List of Plato Essay Titles

Homemade!

1. Describe and critically evaluate Plato's proposed system of government of the ideal polis.

2. In Plato's ideal polis, who are candidates selected to rule? How suitable is this method of selection?

3. What is meant by the 'Principle of Specialization'? How does Plato intent it to function within his society? To what extent do you believe that he is right?

4. What characteristics does the ruler of Plato's idea polis possess? Are these the most important traits for the leader of a state?

5. What model of philosophical activity is presented in Plato's 'Image of the Line'? How well does this model fit your experience of philosophy?

6. According to Plato, what can the Sun be considered a metaphor for? If this comparison effective?

7. Discuss the place happiness takes in Plato's idea polis.

8. Describe dikaiosyne in the ideal polis. Is it possible to be just and happy?

9. How does Plato believe the degradation of society takes place? Is this idea of a hierarchy necessarily true for all societies?

10. What is the place of women in Plato's ideal society?

And the mark scheme:

Expression: Organise ideas, use specific terminology. /5

Knowledge and Understanding: /5

Identify and Analyse: Understand the question, identify and analyse, examples, counter-arguments. /10

Development and Evaluation: Coherence, evaluating ideas, personal response. /10

Imagination

Whilst looking over my notes from last year on the question 'could a machine think?', the vry last question I've raised is 'what makes us different?'. The idea being that if we were gradually replaced be robotic parts, would we notice that we were different? (This has been the subject of many scifi films - the main character discovers that he's actually a robot.) If our brains worked in exactly the same wasy as they always had then I have to admit (grudgingly; I don't want to be the same as a robot!) that we probably could recreate a biological brain one day. This is years and years into the future, though, because even if we knew how, if we were to make a brain as complex as ours it would be absolutely massive and probably still not as fast as a human brain. But, you know, give the scientists a chance, we've had millinos of years of evolution to get this good.

However, this means that we are no better than a robot, really, and that if we say that a robot is simply a symbol-shuffler, we must also be the same. It's an interesting thought, just because I think I'm conscious, doesn't mean I actually am. Maybe a machine will think it's conscious.

But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that there must be something that seperates humans from machines as we now know it. Or, at least, I would like to think there is. Maybe that thing is imagination?

We are assuming that it is possible to create a specific mind electronically. But all of the minds in the world are individual and unique. We wouldn't be able to make a new mind, it would have to be a copy of someone else's. This may be why we feel that we are different in some way to a robot. It can only be a copy whilst we are unique. And our uniqueness gives us something else that we consider a machine to be incapable of - imagiantion. They can only follow established rules whilst we, supposedly, think for ourselves. It is the uniqueness of our minds that allows this to take place.

Organic processes are funny things. I'm not sure that you can recreate every organic process with electronics because the results are so variable. Even in my limited experience, we have used enzymes as catalysts in experiments and we know that the results produce vary dramatically, even though we follow the same method each time.

In a similar way, a mind is formed by an organic process. So maybe machines can think like a human, but until we can recreate the biological process that goes into forming a mind, which I don't know is possible, machines will not be able to think creatively, as they will have to think in the same way as someone else. Imagination due to a unique mind sets us apart from machines.

***

In 50 words news, I fixed Machiavelli's entry and Margie pointed out that I had done Hume twice, so here's a condensed version of him:

Hume
Scottish, 18th Century. Atheist. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. Ethics based on passion, logic irrelevant. Is-ought distinction (Hume’s Law). Miracles explainable. Observable knowledge reliable. Self = illusion. Inductive reasoning bad, one example may prove it wrong (1000 swans are white =/= all swans are white).

More Philosophers in 50 Words

I can post from school!

Machiavelli
16th Century, Italian. He wrote ‘The Prince’. It is acceptable for leaders to use cunning and deceitful tactics in politics, giving rise to the phrase ‘Machiavellianism’. Most believe he promotes evil, others argue it is realistic. Some believe ‘The Prince’ was a satire, as it contrasts with his other work.

