"I can prove that no such thing as a false belief can exist." Protagoras makes this claim after asserting that: "all beliefs are true for those who believe them." This simplistic approach of individual perspective as the only criteria for individual truth seems to hold validity in the positive appraisal (what we believe is our truth). But when Protagoras takes a look at this from the negative (a false belief cannot exist) his argument loses credibility since truth cannot exist without false belief and our individual perspective is a dynamic and continually evolving process which will lead us to more educated or experienced "truths" in our own beliefs. As we move on to these new evolving truths we then must reconcile in ourselves the "false" beliefs we had previous to moving on to a more enlightened "truth". Many of our beliefs we hold as true individually are actually strengthened through a look at dissenting or contradictory views of others (their truth) thus the reality of false beliefs. The belief in something as true or false cannot truly be seperated as Protagoras implies but live in our individual perception and through the evolution of our beliefs through knowledge we are continually finding new truths and identifying prior false beliefs.
Protagoras posited that "man is the measure of all things... appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call “reality” is just what appears to be true to them”
This notion is at first attractive, because it seems to allow ultimate freedom; it doesn't matter what you call true because it is true for you, and that is what really counts. In “my reality” however, which I notice is shared by many people, Protagoras is just another “philosopher” making a claim about what is “really true.” Protagoras' “appearance-is-reality doctrine” can be considered only when it is the sole philosophy in the picture. In other words, its presence robs the legitimacy of every other doctrine, and therein lies its power; The only way all beliefs could be “true” is if none of them are, i.e. there is no real truth. When he claims "it is warm for you, cold for me" Protagoras ignores any sort of objective, scientific, or universal standard of what is cold or warm and crushes any attempt to dispute facts, or even opinions. Saying “man is the measure of all things” essentially sets up the speaker as the supreme authority on truth. By taking this stance, he or she has now decided what is true for everyone: appearance. This is problematic to the speaker because the claim's appeal lies in the existence of individual truth, if you accept Protagoras' idea, it is not your individual truth, it is his. Oh no! All Protagoras has done is set up mankind (himself) as the supreme judge on what is real, which is absurd because appearances and the senses are so easily manipulated and deceived. In short, Protagoras' claim that appearance-is-reality, by nature, undercuts all truth. Duplicitous, it claims to legitimize all philosophies while openly destroying all philosophies except itself.
"Yet, and still, his death left a scar on my soul, and a question that haunts me day and night: how can good men like Socrates survive in a broken, corrupt society." Plato struggles with the moral question of good versus evil. How is it that good men, such as Socrates, can live a life filled with learning and implementation of philosophy while others simply use arts of philosophy to manipulate and destroy? This entire reading was a reflection of the principals that are being argued. Plato is certain that Pericles was righteous and through an "ill-advised military adventure," was defeated. The Spartans were unjust and willing to fortify their stance against Pericles. The parallel is comparing the teaching of Socrates to the wisdom of Pericles and comparing the methods of the Sophists to that of the Spartans. The defeat left Athens destroyed. The value of knowledge, understanding and comparison was lost. Power and control replaced all the principals that teachers such as Socrates and Plato stood for. The sophists took advantage of uneducated minds and persuaded them to believe corrupt philosophies. Where does a man of virtue go when he is faced with a world of controversy? How does he convince anyone that his way is pure, that the 'others' are full of manipulation and motives? Plato defends his teacher, not because he believes exactly as Socrates believed, but because he knew where Socrates motives lay. He knew that he was not teaching manipulation, power, control, and deceit. Socrates was teaching the art of understanding the human mind. "If you listen to those who are wise-the people who defended my teacher at his trial before the state killed him-they will tell you that the war destroyed the golden days of our city." There was a time when the city was prominent and flourishing. A time when corruption, manipulation, greed and desire for power did not supersede the desire to understand the philosophical truths of life.
According to Protagoras, "Appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call 'reality' is just what appears to be true to them." This quote from Protagoras reminds me of Hamlet. In Hamlet, I will be using Kenneth Branagh's version that came out in 1996 and doesn't cut out a single line for my example (he should do more Shakespeare films), Hamlet perceives his father's ghost. This is the reality for him, and three of his close companions who saw it as well, but it may not be the reality for anyone else because it does not appear to them as something real. Hamlet, in Kenneth Branagh's version he plays Hamlet, sees this ghostly visage and it is therefore part of his reality. Another aspect that is his reality is that his uncle killed his father. The ghostly figure told him so, so it became apart of his reality. He is also perceived as going mad after he gets back to Denmark after learning about his father's death, so it is his mother and uncle's reality that he is mad.
