Polemics
**For what I did last night, skip to bottom - for those interested
in Philosophy, read all!**
Taking two units of philosophy this semester is really messing about with my head... I'm turning into a most argumentative little being:
Me: Socrates presupposes in the Gorgias that there is an objective ground of good, and bases his whole arguement around that. Yet, in the Euthyphro, while he doesn't
explicitly say that there is no objective ground for good, he bases his arguement around the concept that we can not really define good (for those of you who can't
remember - "Is the good that which is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is good?"
Does Socrates have an answer for this?
My lecturer: Excellent! Socrates would doubtless be delighted if you challenged whether his views are consistent.
What do you suppose he'll say about his conversation with Euthyphro? I imagine it'll go something like this:
"Well, Valisa, you're right. I did question whether things are good because the gods love them. After all, surely the gods must have a reason for approving of
certain things and not others. It can't be just random. What better reason could there be than that these things are good? So goodness isn't the result of something's being loved by the gods -- it is rather the ground or reason for their loving it."
"You are right to say that I haven't told you what this objective ground is. But I certainly think there must be one. What do you, Valisa, think makes things good? What
is that one thing in common among all the things that are objectively valuable? Tell me your answer, for what could it be more important for a person to know?
Me: If that were Socrates' reply, I would have to criticise him for skirting the issue. I'll agree with Socrates, that yes, there is probably some objective ground for good. Yet, we are unable to conclusively show what this is.
Socrates is calling into doubt whether or not Gorgias, Pollus and Callicles are acting in accordance to what is good. If he can not answer the question of what good
is, can he truly accuse others of not acting in a manner which is good?
He accuses the three of speaking and acting without true knowledge of what is right and wrong - If Socrates concedes that he does not, either, know that which is right and wrong, is he not guilty of the same 'cookery'?
****
Not only am I picking a fight with Socrates, I'm picking a fight with myself. Now, I don't like Foucault. I absolutely hate his style of writing. I read his work thinking - my god, this is mental masochism of the highest degree! It's so damned rhetorical and he doesn't miss a chance to lauch into polemics. Oddly enough, once I had concluded that he is very painful to read, I find out in my tute that he is, infact, a sadist. Perhaps there is a link... do not do to the body what you would not do to the mind??!
Anyhow, despite all this, I've decided to launch a little war against my initial intuitions about the French philosopher and get myself some extra reading on the man. Perhaps I'm mad, but I've decided to understand what it is that Foucault is on about to the extent that I shall write my 40% assessment essay on him. Should be fun to do a bit of Foucault bashing... before that, though... Books, books, books - Know thine enemy, as they say, and "Thou shalt not act without impunity"
*****
Ok, so down to more mundane matters... like what did I do last night? What have I been up to all week that I have thus neglected my blog since Tuesday?
On Friday night I was feeling like a quiet one, so I made a really nice dinner - wraps, humus, guacamole, tomato salad, mushroom salad... I really got a nice bit of inspiration. The problem was there was entirely too much food and I ended up inviting Bernard over for dinner. He in turn, invited a bottle of Gin. I let him read my blog, and he spent the next three hours vainly trying to guess who this "THING" of mine is. It was so funny - I cracked up so badly. Well, that's for us to know and nobody to find out, huh? Didn't end up going to sleep until three and feeling somewhat out of it at the BOB meeting the next day...
Last night was fun, too. I went for drinks with Tenzing and Julian - ended up making fun of Tenzing all night. I wanted to see the messages on Tenzing's phone, and he ended up knocking me over (ouch) in the bar whilst forcibly trying to retrieve his phone from my clutches... hehe. All he had was text messages about meetings. So sad... We had a good laugh. For some reason, Tenzing is calling me "Smartblur". I think this is in reference to the fact that I'm always spaced out, yet, as far as he can tell, don't appear to be stupid.
I didn't miss any lectures last week! That was a big bonus!
