"Philosopher-Kings" as "Guardians"

Plato’s ideas about how to best raise the “Guardians” confuse me. What is the point of keeping them from having a family life, for example? How would that help them to become all truth loving and wise? Isn’t it possible that by trying to keep them from knowing love could in some way inhibit them? I can understand why he thinks a lot of personal property and material things might get in the way of becoming all-wise, but how can love? The strangest part of all this isn't that Guardians can't have children, but that they can't have contact with them. The Guardians who are "suitable" for breeding should be organized into "mating rituals", where children are conceived. Then, these children are communally brought up by nurses. The children should not be able to recognize their parents, and the parents should not be able to recognize his or her child. Plato completely defies the very real, psychological need for the bonds between children and parents. That is not only unreasonable and unnatural, but would also severely hurt the child and parents. To keep someone from having a family life at all would be unnatural, and it just doesn't make sense. I see no correlation between being able to fall in love or have a family with the ultimate demise of the "Philosopher-Kings" turned "Guardians". The ability to love and be loved would not impair their ability to find truth and wisdom in their lives. 

The Tripartite of the Soul

Plato believes that there are three parts to the soul, Reason, Spirit, and Appetite. Although I must agree with him that these things are key ingredients to the soul, I cannot help but wonder if that is all there is. So, if these parts are necessary conditions to the soul, are they also sufficient? The authors suggest that "reason, will, non-bodily motivations or drives, emotions, and bodily appetites" (80) are also necessary. I would even go as far as to suggest that the authors themselves left out a crucial part of the human soul, intuition. Everyone has their intuition, their 'gut reaction' to something, our instincts are born with us and die with us and should not, under any circumstances, be ignored. Anyways, if "spirit" is the equivalent of "passion" and "emotion", and "appetite" includes all bodily functions, Then the new list of conditions for the human soul would read Reason, Spirit, Appetite, Will, and Intuition, as I put in. But still, this seems somehow inadequate. Human beings are incredibly complex creatures. How can the human soul be reduced to these five simple things? Are we missing any other parts to this equation? If these parts of the soul are indeed necessary conditions, are they sufficient enough to cover all of humanity? And how do we decide which conditions are sufficient, and which are only necessary? What if a person is somehow psychologically impaired, and this distorts their ability to "reason"? Is "reason" still a component of their soul? How do we know that these things even exist in our souls? What if they exist solely in our minds? Thoughts, anyone? 

Confucius Part 3

I really don't understand why Confucius thinks that just because someone might be a good family member automatically makes them a good citizen, or why a bad family member would make a bad citizen. What is really the correlation between those two things, if any? Confucius states, "It is rare for a man whose character is such that he is good as a son and obedient as a young man to have the inclination to transgress against his superiors." (15) Is that all it means to be a good citizen? To not try to transgress against his "superiors"? What if his "superiors" were wrong? What if they were evil? How is the measure of a good citizen based off of obedience? How often does obedience actually make for a better government, or a better world? And why are all of his quotes about the son obeying his father, being good to his father? Does the son need to do these things for his mother? And what about the daughter? Does she not have to obey or be good to anyone? It is very disappointing to see that Confucius didn't even want to bother with the idea of women in his teachings.

Confucius Part 2

Is it fair for Confucius to ‘invoke God’ when giving his answer to the problems of humanity?  How can people truly follow the “Decree of Heaven” if he didn’t elaborate farther than “benevolence” is a virtue? Is Confucius really offering any practical advice here? Personally, I don't really think so. First of all, as pointed out in class, invoking God in philosophy is basically outright cheating. All of your arguments are based upon one grand assumption which really is simply a matter of what you believe in, and that is just not logical. Then someone suggested that "Heaven" meant a place, but didn't really make reference to God. However, who would be making a "Decree of Heaven" if not God? And even if Confucius didn't mean God, he was still very vague as to what exactly that "decree" was. If people aren't aware of this all-powerful decree, which alone has the power to change the human condition, then how can the condition change? Also, Confucius himself states that humans aren't typically benevolent, the sole virtue of the "Decree of Heaven" that he actually explains. So if people aren't usually benevolent, and it takes years and years of hard work and studying the sages to become benevolent, but then people still don't fully understand the "decree", so the human condition doesn't actually change, then what is Confucius really saying? He has a pretty fair diagnoses of humanity, but then no practical cure for it? Being benevolent, or religious, or wise might be good for an individual, but it isn't going to cure humankind of all its ailments. 

