Earlier this semester I commented on polls on facebook, and it was interesting to see the differences between facebook and this particular blog. The differences have been very stark until now. I've found that the best way I've dealt with situations like this is a civil tongue and logical arguments. I always try to maintain a level of dignity when talking about others (even when my grade is not in jeopardy) because it not only says something about your arguments, but your own character. I've been the target of plenty of personal attacks, and when I think about this blog I'm actually a little surprised that this happened. I mean up until this point everything has been civil and constructive (even if antagonistic at times) due to how this blog is set up. I'm usually not one who has a positive outlook on the internet, but this blog seemed different.
I'd have to say that I agree with a lot of what you're saying. One thing I feel is important is that when you want to talk about a specific dog then you would specify. If you don't specify it's not a failure of language, but a failure of the person trying to communicate. Although I'd have to agree with Anthony on transcendental forms and there not being a "perfect dog." Although I have to say I don't agree with Anthony's statement: "even the use of the category is fallacious." I feel that there are certain things all dogs possess, such as they fall within a certain size range, they tend to have elongated snouts, they're mammals, and so on and so forth.
In class I was thinking about this Lover/beloved relationship between a man and a boy and for some reason the unfortunate cases of pedophilia in the clergy strayed into my thoughts. I understand there is a difference between pedophilia and pederasty. I suppose the only similarity is that the Elder seeks out the younger, but if our society was more like a Greek society would these things have happened? I was just wondering if this kind of relationship (assuming a Greek society) proceeded as outlined above would be objectionable (or at least AS objectionable as they are). Just to make it perfectly clear I don't condone pedophilia, but I just thought it was an interesting thought.
I'd have to agree with the conclusion you've drawn. Clearly to an outsider (or possibly the poor Mugabe forcibly removed) see what Mugabe is doing as wrong. Mugabe may believe that what he has done was the right thing to do and his wife might agree. Phaedrus's plan may be great on paper, but I feel like in practice it doesn't work as well as it was planned.
I'm not sure if we can say that a society is "succeeding" except in retrospect. It's a very hard thing to determine in the present because a lot of times things get muddled up with emotion. I feel it's the same way we have to look back years later on presidents to see if what they did had a positive or negative impact upon the world and our country.
I have to agree with Olivia on several points, especially on the intent argument. When sex is an act committed out of love between partners it is a good act. However, when used to cope with various life conflicts and problems I feel it would only cause more problems. I feel that sleeping around isn't a good act because of the dangers you're putting yourself in from disease, pregnancy, or even physical danger (in extreme cases). Additionally I feel that if a girl was just sleeping around she wouldn't be as mindful as to why she is sleeping with a certain man. She may sleep with someone who she would never in their right mind want to be around even for a short period of time (a.k.a. sleeping with the male chauvinist pig).
I feel that a relationship (or relationships among poly amorous individuals) love, respect, and understanding contribute to good sex, while feelings of simply wanting pleasure are bad. As a parting question, is there a time when sleeping around can be done with good intent? I personally can't think of any, but would like to hear more about that.
I think I've mentioned this in one of my other posts, but I don't like the idea doing good just to escape punishment. I have to disagree with Socrates because I personally feel it isn't part of the Good. I'm sure Socrates wouldn't normally say selfishness is part of the Good. But here it's as you said, he's shaming people into acting good. It's what I feel a lot of religions, not only Hinduism, do. They guilt people into doing Good for fear of being punished in a later life. I feel like Socrates is doing something along these lines. I'm not even sure if it's oriented towards the Good if guilt is the method used to convince others to orient themselves towards the Good. I feel this ends up leading towards the discussion earlier about Socrates using Rhetoric himself to achieve his own ends.
I absolutely agree with you here. Your simply playing with the perspective aspect, but what if they are headed towards the Good. Our justifications of "right" and "wrong" are purely based upon our observations (empirical), laws created upon those observations (culture), and in some cases religious texts (religion). If this "twilight zone world" did the same, then who is to say they're not headed towards the Good. Hypothetically "twilight zone world" turned out to have better reasoning than our own, or senses that truly saw the world for what it is, maybe they really are headed for the Good, and we're not. I don't truly believe that they would be on the path to the Good, but I'm not ruling out that it may be possible that being raised in our culture, in this world, in this body, that I could be wrong.
I don't know if a "humility test" is in order. I can't argue with the lack of ethics and openness to correction, but in some cases I feel it's not right to back down. In fact backing down may cause more harm than good. If in WWII had America not joined the war, who knows what fate Europe may have fallen to I would say a worse fate than it currently has. Archelaus commits a number of wrong doings and doesn't ask for forgiveness (470e-471d). I would agree that most of the time humility is in order, so we don't have people in office such as Archelaus.
I have to say that I agree with Socrates in an idealistic manner that, it's worse to cause suffering, then to cause suffering, and finally to suffer (478e). Socrates asks these questions during his discussion of rhetoric and, as always, in a discussion directed towards the Good. Striving towards the Good is a great goal, but how often do we actually perform those acts. Sure Polus may be saying that he'd rather suffer than to cause suffering, but everyone who claims to be a "good" would say that. We can say strive towards the Good, but in actual application we may cause suffering as opposed to accepting suffering. I just feel like that question can not be answered the other way for fear of persecution.
In regards to your comment about are we good for the sake of being good or are we being good because God may be watching, I have to say that I feel that the latter is wrong. I just feel that doing right because God will condemn us isn't part of "becoming Good." I'm not what most people would call religious, but I don't do good because I think God will send me to Hell if I do wrong. When I do good it's because it's something that helps others such as donating blood. I just don't feel that being good should not simply revolve around one's selfish desires. It's like doing charity work because it makes you feel good. Sure you are helping out and doing good, but it's under selfish pretenses. I'm not saying people who do this shouldn't help others out, I just personally feel that others should help out of the goodness of their hearts and not their desire to feel good about themselves. I think that you should want to help someone out from the goodness of your heart and you can feel good about that.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint