STUDYING PHILOSOPHY
Philosophical thought #1:
In the book of life,
the answers
are not
in the back…
Plato’s Republic:
Why do I have to read a #@$% thousands’year-old book???!!
• While still an aspiring politician, Plato was
befriended by the elder Socrates and quickly
became his informal pupil.
• It can be thought of as a rectification of the fate of
Socrates - a just man killed by an unjust State.
• it is a philosophical masterpiece; it is acute political
theory; it is great literature
• http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic for full
downloadable text
MARKING & ANNOTATING
the Republic, Book 1
Justice = excellence of the soul
Just man lives well
= blessed and happy
Just = happy
Unjust= miserable
And has not the soul an excellence also?
Yes.
And can she or can she not fulfil her own ends when deprived of that
excellence?
She cannot.
Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent,
and the good soul a good ruler?
Yes, necessarily.
And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and
injustice the defect of the soul?
That has been admitted.
Then the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man
will live ill?
That is what your argument proves.
And he who lives well is blessed and happy, and he who lives ill the
reverse of happy?
Injustice ≠ more profitable
Certainly.
Then the just is happy, and the unjust miserable?
So be it.
But happiness and not misery is profitable.
Of course.
Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable
than justice.
Plato (427-347 B.C.)
“You can discover more about a
person in an hour of play
than in a year of conversation.”
Characters in The REPUBLIC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Socrates: the narrator and protagonist
Glaucon: Socrates' closest and most loyal disciple
Adeimantus: is a source of poetry and literature
Cephalus: the elderly father of Polemachus
Polemachus: invites Socrates to his home, eager for
the conversation. He cherishes very common ideas
6. Thrasymachus: is the fierce embodiment of tyranny
•
•
•
•
•
Cleitophon, son of Aristonymus
Charmantides, a Paeanian (silent)
Lysias, son of Cephalus (silent)
Euthydemus, son of Cephalus (silent)
Niceratus, son of Nicias (silent
According to Wikipedia
BOOK 1 - Prologue
I.1: Descent to the Piraeus
I.2—I.5: Cephalus. Justice of the Older Generation
I.6—1.9: Polemachus. Justice of the Middle Generation
I.10—1.24: Thrasymachus. Justice of the Sophist
From Cliff’s Notes
In his History of Western Philosophy (1945), Bertrand
Russell sees three parts in Plato's Republic:
-Book I-V: the Utopia portion, portraying the ideal community,
starting from an attempt to define justice
-Book VI-VII: since philosophers are seen as the ideal rulers of such
community, this part of the text concentrates on defining precisely
what a philosopher is
-Book VIII-X: discusses several practical forms of government, their
pros and cons.
http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/gormanteachingplatorepublic1.html
Susan Gorman, Boston University
What is the function of Book 1?
“In teaching the beginning of the Republic, I highlight the function
of the first two books so that the students are better equipped to
understand the problem that is being set forth for discussion.
We talk mostly about what justice is and how a person can be
deemed just or not.
Once we all realize that there are no easy answers, we are ready
to see how other people, such as those participating in the discussion in
the Republic, discuss justice.
Book 1 of the Republic sets the scene for the rest of the
philosophical discussions to follow.”
ANTICIPATING TEST QUESTIONS:
Multiple choice questions:
What is "justice" as argued by Polemachus?
a. Everything is permitted
b. Do unto others as you would have done
unto you
c. The interest of the stronger
d. Give good to friends and evil to enemies
Thrasymachus' "justice" is a form of _______.
a.
b.
c.
d.
democracy
oligarchy
timocracy
tyranny
Short answer
or longer essay questions:
- How does Socrates define harm?
- Why does he believe that it is never
just to harm anyone?
STRATEGIES
FOR READING
PHILOSOPHY
Philosophical thought #2:
Experience is a hard
teacher;
it gives the test first,
then teaches the
lesson afterwards…
1. Read for the
professor's
questions
Generate questions
from your lecture notes.
View your notes
as a set of answers
from which
you write questions.
When you go to your textbook,
use the questions from your lecture
notes as a key.
Use your text
as a reference book:
in it, you need to find examples
illustrating
the major points in class.