This quote says that perception is reality. If I perceive something, it be true, at least for me, and at least until I am proven wrong. What I'm getting at, and that Protagoras disagrees with me, is that, if something is concrete like in geometry or even economics, I feel I am correct, but if someone comes along and proves that I'm incorrect, then I'll consider changing my reality to match what is true to someone else. I got a question wrong in my economics test the other day, and I perceived the answer incorrectly. It was true for me at the time, but it is not true for me now because the professor gave the correct answer, and explained their reasoning.
This only works for objective perceptions. I perceive Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet as a wonderful piece of cinema, but that's very subjective, so no one can prove me false. They might have something against it, but that will not change my reality in that it's a fantastic film based on a fantastic play. Anything that is not clear cut or black and white is always a reality for some people based on their perception and that same thing will be perceived differently by someone else entire.
"We may lay it down that Pleasure is a movement, a movement by which a soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; that Pain is the opposite."
Pleasure is a voluntary action which is a movement consciously brought into its normal state of being. It must be pleasant to move towards a natural state of being especially when a natural process achieves that natural state because we chose to move towards it. Aristotle states, "that pain is the opposite of pleasure." Pain forced on us and force is not natural. Pleasure feeds off of pleasure. We would voluntarily choose pleasure. We would not normally choose pain and feel miserable. Pain tends to destroy pleasure. It destroys what is enjoyable to the soul. A habit is something that is repeated. It becomes part of you. Habits become a part of the natural state. Something that is not pleasurable that is forced on you is not desirable which is in an unnatural and painful state.
He was not “my only critic”, and at times he felt “like a brother” and they called him the “Dog”. Here Plato is talking about Diogenes, the cynic, the Dog.
Diagones was named the Dog because Diogenes learned his Philosophy from Antisthenes. Antisthenes had a school where he taught philosophy and he believed that plain “ordinary people could know all that was worth knowing” and that “everyday mind was quite enough.” The school was taught in a facility that housed a dog cemetery and the students were labeled “cynics”, which meant they were “dog-like”.
So, the Dog would walk around town and hold a lit lantern up to peoples’ faces. He would “peer into all the stalls of the marketplace, peeked in brothels”. So of course people would ask Diogenes what he was doing and he would reply “I’m looking for an honest man.”
It appears to me that Diagones was always seeking honesty in people, and maybe like Plato, trying to make some sort of sense of the world of why things such as justice, honesty and loyalty and the killing of honest people transpire for “refusing to conform to the positions of political factions.”
Plato too appears to me to be searching for these same answers as Diogenes. Plato plainly mourns the loss of his teacher Socrates, and I think something about “the cup” being full and empty is somehow related to Plato’s mourning. It’ possible that maybe he’s empty without Socrates.
Plato and Diagones appear to share some correlating affiliation with “how good men like Socrates” can’t survive in a world that is “broken” and “corrupt”. This affliction further appears to mysteriously bring them together, two people searching for the same answers to slightly differing questions.
This leads me to my quote and to my conclusion, “A sudden breeze extinguished the wick inside his lamp, leaving us enveloped by the immensity of night. There, with my vision unsealed, I felt a wonder, humility, and innocence, and for the first time I realized I did not have to understand, but only be.” Here Diagones simply leads Plato to the answers of his questions, bringing Plato some sense of peace and final resting to his mourning. For Plato states “All I could do was swallow, a gulp that made the Dog grin.” In the end Diagones found his honest man and told Plato “You didn’t dialogue it to death. I think I’ve found my honest man.”
In The Cynic, Diogenes states "that there are only two ways to look at life. One as if nothing is holy. The other, as if everything is." Though I know the man is quite cynical, I have mixed feeling on this statement.
On the one hand, I can see the logic. If everything is sacred, why should there be exceptions to this? Should a chair be any more or less significant than a religious figure? Everything exists in this world as its own unique entity, and to treat it with respect is natural. On the other, everything is equally finite - to treat something as greater than another is pointless, as everything from that chair to that figure has its own limited life span, be it as a physical object or an ideology.