I checked a certain somebody's blog and was a bit sad to find that for once, there wasn't a reference to me at all... *sniff*
Time to go... people to do and places to see. This time it's Ginny at Victoria Market. Mmmm. Coffee...
in Philosophy, read all!**
Taking two units of philosophy this semester is really messing about with my head... I'm turning into a most argumentative little being:
Me: Socrates presupposes in the Gorgias that there is an objective ground of good, and bases his whole arguement around that. Yet, in the Euthyphro, while he doesn't
explicitly say that there is no objective ground for good, he bases his arguement around the concept that we can not really define good (for those of you who can't
remember - "Is the good that which is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is good?"
Does Socrates have an answer for this?
My lecturer: Excellent! Socrates would doubtless be delighted if you challenged whether his views are consistent.
What do you suppose he'll say about his conversation with Euthyphro? I imagine it'll go something like this:
"Well, Valisa, you're right. I did question whether things are good because the gods love them. After all, surely the gods must have a reason for approving of
certain things and not others. It can't be just random. What better reason could there be than that these things are good? So goodness isn't the result of something's being loved by the gods -- it is rather the ground or reason for their loving it."
"You are right to say that I haven't told you what this objective ground is. But I certainly think there must be one. What do you, Valisa, think makes things good? What
is that one thing in common among all the things that are objectively valuable? Tell me your answer, for what could it be more important for a person to know?
Me: If that were Socrates' reply, I would have to criticise him for skirting the issue. I'll agree with Socrates, that yes, there is probably some objective ground for good. Yet, we are unable to conclusively show what this is.
Socrates is calling into doubt whether or not Gorgias, Pollus and Callicles are acting in accordance to what is good. If he can not answer the question of what good
is, can he truly accuse others of not acting in a manner which is good?
He accuses the three of speaking and acting without true knowledge of what is right and wrong - If Socrates concedes that he does not, either, know that which is right and wrong, is he not guilty of the same 'cookery'?
****
Not only am I picking a fight with Socrates, I'm picking a fight with myself. Now, I don't like Foucault. I absolutely hate his style of writing. I read his work thinking - my god, this is mental masochism of the highest degree! It's so damned rhetorical and he doesn't miss a chance to lauch into polemics. Oddly enough, once I had concluded that he is very painful to read, I find out in my tute that he is, infact, a sadist. Perhaps there is a link... do not do to the body what you would not do to the mind??!
Anyhow, despite all this, I've decided to launch a little war against my initial intuitions about the French philosopher and get myself some extra reading on the man. Perhaps I'm mad, but I've decided to understand what it is that Foucault is on about to the extent that I shall write my 40% assessment essay on him. Should be fun to do a bit of Foucault bashing... before that, though... Books, books, books - Know thine enemy, as they say, and "Thou shalt not act without impunity"
*****
Ok, so down to more mundane matters... like what did I do last night? What have I been up to all week that I have thus neglected my blog since Tuesday?
On Friday night I was feeling like a quiet one, so I made a really nice dinner - wraps, humus, guacamole, tomato salad, mushroom salad... I really got a nice bit of inspiration. The problem was there was entirely too much food and I ended up inviting Bernard over for dinner. He in turn, invited a bottle of Gin. I let him read my blog, and he spent the next three hours vainly trying to guess who this "THING" of mine is. It was so funny - I cracked up so badly. Well, that's for us to know and nobody to find out, huh? Didn't end up going to sleep until three and feeling somewhat out of it at the BOB meeting the next day...
Last night was fun, too. I went for drinks with Tenzing and Julian - ended up making fun of Tenzing all night. I wanted to see the messages on Tenzing's phone, and he ended up knocking me over (ouch) in the bar whilst forcibly trying to retrieve his phone from my clutches... hehe. All he had was text messages about meetings. So sad... We had a good laugh. For some reason, Tenzing is calling me "Smartblur". I think this is in reference to the fact that I'm always spaced out, yet, as far as he can tell, don't appear to be stupid.
I didn't miss any lectures last week! That was a big bonus!
I checked a certain somebody's blog and was a bit sad to find that for once, there wasn't a reference to me at all... *sniff*
Time to go... people to do and places to see. This time it's Ginny at Victoria Market. Mmmm. Coffee...