine in the future as well”. Socrates pursues to question Agathon, asking him whether Love is a beautiful thing, and if so, are good things beautiful as well. With this, Socrates is able to make a concluding case that “then if Love needs beautiful things, and if all good tings are beautiful, he will need good things too” in turn proves that Love is indeed complete without being beautiful. Agathon realizes he is unable to effectively argue with Socrates and admits he is wrong. When I first read this passage, I thought that Socrates’ argument appealed empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is “the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience” (Dictionary.com). I initially thought this was what appealed to the argument made by Socrates because love is indeed a sense. It is an emotion we base off of how we feel, during or after we’ve felt it and/or experienced it. -Kerry Hillier After I reread the passage a few more times, I started to question my initial thought that this was based on empirical evidence because logical reasoning seems as if it may make sense as well. Logically, it makes sense that to Love you have to love something, whether it be a tangible or an intangible thing. In his use of Logical Reasoning, he was able to come up with a conclusion that Love is indeed beautiful, therefore “love needs beautiful things, and if all good things are beautiful, he will need good things too”. Because he came to a conclusion, it seems as if he may have used a form of deductive reasoning to come to that conclusion.

Journal 3

The speech given by Agathon is a very well put together and seemingly strong explanation on the nature of the god Love, but Socrates’ uncanny ability find fault in any man’s logic comes to light during his questioning. The main target of Socrates questioning is Agathon’s description of Love being beautiful, but being the man Socrates is, he couldn’t just call Agathon out on his fault. A stream of questions that are answered with quite logical answers are barged upon Agathon. It isn’t instantly clear where Socrates is heading with his questioning, but keeping Agathon’s speech in the back of your mind, it becomes clear that Socrates has found a major fault in Agathon’s description. Essentially Socrates unveils the fact that Love cannot be beautiful due to his desire for beauty. If a person were already beautiful, why would they desire that which they already have? Using this same idea of desiring that which you do not poses, Socrates also questions the goodness of the god. If all that is beautiful is also good, then you would desire that which is good as well. Possessing good would mean a lack of desire for it. Hence, Love cannot be good. This whole proof of Loves true character is not based in any empirical evidence. Socrates is merely using logic to extract a conclusion formulated from Agathon’s speech, which is full of claimed empirical evidence. -Andrew Krug

Midterm Questions

Sample Question #4

What is "rational knowledge"? Give examples and explain why someone might argue that knowledge cannot be wholly empirical.

"Rational knowledge" is built on reason as a basic truth. As an empiricist would use sense data as the base of knowledge, a rationalist would use reason as the base. These rational reasons reflect a priori knowledge, truths that are there before we experience them and don't have to be experienced to be known. An example is mathematics, in which we know there exist prime numbers, even if we never "see" a number that is prime. Logical, or analytic, truths are also clearly true, such as saying that no bachelors are married, because of necessity. Knowledge is not based solely on our senses, because of the existence of these a priori truths, and the use of reason in constructing empirical knowledge into creating comprehensive solutions and understandings.

-David Schrieber

Sample 1st Critical Analysis Papers

The Philosophy of Love

Love, in our modern dialect, has become commonplace. We now use the word to describe not only intimate relationships between two people, but also to describe feelings of desire, passion or appreciation. This is even applied to foods, sports, music, and other inanimate objects and activities. But is this really correct usage of the word? Can one really love ice cream, baseball or a pet? Or is this just a placeholder for a feeling much less intense? I would argue that love is not as broad of a force as modern discourse would lead us to believe and that in order to truly love, the object of one’s love must also be capable of loving back.

The main pillar of my philosophy of love is that love is a mutual concept shared between two things. This would reject the assertion that one can love an activity such as basketball or riding a bicycle. One may enjoy it, but it should not be considered love because the game of basketball is not capable of returning the love. This is more of a moderate take on the issue of love. It is not so narrow as to exclude love among family members, but it is not so broad as to include love as a general force of good in the world.