This cynicism is extremely black and white, however. The world is not limited to these two shades, and to assume it as such is flawed. There are definitely some things that I feel should be made sacred - these tend to come in the forms of more abstract ideologies. Ideas such as freedom, justice, and equity are beyond the scope of morality, and as such should be treated with a deep respect. However, material objects are finite, and as such do not always require the same respect.
It is a complicated issue for a complicated world, and the cynic would be more than willing to show us just how foolish we are by sticking to one or another (in his own weird way). I don't agree with Diogene's suggestion, and feel that everything should be taken as is before deciding to place it in the "holy" or "not holy" category.
One of the quotes I liked from The Cynic, Diogenes: "that there are only two ways to look at life. One as if nothing is holy. The other, as if everything is." This one really got me thinking about the definition of Rhetoric. Rhetoric can be just and unjust and the list continues. It is the power of persuasion, and so on. Yet it plays further into Aristotle and his explanation on the differences between rhetoric and dialectic. Both facilitate arguments because there is always a right and a wrong; good and evil. Every situation is different it is just the eye of the beholder who wins the argument. Yet, it all has the same meaning in the end because where you stand is where you make your views and beliefs. Because once you have a belief or an idea it is your job to use rhetoric and your power of persuasion, to make your listener believe what you are saying is real. Even if it is a complete false; this is why rhetoric is a powerful tool. The worst part is anyone can their own rhetoric powers for good and for evil. I don’t personally agree with Diogenes with this one because there are things in this natural world that are evil and will never be good. Just like how that good and evil shoe will fit on the other foot. The real issue is are you, and do you use your rhetoric the same?
“I felt only wonder, humility, and innocence and for the first time I realized I did not have to understand, but only be” (Johnson, 2007, p. 248).
This quote speaks volumes to me. The depth of its understanding comes from the excellent development of the story by the author. Charles Johnson gives us a nugget of wisdom at the end of this story that we did not have to earn through humility. I am impress with the way he begins with general history of the time period, takes us to the thinking of opposing groups, then brings us to the thoughts (and inner dialogue) of one specific character, Plato. We begin to understand what is important to him (dialogue and rhetoric), what was important to him (his teacher Socrates), and his current distaste for Diogenes, the man “who infuriated” him “though sometimes he did feel like a brother” (Johnson, 2007, p. 245). Sometimes we humans need to be humbled before our minds are open to see. As in the story, Plato is humiliated by The Dog, but it is The Dog that gives Plato opportunity for unexpected revelation.
“…he lifted my chin with his forefinger and thumb toward the night sky” (Johnson, 2007, p. 248).
The encouragement and challenge from Diogenes to gaze upon nature, in this case, the moon, is the nugget of wisdom that I appreciate. Johnson does a suburb job of describing the wonder of nature, its beauty, and the affect it can have on humans if we would take the time to gaze, reflect, and just be. Truth is revealed in nature. As the story ends, Plato is affirmed by Diogenes as he realizes “the wonder, humility, and innocence” of the moment.
"Appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call 'reality' is just what appears to be true to them" (Protagoras). To me, this quote is basically saying that an individual can believe whatever appears to be true them, which in this case would be reality. I can have my own set of values and beliefs, while on the other hand, another person can have their own set of beliefs and values, but it's all the same because we both believe that our beliefs and values are true. It doesn't matter what society sees as "right or wrong", it only matter's what we believe to see is true. That's the type of world we leave in; we have the freedom to believe in what we want to believe in and to see what to believe what is true.
p. 63. "by general law, all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere. We do things 'voluntarily' when we do them consciously and without constraint.' Does this refer to ethics? Or do some people just act like they are doing a right when they are actually doing someone a wrong. "The causes of our deliberately intending harmful and wicked acts contrary to law are (1) vice, (2) lack of self control." "For the wrongs a man does to others will correspond to the bad quality or qualities that he himself possesses. The profligate in matters of physical pleasure, the effeminate in matters of comfort, and the coward where danger is concerned- his terror makes him abandon those who are involved in the same danger." Could he be thinking of the Catholic priests who bares no shame?
