Augustine: Political Writings

This specific experpt covers a broad topic between Christian faith and human reason. He starts off by citing Socrates' explanation of the "ultimate good" as that of which one works towards and makes happy upon attaining it. But, this vague explanation does not specify what good humans should indeed work towards, whether it be pleasure or virtue. It is the desiring for something in its own sake that makes it its own end that is most good.
The idea of demons is then entertained. These intermediate creatures are supposed to be placed higher than humans because of their human errors they claim in their own divine honor. They are the ones that try and lead humans astray, but it is the humans that disgracefully indulge in observing their crimes as their worship, and that is where they are led off the correct path.
The concept of the mind and change is also brought up. In concern with the mind, the philosophers distinguished between the body and the mind as separate things. While discussing God, it is noted that if the mind is of the same nature as God, how can God be material, which would also make him in the confines of space and time? It is the soul that is given to us by the creator, and it is only the body that changes the soul. It cannot change itself just as the flesh cannot harm itself, only the body can do that (p. 62). Simply put, all things that exist that are able to change can do so and only exist through Him who simply exists.
The next part is a cry for Christians to "beware of philosophers who decieve in the seduction of the elements of this world." To recognize God is to not pride yourself in the wisdom that is not yours. There was also a warning against magic as being impious and punishable.
The letters from Augustine to certain city leaders was the most intriguing though. In his first letter, Augustine asks Nectarius how he can love his city so much that he wants to leave when it is finally blossoming. Augustine continues and says that because he has no Christiandom within his city walls that he cannot be taught the correct morals and ideals to love his city so. His second letter concerns that of retaliation. He explains that one should not return evil with evil, even within the rights of war, that "choosing to overlook rather than punish wrongs recieved" is praisworthy and what great cities are built upon. The only way to do this is to practice patience as strongly as possible and to wait out a wrongdoer until he sees the light of what he has done. What I say to this is that is this really plausible in today's world? An obvious example is that of 9/11. We were most horrendously acted upon and was our retaliation wrong? Terrorists came into our country and killed thousands of people and from these letters it is said we were supposed to turn the other cheek and just simply ask why they did us wrong and that is it. I believe that our retaliation was very justified. We had never really seen such patriotism until this happened to us and the love for our country was very prominent. Maybe that is were Augustine would have like us to stop, just to love our country, but we had to make a stand against such a modern day of warfare that has no limits and so many faces.

Death to the Heretics!

The A Team Calls for Socrates' and Antigone's Death

• Historical perspective of the polis as an authority for good and evil
• Both chose to die
• Although claiming to adhere to divine law, neither does
• Both of them knew the consequences of their actions (death) and willingly chose it
• Importance of following the law
• Each committed serious offenses

A Plea for More Creative Titles

Somehow, a title which simply refers to the title of the dialogue that we are reading just does not titillate the potential reader. Or me, an actual reader. So I make this plea for more creative, specific, mysterious titles.

Antigone

Antigone believes she must act justly according to what is divine rather than abiding by laws that are ostensibly just in Thebes even though she is a woman. Her femininity does not limit her capacity to judge what is right or cloud her understanding of the will of the gods. While Ismene cannot separate herself from the conventions of being a woman and submitting to the decries of Creon, Antigone’s pride and familial bonds lead her to an action that sets a series of tragic deaths in motion that is caused by the wrath of the gods.

Antigone tries to convince Ismene to follow her and give their brother a proper burial at the beginning of the play, but Ismene’s “nature” does not allow her to “take arms against the city” (4). She is shocked at her sister’s suggestion because Ismene is submissive and does not act outside of the law, and because she has seen most of her family members kill themselves or each other recently and does not want to lose her last sister for going against the law (3). Ismene trusts that Creon is doing what is just because he is a man and the leader, even though that means Polyneices won’t have peace in death. She doesn’t have the faith and pride that allow Antigone to understand what is just. Antigone trusts her knowledge that it is important to please the gods and strive toward what is truly just because the afterlife is more lasting and important than life on earth.