Of course, one could take the naturalist approach when explaining love, saying that it is a concept created by our culture and is based on a biological reaction that takes place in our brain when we see someone as attractive. I believe that these urges are instinctual and that they are our body’s natural process in ensuring reproduction and survival of the species. Pausinias, in “The Symposium,” described two different types of love. One being an instinctual, biological urge that is only present as a motivator for our body to reproduce, in effect, a “bad love”. But I do not believe that there is such a thing as “bad love”. All that this is is a body’s natural tendency towards lust. But I think that there is much more to love than this naturalistic explanation. Real love is something much more profound and much more like a connection of souls. How can we explain a person’s love for their family members if it is only based off of a brain’s natural reaction to the necessity of survival? There must be something deeper and more authentic than this.

Diotima, in her speech in “The Symposium”, says that there is a staircase or ladder of love and I would have to agree with her on this. She says that love starts out at the bottom of the staircase and has to do with physical attraction and sensations. This, in naturalist terms, could be compared to the brain’s natural reaction at seeing someone attractive. But, she says that one can move up the staircase, leading away from ignorance and into wisdom. The lover is no longer concerned with the other’s body or physical features, but is instead concerned with the quality of their soul. This also coincides with Plato’s divided line theory in that sensations are the most shallow portion of the staircase and the forms (or the soul) are the most pure. I agree with this theory in that almost all types of romantic love start as an attraction towards a person’s physical appearance, but I do not think that this has to be so in non-romantic types of love. I can love my mother and father because I have spent a good majority of my life with them and have come to see the beauty of their souls and their deepest feelings. I did not have to start at the bottom of the staircase and appreciate them because of their physical beauty, but instead have moved past that. This can also be used to explain the love that I feel for my friends. My theory of love is a mix of naturalist theories and Diotima’s theory.

I do not think that one can love inanimate objects or activities as they are portrayed in our modern language. Love is not such a broad force as to include all types of things that make a person feel good. These are not true feelings of love, they are feelings of appreciation. When someone says, “I love basketball”, one could say “I enjoy basketball” and more or less mean the same exact thing. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between loving one’s husband or wife and loving basketball. This is that, to truly love something, it must be able to return love. While a good game of basketball can make one feel good, it cannot love one’s soul as only another human being can. With this in mind, I believe that love is the ultimate good that human beings can achieve.

Loving and being loved makes a person feel more secure than anything else in life. We are social creatures by nature and there is a huge part of us that is worried about acceptance into our society and surroundings. Love secures this acceptance so, from a naturalistic perspective, this satisfies our human nature. But I think that mutually loving and being loved is something more than just sating our thirst for acceptance. Love is the act of being totally secure with another person and shedding any sort of barrier that one would normally carry into society. This lets the person say whatever they would like to say, act however they would like to act and do whatever they would like to do without fear of reprisal. This is when a human being can act in their most natural form, when they do not have to worry about what other people will think of them. This can apply to romantic love, love among family or love among friends as well. In a good family relationship, a son or daughter can say whatever they are thinking, secure in the fact that their parents will still love them even if it is something that causes anguish. I believe that the ability to say and do whatever one wants is a form of existential beauty and is what every human being should strive for.

While modern discourse has evolved to allow the use of the word love to describe many different feelings that a human being may experience, there are a very small number of them that are actually love. In order for one to love or be in love with something, the recipient of this love must mutually love back. If this is not fulfilled than it is not love, it is the desire to possess something that one does not have or, in our modern use of the word, it is only an appreciation for or an enjoyment of something. Love, while normally starting as a natural biological reaction in one’s body, must evolve into something much deeper than this. In order for love to truly be present, one must feel as secure as possible with their love. This does not exclude family and friendships. In fact, these are just as beneficial to the human spirit as romantic love is. Love is not so narrow as to exclude these types of relationships, but it is also not as broad as Eryximachus would assert. I believe that love is only present in inter-personal relationships and that concepts like music and medicine can be described in much different terms. But love is what every person should live for. Gaining the security and acceptance with fellow human beings that only love can provide allows us to express our most pure thoughts and feelings.

-Eric Hofmann