Protagoras "I can prove that no such thing as a false belief can exist.” “All beliefs are true for those who believe them." “Man is the measure of all things.” I like what Matt had to say about the first two quotes. I wanted to touch on them myself. And the last quote will then fit in to what I have to say. First, I would like to say that Matt is right. I will also say that Protagoras is also right. Protagoras is in a different time. Back then the people believed the world was flat. If you did not believe this then you were a false believer. False believers proved the world is round. Know one can truly know what is fact or fiction. Therefore, what ever the believer believes in is true to them. And not true to those to the non-believer. I think that everyone has a belief that they feel to be true and someone else dose not believe that way. Just because a person does not believe as you believe does not make them a false believer. And when we look at it from Protagoras’s view is all beliefs are true to that individual. If an individual changes the belief it does not make it untrue because someone could still believe the same way you used to. However, the individual judges people and their actions and that makes them who they are. So, if I judge the world as having non believers and false tellers. Then that is what they will be. If I judge everyone without bias then everyone is a believer. That is why Protagoras says “man is the measure of all things.” The more people believe it the more it becomes fact. A friend of mine told me there wouldn’t be a heaven if there was no Hell. I told him there will be. And he did not understand. Image if every body in the world did not believe there was a hell. I said that is what most people believe, because if people really thought that they might go to hell for something they did, then no one would go to heaven. You have to be free from sin. And everyone has sinned in the world. So how can people still get into heaven through there individual rights to believe in what they want. That is why we can not say who the false believer is because we all are. Don’t we love contradictions!
Diogenes, as well as many of Platos students, felt that Plato talked the subjects to death. Only when they met in the center of town at night and Diogenes asked him not to talk but to look did Plato really see for the first time. Diogenes was an outcast from society. the writer mad certain we knew how he looked and semlles and that he felt that anything could be done in public. Plato did not want him near his class but did nothing to stop him. When Plato was trying to explain the cupness and Diogenes explained the emptiness I thought Plato would respond in anger. Diogenes was looking for an honest man and found that in plato when plato was speechless looking at the night sky. the blowing out of the lantern by the wind signified that he no longer needed to search but there was an honest man right there.
13 comments:
"I can prove that no such thing as a false belief can exist." Protagoras makes this claim after asserting that: "all beliefs are true for those who believe them." This simplistic approach of individual perspective as the only criteria for individual truth seems to hold validity in the positive appraisal (what we believe is our truth). But when Protagoras takes a look at this from the negative (a false belief cannot exist) his argument loses credibility since truth cannot exist without false belief and our individual perspective is a dynamic and continually evolving process which will lead us to more educated or experienced "truths" in our own beliefs. As we move on to these new evolving truths we then must reconcile in ourselves the "false" beliefs we had previous to moving on to a more enlightened "truth". Many of our beliefs we hold as true individually are actually strengthened through a look at dissenting or contradictory views of others (their truth) thus the reality of false beliefs. The belief in something as true or false cannot truly be seperated as Protagoras implies but live in our individual perception and through the evolution of our beliefs through knowledge we are continually finding new truths and identifying prior false beliefs.
Protagoras posited that "man is the measure of all things... appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call “reality” is just what appears to be true to them”
This notion is at first attractive, because it seems to allow ultimate freedom; it doesn't matter what you call true because it is true for you, and that is what really counts. In “my reality” however, which I notice is shared by many people, Protagoras is just another “philosopher” making a claim about what is “really true.” Protagoras' “appearance-is-reality doctrine” can be considered only when it is the sole philosophy in the picture. In other words, its presence robs the legitimacy of every other doctrine, and therein lies its power; The only way all beliefs could be “true” is if none of them are, i.e. there is no real truth. When he claims "it is warm for you, cold for me" Protagoras ignores any sort of objective, scientific, or universal standard of what is cold or warm and crushes any attempt to dispute facts, or even opinions. Saying “man is the measure of all things” essentially sets up the speaker as the supreme authority on truth. By taking this stance, he or she has now decided what is true for everyone: appearance. This is problematic to the speaker because the claim's appeal lies in the existence of individual truth, if you accept Protagoras' idea, it is not your individual truth, it is his. Oh no! All Protagoras has done is set up mankind (himself) as the supreme judge on what is real, which is absurd because appearances and the senses are so easily manipulated and deceived. In short, Protagoras' claim that appearance-is-reality, by nature, undercuts all truth. Duplicitous, it claims to legitimize all philosophies while openly destroying all philosophies except itself.