Ismene also talks about how she does not have the strength to go against authorities, she says that she is “held back by force” (3) and thinks that the dead will understand her dilemma, that it is not her place to insure a rightful burial for her brother. Antigone counters that argument by saying that Ismene can “be the way [she] chooses” (4) and that she will honor her family and the gods by burying her brother. Antigone’s pride and self-assurance allow her to distinguish what is right and act boldly.

Creon’s pride and false impression that he understands what is divinely right without consulting the gods or trusting their messenger is a destructive force in the play. He faults Haemon for trying to save Antigone because she is a woman, and her actions cannot possibly represent the will of the gods (33) which leads to Haemon and Eurydice’s suicides. It takes Creon longer to come to terms with Tiresias’ predictions because he does not want to admit he was wrong, and rewarding Antigone and Polyneices’s disobedience would send a bad message to the community. However, Creon’s excessive pride compromised his ability to understand and carry out what the gods wanted.

Crito

Once Socrates is convicted he is sent to jail to be executed. Socrates is confined to his cell for thirty days before his execution because a ship has set sail on a sacred mission. Thus all executions must wait till the ship returns. Before the ship returns Socrates friend, Crito comes to break him out of jail and bring him to another country. A series of arguments precedes the dialogue, which helps unveil Socrates’ voice of reason.

Crito opens the argument by saying the majority of the people would agree that it is just to escape. Socrates feels Crito is using argument by ad populum. To Socrates this is a fallacy because he believes by having the majority population on your side does not justify between what is right or wrong.

We all are aware of the obvious arguments: live rightly, never do wrong, keep agreements and its wrong to break laws. I feel all these arguments are crucial to Socrates’ ideology. But one argument Socrates should have brought up to Crito is the aspect of being human. As we learned being a human has certain qualifications. Interacting and functioning within society is key to being a human. The right to personality, belief, reason, and socio economic status separates us from our biological being thus making us human. Socrates life was society; he brought inspiration into young minds and held open seminars in courtyards spreading his brilliance. If he were to flee from prison he would have no purpose. He would be an outlaw and a hermit, therefore no longer being a human. I feel this would be the most persuasive argument and would help Crito understand Socrates’ voice of reason. Socrates would rather be dead then not be apart of society.

Phaedo

Before delving deeply into the discussion of death and wisdom, the Phaedo starts with a preliminary discussion on suicide. When Socrates says that a “worthy” philosopher must look favorably toward the prospect of death (p. 120 c), the discussion turns to the moral question of suicide. The logic is: if death is better than life, such as in the case of a philosopher (reasons discussed in the following paragraphs), why not end life and expedite a superior existence. Socrates, however, explains that suicide is unholy and shouldn’t be carried out on the grounds that the self is a possession of the gods (p.121b). To commit suicide is to destroy what belongs to the gods. Consequently, Socrates claims, we must wait for the Gods to send some necessary event, such as the one in which he is, to bring death about (p.122 c).

As mentioned, the relationship between death and wisdom are at the heart of the first part of the Phaedo. Now that Socrates’ execution is imminent, with the aid of his friends, he examines how death will benefit his quest for truth and wisdom. At this point, several key premises are worth noting: first, there must be an afterlife. Second, the soul alone (free from the body (p.124 c)) will gain admission to the afterlife. Lastly, wisdom lies in the realm of the soul, as appose to the tangible mind – the brain.

Socrates explains that the body is a hindrance to wisdom. Therefore, in life the truth essentially cannot be unearthed. Through the senses, he argues, we are misled from the truth. For example, there is neither certainty nor accuracy in sight, hearing, feeling and so forth (p.126 c).

