The Crito

1. Compare the setting of Plato's Apology to the setting of the Crito. Where does each dialogue take place, how many people are present, and what is the significance of these dramatic details?
2. Some readers think Socrates went along with his execution because he was already old. Would things have been different if he were younger?
3. What made Socrates so attached to Athens, but even more devoted to his way of life that he was willing to die rather than give it up? Is Socrates a martyr either for the Laws of Athens or the cause of philosophy?
4. Crito claims that by suffering an unjust punishment Socrates will play into the hands of his accusers. Why does Socrates counter that his escape would corroborate the jury’s verdict to convict him?
5. Why does Socrates tell Crito that "whatever he suffers from others", one would still not be justified to escape the punishment of the laws and the community of the city Does Socrates' argument that it is wrong to harm even those who do one harm make sense

1. In Plato's Apology the setting was in the court room where many Athens (Athiens) were present. In the Critio, the setting took place in Socrates prison where only him and Crito were present. This is a dramatic detail because both Crito and the Athiens want to look good to the people so they try and convince Socrates the "right" decision to choose. Crito is Socrates friend, who is trying to get Socrates out of this mess, telling him he doesn't deserve the punishment he has recieved. He is trying to get Socrates to see that this is wrong, and by accepting the punishment and not doing anything about it (protesting) is not right. While Athiens convince Socrates he is the bad person corrupting the youth and it's all because of him that people are bad.

2. I don't believe that Socrates went along with his execution becase he was old. He went along with his execution because he was not going to change his opinion, his beliefs and his way of life just because other people didn't accept it or like it. Socrates stood his ground and I think he would have done the same thing if it was 50 years earlier.

3. In the beginning of the Crito, Socrates explains to Crito that even though he may have a good idea in his escape, it is not right. On page 44 Socrates says, "For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have been given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you..." This passage shows that the Athens made him value his life and his beliefs by tricking him to make them look good by killing him.

4. Now that Socrates is getting another point of view of his punishment, he knows that he has been tricked into an unfair death. However, if he asks for another trial and tries to stand up for himself, he will be going against his philosophy.

5. Socrates tells Crito this because he knows that the city is more powerful than anything and he wouldn't stand a chance trying to change their mind. I believe that he does make sense to the point of view on doing harm to those who do harm to you is not right. He explains to Crito he can't do anything about his punishment even though it isn't right, because that's not about his philosophy.

The Apology

Questions:
1.What are the charges against Socrates?
2.What are Socrates' main arguments of defense in regard to each charge?
3.Why does he take such care to avoid securing his own acquittal? He could have begged for clemency, used his wife and children to get a pity vote, offered a reasonable alternative sentencing, promised to behave differently.
4.Is he really an example of a man who lived and died by his own philosophy? Or is he a self-appointed martyr? Are they mutually exclusive?
5.Is there virtue in being a martyr?
6.Do you believe that Socrates believes himself no wiser than any other man? What exactly does he mean by that?
7.And finally, is retaining one's ethical dignity (living by one's principles) worth dying for? For Socrates? For you?

1. Socrates is charged with impiety (lack of recongizing God) and corrupting the young. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

2. Socrates main argument was that he was the wisest of all men because he knew nothing. He describes the knowledge of a poet, a politician and a artisian for the first charge of impiety. For the second charge he interrogates Meletus, who is the man who is mainly responsible for bringing Socrates to the jury. He asks him a series of questions. The interrogation started with the question "You think a great deal about the improvement of youth?" Socrates questions him asking who is the improver of them. Socrates is being accused of corrupting the youth because he is supposively atheist.

3. In the beginning of the Apology he told the readers he will speak in his accustomed manner of honesty and truth. He wants to tell his story and get a message out to all that being honest and telling the truth...!!

4.To me, Socrates seems like he is a person who lives by his own philosophy because of the way he is expressing himself. "Necessity is laid upon me: 'I must obey God rather than man'" (page 24). He preaches in front of everyone his philosophy and the way he must obey God not the Men of Athens on page 23. I think he was a man who lived and died by his own philosophy. I don't think he is a martyr at all. He doesn't suffer death because he talks about religion through the whol Apology. He talks about what he believes and it is God. The two aren't mutually exclusive because he preaches about his philosophy.

5.I think there is some virtue in being a martyr. Sometimes people stand up for what they believe in and if not renouncing their religion means they have to die, then sometimes it is worth it. I can see why it's worth it because to a lot of people religion is more important than life.