"Yet, and still, his death left a scar on my soul, and a question that haunts me day and night: how can good men like Socrates survive in a broken, corrupt society." Plato struggles with the moral question of good versus evil. How is it that good men, such as Socrates, can live a life filled with learning and implementation of philosophy while others simply use arts of philosophy to manipulate and destroy?
This entire reading was a reflection of the principals that are being argued. Plato is certain that Pericles was righteous and through an "ill-advised military adventure," was defeated. The Spartans were unjust and willing to fortify their stance against Pericles. The parallel is comparing the teaching of Socrates to the wisdom of Pericles and comparing the methods of the Sophists to that of the Spartans. The defeat left Athens destroyed. The value of knowledge, understanding and comparison was lost. Power and control replaced all the principals that teachers such as Socrates and Plato stood for. The sophists took advantage of uneducated minds and persuaded them to believe corrupt philosophies.
Where does a man of virtue go when he is faced with a world of controversy? How does he convince anyone that his way is pure, that the 'others' are full of manipulation and motives? Plato defends his teacher, not because he believes exactly as Socrates believed, but because he knew where Socrates motives lay. He knew that he was not teaching manipulation, power, control, and deceit. Socrates was teaching the art of understanding the human mind.
"If you listen to those who are wise-the people who defended my teacher at his trial before the state killed him-they will tell you that the war destroyed the golden days of our city." There was a time when the city was prominent and flourishing. A time when corruption, manipulation, greed and desire for power did not supersede the desire to understand the philosophical truths of life.
According to Protagoras, "Appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call 'reality' is just what appears to be true to them." This quote from Protagoras reminds me of Hamlet. In Hamlet, I will be using Kenneth Branagh's version that came out in 1996 and doesn't cut out a single line for my example (he should do more Shakespeare films), Hamlet perceives his father's ghost. This is the reality for him, and three of his close companions who saw it as well, but it may not be the reality for anyone else because it does not appear to them as something real. Hamlet, in Kenneth Branagh's version he plays Hamlet, sees this ghostly visage and it is therefore part of his reality. Another aspect that is his reality is that his uncle killed his father. The ghostly figure told him so, so it became apart of his reality. He is also perceived as going mad after he gets back to Denmark after learning about his father's death, so it is his mother and uncle's reality that he is mad.
This quote says that perception is reality. If I perceive something, it be true, at least for me, and at least until I am proven wrong. What I'm getting at, and that Protagoras disagrees with me, is that, if something is concrete like in geometry or even economics, I feel I am correct, but if someone comes along and proves that I'm incorrect, then I'll consider changing my reality to match what is true to someone else. I got a question wrong in my economics test the other day, and I perceived the answer incorrectly. It was true for me at the time, but it is not true for me now because the professor gave the correct answer, and explained their reasoning.
This only works for objective perceptions. I perceive Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet as a wonderful piece of cinema, but that's very subjective, so no one can prove me false. They might have something against it, but that will not change my reality in that it's a fantastic film based on a fantastic play. Anything that is not clear cut or black and white is always a reality for some people based on their perception and that same thing will be perceived differently by someone else entire.
Aristotle Book I, Chapter 10,p 67
"We may lay it down that Pleasure is a movement, a movement by which a soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; that Pain is the opposite."
Pleasure is a voluntary action which is a movement consciously brought into its normal state of being. It must be pleasant to move towards a natural state of being especially when a natural process achieves that natural state because we chose to move towards it. Aristotle states, "that pain is the opposite of pleasure." Pain forced on us and force is not natural. Pleasure feeds off of pleasure. We would voluntarily choose pleasure. We would not normally choose pain and feel miserable. Pain tends to destroy pleasure. It destroys what is enjoyable to the soul. A habit is something that is repeated. It becomes part of you. Habits become a part of the natural state. Something that is not pleasurable that is forced on you is not desirable which is in an unnatural and painful state.
Kimberly Luna
Com 301: Blog 4 Post
He was not “my only critic”, and at times he felt “like a brother” and they called him the “Dog”. Here Plato is talking about Diogenes, the cynic, the Dog.