Hume
Scottish, 18th Century. Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions. Only observed knowledge is reliable, the self is an illusion that we can’t know. Can’t ever use inductive reasoning as one example may prove it wrong (eg. 1000 swans are white therefore all swans are white).

Rousseau
18th Century, Swiss. Education should teach children to reason. Freedom and reason very important. The will of the general population is stronger than individuals. Obey the ruler, it is a social contract. Through this, one is forced to be free. Purportedly Catholic. Progress corrupts society, making people jealous and competitive.

Bentham
English, 19th Century. Considered as the father of utilitarianism. Wanted to create a complete ethical code. Proposed calculating the moral action by adding happiness using ‘felicific calculus’. We can work out if punishments are good for society. They can be good in the long run, if it reforms your character.

Kierkegaard
Danish, 19th Century. Christian Existentialist. Freedom is important, fought against the Danish National Church in his later years as it doesn’t embody true Christianity. You can’t prove God, you just have to believe. Accept the responsibility of choice. Create your own meaning to life, it doesn’t matter what it is.

"Fake Babies" - IVF

Ahhh, the sweet smell of revision! Full of learning and remembering things! Hooray! Wait a minute, what's this? A list of ethical arguments that we must learn and regurgitate? Urgh, Biology.

Yep, that's Biology. I know it's not a course in Philosophy but it is nevertheless frustrating that we get continually told that we ought to be critically thinking about the issues that are presented to us in all subjects, only to find that we just get told to learn a list. So here I am, retreating from the cold, hard world of facts, into the comforting fuzzy aporia that is Philosophy. I'd just like to have a little rant about a couple of the points raised about IVF.

Against IVF: "Embryologists select embryos to transer to the uterus, so humans are deciding whether new individuals survive or die."

The book is trying to make the point that we mere humans shouldn't be allowed to choose who lives and dies. How terrible is that?! But we do this all the time. What is medicine if not choosing who lives and who dies? Not everyone has access to the same medicine, so effectively we have already chosen who lives and who dies. By choosing who to treat we pick who lives and dies. This is not unusual! The downside to choosing who lives is also to sometimes have to decide who dies. But on balance, we can clearly save more lives than we have to choose to lose, as the hugely increased average lifespan shows.

Against IVF: "IVF is an unnatural process, carried out in laboratories, in contrast to natural conception occuring as a result of an act of love."

This one made me laugh. Whoa, naturalistic fallacy, much? Not everything that is nautral is good and you can't argue that just because something is nautral, it is also good. (Well, according to the textbook you can.) Starvation, death, violence; these things are all natural and very bad. As if that weren't enough, what about accidental teenage pregnancies? Was that as an act of love? Or rape? Definitely not. IVF has the moral high ground over both of these methods of conception.

Against IVF: "Infertility should be accepted as the will of God and it is wrong to try to circumvent it by using IVF to have a child."

You just had to bring religion into it, didn't you? Whenever I build a logical argument, I leave higher beings way out of it because even if you believe in them, if the other person doesn't then you are not going to get your point across. So, the will of God should always be accepted, should it? Then what about other medicines? In that case, if someone is born with cystic fibrosis this is also the will of God and we should just leave them to suffer. If I get a headache I can't take a paracetamol because it is against the will of God. Yes, having IVF to have a baby is a bigger thing than all of these. But the same principles still apply.

I think my biggest problem with religion is the inconsistencies. Some of the stuff that religion does for people is gret, but when it starts to set a bunch of rules made up by different people a really long time ago, you're going to have some issues. Which I think is a pity, because some kind of God isn't an impossibility but religion is just so offputting!

Anyway, I think the poor Biology textbook was struggling a little bit with finding arguments against IVF. Because of the nature of the thing, we have to present a balanced argument, with points on both sides. They had 5 points for IVF so they equally had to come up with 5 against it.

