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