Don't take extensive notes from
your reading; instead, make
a list of key words
(both yours and the philosopher's)
illustrating given arguments.
2. Read for
examples
A philosopher shifts
between using the complex
"language of philosophy"
(terminology specific to philosophy
and/or terms taken
from common speech - “to know”- but
used in a special sense)
and ordinary, everyday examples
to illustrate his points.
If you locate and focus on
the real examples,
you can learn to follow
a philosophical argument
with less stress.
Skim the reading for
concrete, out-of-context words
("shoemaker,” "joke,” "thief”)
and read the full sentence
in which they appear –
it will illustrate
in concrete terms
the point the philosopher is making.
Glance away from the book and
make up another example
of your own that is parallel.
Now look for confirmation
at the actual principle
stated in dense, philosophic terms.
Working from examples is
learning by building
on what you already know,
not trying to memorize
difficult-to-digest passages
written in strange jargon.
If you are not sure
of a given point,
go to your professor
with your parallel examples
(yours vs. the philosopher's)
and ask if your example fits.
You'll know then
if you've made
a correct generalization,
if you've really understood
the point at hand.
3. Read for the
philosopher's
controlling
principle
For example, a controlling idea for
Plato is that
conversation about philosophical
subjects
is the most important of all human
activities
("the unexamined life
is not worth living").
For Aristotle's Ethics:
that happiness is the quality of
the whole life,
so the happy man
"puts it all together."
It is a useful mental exercise to
pretend that you believe something
then try to uncover the philosopher's
hidden and unstated assumptions
(e.g. that women are inferior).
Finally,
you will want to decide
if the philosopher adheres
to his principles
throughout his work.
Philosophical thought #3,
with apologies to Rene Descartes:
I don’t think much;
therefore,
I must not be…
Philosophy
Categories
Theoretical Philosophy
- epistemology,
metaphysics examines what is
or what happens
in the world
Practical Philosophy
- ethics, politics examines
what ought
to be done
or sought after
Philosophical
Styles
Philosophical Dialogue
Plato
Conversational, enriched with
drama and personalities.
Solution-oriented, letting the
readers discover things for
themselves.
Philosophical Treatise
or Essay
Aristotle, Kant
Order is imposed on a specific
subject –
physics, politics, ethics, reason.
Meeting of Objections
Aquinas
Combination of
question-raising and
objection-meeting;
imbued with the spirit of
debate and discussion.
Systemization of Philosophy
Descartes, Spinoza.
Philosophy organized in a
mathematical fashion, giving
it certainty and formal
structure.
Aphoristic Style
Nietzsche
A subject is touched upon,
a truth or insight suggested;
then the reader is left,
to make the connections and
arguments himself.
PHIL 000: Elementary Nihilism.
Students learn the philosophy of
total self-negation. Those who bother
to attend classes will be failed.
3 credits
WRITING A PHILOSOPHICAL
PAPER
To develop an argumentative
opinion
Notice anything that strikes you as
•highly important,
•puzzling,
•exactly right, or
•drastically wrong
If your opinion
agrees with a point:
•Why?
•The point plays a decisive role in the
argument?
•The point has hidden but important
implications?
•It helps resolve other problems?
If your opinion
disagrees:
•Why?
•Is there a flaw in the reasoning?
•Contrary evidence not taken into account?
•The argument has a contradiction or
mistake?
•The argument has missed a crucial
distinction?
How are you
going to
approach the
topic?
to Analyze
(neither supporting nor
opposing)
•Clarify what the author’s saying
•Find implications
•Show applications
•Show strengths and weaknesses
To Compare/
Contrast
•Draw connections
•Show similarities
•Show differences
•Show where the presuppositions differ
•Show the effects of the differences
To Evaluate
Is it correct?
Why?
•Can you expand to other problems?
•Can you add more evidence?
•Can you amplify/ clarify the reasoning?
To Criticize
•Faulty argument?
•Wrong conclusion?
•Reasoning/ assumptions /premises are
faulty?
Which? Where? Why?
•True in part, false in others?
Which ways true?
What parts false?
“I was thrown out
of NYU:
On my metaphysics
exam, I looked within
the soul of the boy
sitting next to me.”
- Woody Allen