I used to be really against IVF. (Wow, that would be about 4 years ago now!) I used to be swayed by the above silly reasons. Now I understand logic a bit more, I suppose I have completely changed my mind. Which is a weird feeling, like having the floor completely pulled from beneath you. But IVF has the power to bring much happiness and create lives. It's got to be pretty alright, hasn't it?

Philosophers in 50 Words

Here's my revision activity for today: 8 philosophers in 50 words. There will probably be more exercises of this style to come. Like when I think of more philosophers.

John-Paul Sartre

French Existentialist. Used books and plays to communicate. To be moral is to choose. We are always free to make choices. If you deny your freedom, you are in mauvaise foi. Choose independently of others. Never blame others for what happens to you. There is no such thing as fate.

Plato (Republic)

Ancient Athens. Pupil of Socrates, teacher of Aristotle. Used Socrates as a figure in his dialogues. Democracy is terrible. Philosophers should rule. Outlined method of training philosopher kings to rule ideal polis. Forms. Form of Good most important. Art is bad; it’s merely a representation of Forms. Dikaiosyne gives happiness.

Peter Singer

Australian, vegetarian, atheist, utilitarian. We ought to share our wealth around. We should give to the poor until it would cause ourselves to be living in serious poverty. Sentient animals should be treated with respect. Some humans, newborn babies or the disabled, have less right to life than some animals.

John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)

Victorian English utilitarian. On Liberty written with his wife. Public opinion not always right. Stand up against the tyranny of the majority. Laws should not be established that restrict people from expressing their individuality. We are free to do anything, as long as we don’t interfere with other peoples’ freedom.

Immanuel Kant

German, 18^th Century. Categorical imperative. There are some things that are always wrong, in every situation. These can be determined by the golden rule to do only the things that you would wish as a universal law. Lying is always wrong. Never treat people as a means to an end.

David Hume

Scottish, 18^th Century. Atheist, people thought he would repent on his deathbed but he didn’t. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. We make ethical decisions based on passion. Logic is irrelevant. Discussed is-ought distinction (Hume’s Law). Miracles do not occur, they can be explained.

René Descartes

17^th Century, French mathematician and philosopher. I think, therefore I am. It’s the only thing you can know. Perception is unreliable, deduction is better. Wax example: wax is still wax when it’s melted but looks different. Dualist; the mind does not obey the laws of physics. Soul communicates with God.

Karl Popper

20^th Century. Falsification: a scientific conclusion can be proved false by a single example. Scientific theories can’t ever be proven to be true, they are continuous research, even though they may be valuable. We cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, induction is impossible. Believed in dualism and free will.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: Part 1

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

These 3 words can be found plastered all over La Belle France. It seems to be the motto of the French. Where I'm staying, in a little town near Laon, it's on top of the Mayor's office and it can be seen on the Euro. It's quite catchy, but it also epitomises 3 values core to the French. There have been other mottos but this is the one that's survived. Why should this be so? What makes them any more special than the other mottos? Are they applicable to other nations? I therefore present to you, Part 1 of the LEF series:

Liberté

Liberté translates as freedom. (I don't know of any discrepancies in translation; I believe it means pretty much the same as in English.) What are they so keen to be free from? Oppression! This motto supposedly has its origins in the French revolution, which would make sense. Since then the French have been very keen to keep freedom as one of their core values.

It's also in the American Pledge of Allegiance. It seems to me to be pretty universal, as we in the UK also expect freedom of speech, amongst other things. It's something that many people have aspired to. JSM2's On Liberty describes how he believes we should be able to be free in all respects, up until we limit the other people's freedom. In these Western nations, I think freedom is expected like this.

But what about China? They don't seem so free. Some people would say that the one child policy stops the people from being free, but I don't think that's the case. They are still allowed to have more than one child, they just won't be paid child support for it. This means they are still free to have a second child. It's all about choices. Sartre would be screaming mauvaise foi if he heard that people were saying this policy rendered them not free. They are still able to choose; just because they don't like either of the choices presented to them doesn't mean they aren't free.