Diagones was named the Dog because Diogenes learned his Philosophy from Antisthenes. Antisthenes had a school where he taught philosophy and he believed that plain “ordinary people could know all that was worth knowing” and that “everyday mind was quite enough.” The school was taught in a facility that housed a dog cemetery and the students were labeled “cynics”, which meant they were “dog-like”.
So, the Dog would walk around town and hold a lit lantern up to peoples’ faces. He would “peer into all the stalls of the marketplace, peeked in brothels”. So of course people would ask Diogenes what he was doing and he would reply “I’m looking for an honest man.”
It appears to me that Diagones was always seeking honesty in people, and maybe like Plato, trying to make some sort of sense of the world of why things such as justice, honesty and loyalty and the killing of honest people transpire for “refusing to conform to the positions of political factions.”
Plato too appears to me to be searching for these same answers as Diogenes. Plato plainly mourns the loss of his teacher Socrates, and I think something about “the cup” being full and empty is somehow related to Plato’s mourning. It’ possible that maybe he’s empty without Socrates.
Plato and Diagones appear to share some correlating affiliation with “how good men like Socrates” can’t survive in a world that is “broken” and “corrupt”. This affliction further appears to mysteriously bring them together, two people searching for the same answers to slightly differing questions.
This leads me to my quote and to my conclusion, “A sudden breeze extinguished the wick inside his lamp, leaving us enveloped by the immensity of night. There, with my vision unsealed, I felt a wonder, humility, and innocence, and for the first time I realized I did not have to understand, but only be.” Here Diagones simply leads Plato to the answers of his questions, bringing Plato some sense of peace and final resting to his mourning. For Plato states “All I could do was swallow, a gulp that made the Dog grin.” In the end Diagones found his honest man and told Plato “You didn’t dialogue it to death. I think I’ve found my honest man.”
In The Cynic, Diogenes states "that there are only two ways to look at life. One as if nothing is holy. The other, as if everything is." Though I know the man is quite cynical, I have mixed feeling on this statement.
On the one hand, I can see the logic. If everything is sacred, why should there be exceptions to this? Should a chair be any more or less significant than a religious figure? Everything exists in this world as its own unique entity, and to treat it with respect is natural. On the other, everything is equally finite - to treat something as greater than another is pointless, as everything from that chair to that figure has its own limited life span, be it as a physical object or an ideology.
This cynicism is extremely black and white, however. The world is not limited to these two shades, and to assume it as such is flawed. There are definitely some things that I feel should be made sacred - these tend to come in the forms of more abstract ideologies. Ideas such as freedom, justice, and equity are beyond the scope of morality, and as such should be treated with a deep respect. However, material objects are finite, and as such do not always require the same respect.
It is a complicated issue for a complicated world, and the cynic would be more than willing to show us just how foolish we are by sticking to one or another (in his own weird way). I don't agree with Diogene's suggestion, and feel that everything should be taken as is before deciding to place it in the "holy" or "not holy" category.
One of the quotes I liked from The Cynic, Diogenes: "that there are only two ways to look at life. One as if nothing is holy. The other, as if everything is."
This one really got me thinking about the definition of Rhetoric. Rhetoric can be just and unjust and the list continues. It is the power of persuasion, and so on. Yet it plays further into Aristotle and his explanation on the differences between rhetoric and dialectic. Both facilitate arguments because there is always a right and a wrong; good and evil. Every situation is different it is just the eye of the beholder who wins the argument. Yet, it all has the same meaning in the end because where you stand is where you make your views and beliefs. Because once you have a belief or an idea it is your job to use rhetoric and your power of persuasion, to make your listener believe what you are saying is real. Even if it is a complete false; this is why rhetoric is a powerful tool. The worst part is anyone can their own rhetoric powers for good and for evil.
I don’t personally agree with Diogenes with this one because there are things in this natural world that are evil and will never be good. Just like how that good and evil shoe will fit on the other foot. The real issue is are you, and do you use your rhetoric the same?
The Cynic
“I felt only wonder, humility, and innocence and for the first time I realized I did not have to understand, but only be” (Johnson, 2007, p. 248).