6.On page 10 he says: “I went about searching after a man who was wiser than myself: at first among the politicians; then among the philosophers; and found that I had an advantage over them, because I had no conceit of knowledge.” This quote makes me think he wants everyone to think he is equal with everyone else and isn't wiser than anyone else, but his character shows that he does think of himself wiser than most.

7.Yeah!! I think it's everything. Why would someone want to live their life letting other people rule their life? That would be a life not worth living. For Socrates and for me. It is worth dying if a person is standing up for what they believe in.
a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief

Electoral College

The Electoral College should be changed. When voting for president the people should be the main vote not the Electoral College. Since the Electoral College has the overriding of the votes of the people, then why should we even get a chance to vote. I don't think it's fair that one person who may be opposite of his/her state gets to override what the people think. One person should not be in charge of over 50,000 citizens votes, ALL votes should count!

Law & Justice

I pulled this quote out of the article on page 109 because I felt this statement summed up and made the whole article: "Are we not more obligated to achieve justice than to obey the law? The law may serve justice, as when it forbids rape and murder or requires a school to admit all students regardless of race or nationality. But when it sends young men to war, when it protects the rich and punishes the poor, then law and justice are opposed to one another. In that case, where is our greater obligation: to law or to justice?" This quote to me, tells me what Zinn is saying. He is saying that we can either achieve justice or obey the law, but not both. There are so many different ways to go around this statement espcially if people start throwing in different scenerios like the example above. I don't believe there is anyway to come to a peace with law and justice together. He describes in his piece that from the democratic theory, law is only a means. He also describes how obedience and disobedience is an attachment-like to the law and thinks that disobedience could possibly lead to anarchy. I think he describes a great example from history. Zenn questions his readers about the black movement in the South and if that lead to anarchy. As a result, after all the chaos, the country became stronger and "a healthy reconstitution of the social order toward greater justice."

Inherit the Wind

DRUMMOND: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart" (pg 126).

To me, the quote means that if someone is willing to question other people or stand up for what they believe in and not be afraid of getting judged or even shunned for it, they will be more successful then the person who is too afraid to show what they really feel. Inherit the wind means being able to take on any obsticals that may come in one's way.
I think it is a good title for this play because the title is ironic given the circumstance. The title is from Proverbs 11:29, one of the books in the bible. The book talks about how wrong it is to teach evolution in school, which is presented by a religious title found in the bible.

Intelligent Design Is A Science!!!

FIRST ARTICLE
Yes, intelligent design (ID) should be taught in schools. I believe that this course should be manditory at least one year for all students, however if school districts and/or parents aren't okay with this idea, this class should be an option for students. On the 5th page when they talked about teaching ID in California, Casey Luskin stated "Evolution is taught dogmatically—it is one-sided. Students should be taught strengths and weaknesses of evolution." True, evolution (ID) is one-sided to the teacher that is teaching the class. Even if the district had one teacher for the whole school, nation wide, there would be millions of different teachers teaching this one-sided intelligent design class. However, this con should not stop us from teaching this class. Another part in the article is when they talked about that schools cannot teache religion as a science. Yet, they go on saying they can teache religion if the curriculum calls for it (they gave an example of history). For me, I don't see the difference.

(By the way, this was my favorite article so far)!!!

THE ONE PAGE ARTICLE (2nd PAGE ARTICLE)
For me, I think that a lot of people aren't okay with this class (ID) becuase like in the second article stated: "There is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID." I also believe this
"ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry," that they also stated in the second article. This article states a lot of facts pertaining to why a lot of people don't believe that this class should be taught as a science, as well as why it should be.

Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be A Top US Priority?

I started off neutral with the topic. I agreed with some issues that Wittes brought up and some issues that Siegle brought forth. However, after reading the whole article, I began to write and all the things I listed for Wittes were stronger than I had for Siegle. So I agree with Wittes that promoting democracy abroad shouldn't be at the top of our list. However, I don't understand how it is a key part of the war on terrorism. I also believe that the world should have difference in it and by making us all the same with the democracy government, I could see it causing problems.
In the beginning of the packet it said "while a world populated by democracies is likely to be more peaceful than others, a world of countries going through the process of democratization may be more unstable and conflict-prone." I'm not certain which person this would fall under, but my guess would be Wittes and the "NO" argument. I agree with this statement a lot.