Confucius Part 1

So, I understand that benevolence may be good for governments and society as a whole, but will it really rectify all of the problems of government and society? How so? Is nothing other than benevolence needed to change the world? It doesn't seem possible to me. I think Confucius really over-extends the power of benevolence here. I definitely agree that benevolence in politics could make a huge difference, but it just isn't rational to believe that by simply being kind to one another, the world at large will be cured of all of its problems. As someone mentioned already in class, humans have limited resources and unlimited desires. So, say for example that everyone in our government was benevolent and wanted to feed everyone in Mali, who are also all benevolent. However, it turns out that we don't have enough food to give to them and keep for ourselves, so a lot of people still go hungry. How does benevolence solve world hunger? How does it cure all illnesses? How does it stop an earthquake? I would never undermine the importance of benevolence, but it is obviously impractical and irrational to suggest benevolence as the ultimate cure for all of the problems of the human race. I am almost shocked that Confucius would make such a seemingly radical claim. 

The Philosophy Toolkit

One of the things that really interested me in this toolkit was section "Types of Definition", under "Logical Terms". Until last year I believed there was only one type of definition, but the toolkit mentions four types: lexical, stipulative, theoretical, and persuasive. Lexical definitions are used to clarify something, and are the types of definitions typically found in dictionaries. Stipulative definitions change the meanings for already existing terms. Theoretical definitions try to further the meaning of a term by proposing different hypotheses. Persuasive definitions try to "fix" the meaning of a word rhetorically. Personally, I don't understand the need for all of these definitions. I have always gone by purely "lexical" definitions, and that has always worked well for me. When working in Philosophy, one of the most important things is for everyone to understand the meaning of the terms being used. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to work with the same lexical definitions instead of constantly having to change them, or make up new ones? Stipulative definitions don't seem to make any sense at all; how can one simply up and change the meaning of firmly established terms? That just doesn't seem right. And although I think it's great to try and elaborate further a definition, I don't think the elaboration should count as a new definition itself. And, quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea of what purpose a "persuasive" definition has. What is the real purpose of any of these definitions? Are they truly essential to understanding a term, or is it time to let them go? I stand by the idea that a firm lexical definition is all we really need.

About Myself

Hello, my name is Stacy Alice Fisher and I was born on November 19, 1991 and I'm 20 years old. I am a sophomore here at MCLA and I am currently undeclared, but I'm leaning towards Anthropology/ Sociology for a major and I'm going to minor in Philosophy. I have been interested in Philosophy for as long as I can remember, and I believe it is the fundamentally most important thing a person should study. I am extremely opinionated and have a hard time keeping said opinions to myself. One of the things I have been trying to learn from Philosophy is that everyone has a valid opinion that deserves to be heard, this is a much more difficult lesson to learn than I originally thought. I think there is so much a person can take away from Philosophy if they only open their minds and give it a chance. This is only my second year seriously studying Philosophy, and I have already noticed a big difference in myself and how I perceive the world. When I believe in something, I truly do believe in it with every fiber of my being. This makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone who wishes to change my mind on a particular matter. However, this also means that I am exceedingly impressed with anyone who actually can. I thoroughly enjoy arguing with people, because that is, interestingly enough, how I learn best. I want to see every point on every matter from every direction there is, and listening to other people argue their point, listening to their opponents, and listening to the devil's advocates all help me to further understand a discussion. I simply love a good debate. Well, that's all for now I suppose. Have a great day everybody! :)