This quote speaks volumes to me. The depth of its understanding comes from the excellent development of the story by the author. Charles Johnson gives us a nugget of wisdom at the end of this story that we did not have to earn through humility. I am impress with the way he begins with general history of the time period, takes us to the thinking of opposing groups, then brings us to the thoughts (and inner dialogue) of one specific character, Plato. We begin to understand what is important to him (dialogue and rhetoric), what was important to him (his teacher Socrates), and his current distaste for Diogenes, the man “who infuriated” him “though sometimes he did feel like a brother” (Johnson, 2007, p. 245). Sometimes we humans need to be humbled before our minds are open to see. As in the story, Plato is humiliated by The Dog, but it is The Dog that gives Plato opportunity for unexpected revelation.
“…he lifted my chin with his forefinger and thumb toward the night sky” (Johnson, 2007, p. 248).
The encouragement and challenge from Diogenes to gaze upon nature, in this case, the moon, is the nugget of wisdom that I appreciate. Johnson does a suburb job of describing the wonder of nature, its beauty, and the affect it can have on humans if we would take the time to gaze, reflect, and just be. Truth is revealed in nature. As the story ends, Plato is affirmed by Diogenes as he realizes “the wonder, humility, and innocence” of the moment.
"Appearance is reality. Even what philosophers call 'reality' is just what appears to be true to them" (Protagoras). To me, this quote is basically saying that an individual can believe whatever appears to be true them, which in this case would be reality. I can have my own set of values and beliefs, while on the other hand, another person can have their own set of beliefs and values, but it's all the same because we both believe that our beliefs and values are true.
It doesn't matter what society sees as "right or wrong", it only matter's what we believe to see is true. That's the type of world we leave in; we have the freedom to believe in what we want to believe in and to see what to believe what is true.
p. 63. "by general law, all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere. We do things 'voluntarily' when we do them consciously and without constraint.' Does this refer to ethics? Or do some people just act like they are doing a right when they are actually doing someone a wrong. "The causes of our deliberately intending harmful and wicked acts contrary to law are (1) vice, (2) lack of self control." "For the wrongs a man does to others will correspond to the bad quality or qualities that he himself possesses. The profligate in matters of physical pleasure, the effeminate in matters of comfort, and the coward where danger is concerned- his terror makes him abandon those who are involved in the same danger." Could he be thinking of the Catholic priests who bares no shame?
Protagoras "I can prove that no such thing as a false belief can exist.” “All beliefs are true for those who believe them." “Man is the measure of all things.” I like what Matt had to say about the first two quotes. I wanted to touch on them myself. And the last quote will then fit in to what I have to say. First, I would like to say that Matt is right. I will also say that Protagoras is also right. Protagoras is in a different time. Back then the people believed the world was flat. If you did not believe this then you were a false believer. False believers proved the world is round. Know one can truly know what is fact or fiction. Therefore, what ever the believer believes in is true to them. And not true to those to the non-believer. I think that everyone has a belief that they feel to be true and someone else dose not believe that way. Just because a person does not believe as you believe does not make them a false believer. And when we look at it from Protagoras’s view is all beliefs are true to that individual. If an individual changes the belief it does not make it untrue because someone could still believe the same way you used to. However, the individual judges people and their actions and that makes them who they are. So, if I judge the world as having non believers and false tellers. Then that is what they will be. If I judge everyone without bias then everyone is a believer. That is why Protagoras says “man is the measure of all things.” The more people believe it the more it becomes fact. A friend of mine told me there wouldn’t be a heaven if there was no Hell. I told him there will be. And he did not understand. Image if every body in the world did not believe there was a hell. I said that is what most people believe, because if people really thought that they might go to hell for something they did, then no one would go to heaven. You have to be free from sin. And everyone has sinned in the world. So how can people still get into heaven through there individual rights to believe in what they want. That is why we can not say who the false believer is because we all are. Don’t we love contradictions!
Diogenes, as well as many of Platos students, felt that Plato talked the subjects to death. Only when they met in the center of town at night and Diogenes asked him not to talk but to look did Plato really see for the first time. Diogenes was an outcast from society. the writer mad certain we knew how he looked and semlles and that he felt that anything could be done in public. Plato did not want him near his class but did nothing to stop him. When Plato was trying to explain the cupness and Diogenes explained the emptiness I thought Plato would respond in anger. Diogenes was looking for an honest man and found that in plato when plato was speechless looking at the night sky. the blowing out of the lantern by the wind signified that he no longer needed to search but there was an honest man right there.
Post a Comment