What about, then, the internet restrictions? Does this make people not free? (What is the opposite of freedom? Repressed? Oppressed?) They aren't free to access the information they might want to, which I would say makes them oppressed.

Sartre: But Alex, they are still free. People are always free, remember? They could move to a different country, if they don't like the rules of China.

Alex: Some of them don't have that option. Some of them might not even know there are more countries out there! Or they may not have the finances to move, as a lot of Chinese are very poor.

[The problem with having a mock dialogue with Mr S is that I have no idea how the Chinese can be considered free in this context. They are pretty much stuck.]

And blimey, what about Nick Griffin? Should we allow everyone to be free, regardless of what they might do? Well, no, because we do lock prisoners up. They still have some rights, but freedom isn't one of them. But this is because they might be a danger to others. This is coming back to JSM2's ideas about liberty. (I maybe ought to get into the habit of explaining these ideas more, but I know what I mean.) We have restricted their freedom in a relatively minor way so that they don't go on to restrict other people's freedom. They have, in a way, forfeited their human right to freedom of certain kinds.

I saw a film once which was about restricting freedom based on future events. (I'm reminded by my brother it was called 'Minority Report'.) Here the crime fighting system is so advanced that they have started to predict who will commit crimes about 36 hours before they happen. In this way, the police can catch the criminals before they commit the crime and imprison them so that they do not happen. (The point of the film was that a man was accused of a murder that he didn't think he was going to do.)

Eventually, in the film the system was discontinued as they found that it was flawed. But is this system 'liberté'? They were accusing people of doing something that they hadn't done yet and restricting their freedom for it, which sounds bad. But they were also saving lives. So is someone's freedom worth more than a life? And in the majority of cases, the prediction was completely accurate. I would say that it's a good system, if you can be completely sure. (Maybe one day we will be completely sure about something!)

On the Nature of Philosophical Activity

I have always wanted to write something with a title beginning with the word 'on'.

I try out philosophical ideas in a similar way to how I try on clothes.* If I come across a new philosophical concept that is interesting and logical, I'll adopt it for a little while. I walk around in it, pondering how it looks from every angle. Is it compatible with the rest of my views? (Can I wear this with my jeans?) Can it withstand the abuse the rest of philosophy can hurl at it? (Is it waterproof?) And, to a certain extent, I step back a little, asking what kind of person it makes me. (Do I really want to be seen in THIS??)

This approach is quite interesting. It means I don't have to sit down for hours at a time, thinking philosophical thoughts. It evolves more naturally and more realistically, as it comes into contact with my everyday life. I develop relevant ideas for my life, which is, I think, one of the reasons philosophy is so important.

Sometimes, though, I realise that I've bought two items of clothing that can't really go in the same wardrobe. Like today, I realised I'd bought a dualist shirt along with a pair of monist jeans. Sartre would have had a right go at me, with my mauvaise foi, believing in both at once. I'll have to take one of them back, but I have no idea which one yet. The rest of the philosophers lean towards dualism, but my gut reaction was monism. I would really like to be a dualist, I think, but I might be too skeptical now. Though I'm currently going through a complete overhaul; I think that I like utilitarianism because it offers a quiet life. But real life isn't like that. Perhaps I like monism for the same reasons; it offers clear-cut physics that works with all the scientific knowledge I have. (Not that I believe all (if any) of that is actually right, but it works with my world view at the moment.) I'll have to keep looking in the mirrors for now to see which one suits me better.

Maybe it makes me seem flighty, but thinking about things gradually works better for me than thinking about them all at once. And gradually, I will become more consistent and maybe one day develop a coherent set of philosophical ideas. Wouldn't that be something?

---------------------------------------

* The biggest weakness in this analogy is the fact that I don't like shopping for clothes much. Philosophy is far more exciting!