Socrates welcomes death as the culmination of his lifelong philosophical pursuit for wisdom (p.124 a) because in mortality wisdom in all its purity could be found (p.129 b). In this sense some say that a “philosopher has one foot in the grave.” Socrates, however, objects to the premise held by those who claim such a notion. These people, he asserts, assume that avoiding pleasures such as food, drink, and sex has no higher purpose. For the philosopher, on the other hand, this undertaking is most essential to “freeing and separating” the soul from the body, to the degree possible, for the purpose of preparing for the afterlife. (p.129 a).

Next, Socrates claims that the soul can reason (p.126 c). But here I wonder, how this is so? Isn’t reasoning a deductive process that first requires a collection of data and then a weighing of the evidence in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis? If that’s the case, then how does the soul collect evidence when it lacks senses (“data collectors”)? Following our class discussion on Friday, I can think how this juncture in the Phaedo might lead to Socrates’ theory of the eidos…

Crito

Throughout "Crito," Socrates continually must justify himself and his reasons for not attempting to escape the prison he is being held captive in. Despite his friend Crito's constant insistence that he flee from captivity and find refuge in a neighboring country. However, Socrates always has an answer to Crito's arguments and counters each one. Specifically, Socrates explains to Crito that he cannot disobey the Laws that landed him in this situation, because in doing so, he would in fact go against everything he stood for and everything he defended in his defense during his trial.

The Laws act as a major theme in the Crito. It is based upon these Laws that socrates bases his reasons on why he cannot escape imprisonment. On page 93, near d, Socrates sums up why he cannot disregard the Laws by stating he has undertaken the deed of playing the role of citizen and would be compared to the "lowest slave" if he in fact decided to flee. The text also states that Socrates would achieve nothing by escaping because the stigma of a law breaker will attach to him where he goes (94). This, to Socrates is what finally determines his decision to stay. Socrates is very self-righteous and has much dignity and doesn't want to risk his reputation and be looked upon as one who breaks the law. Especially after everything he explained in the previous texts of "Euthyphro" and the "Apology" concerning the fact that he was brought into court on false premises.

After all, like Amer put it, two wrongs in fact do not make a right and Socrates would be doing an unjust deed by escaping, despite being thrown into prison on unjust terms. I can understand Socrates position. He is very proud and obviously to him, his pride was worth more than his life. He also does this for the sake of his friends and family, which is also another respectable reason. Finally, Socrates really comes right out and says why he doesn't want to escape; that is because he doesn't want to confirm the verdict of the jurors. He goes on to ask would life really be worth living, knowing everywhere he'd go he would be considered a breaker of the laws (94, b-c).

Although it is kind of hard to understand why he would choose death, when the option of escape is there, but he makes it hard to disagree with his reasons. After all he supports all of his conclusions with logical and coherent reasons. Socrates is an overall stand up guy and he keeps it real. Hard to disagree at all with perhaps one of the most wisest figures in all of history.

Crito

Following "Euthyphro" and "Apology", Plato's "Crito" is a crucial scene that takes place in Socrates' prison cell in Athens. After Socrates was found guilty for two crimes against the state, he was sentenced to the ultimate punishment of death. "Crito" begins with Socrates' friend Crito presenting Socrates with a generous yet daring proposal. 

 

Crito brings to Socrates' attention a way to escape prison, and be sent into exile in order to save his life. Crito and Socrates become entangled in a vigorous debate between whether this action would be just or unjust. Socrates firmly believes that it is just to abide by the ruling of the state. He believes this because he feels that if he allows himself to be smuggled out of prison he would be breaking the law. By doing this, he would go against everything that he associates himself with, because he would be committing an unjust act. His entire defense was built upon the fact that everything he was doing was just, therefore by committing an unjust act now would tarnish his reputation to himself. Socrates' mindset is represented when he states, "One must not even return injustice when one is wrong," (88, 50C). Although Socrates views that he was unjustly sentenced to death, escaping his sentence would in fact be unjust in itself, therefore he must stay and accept the punishment. What Socrates is doing can be related to the old saying that "two wrongs do not make a right".

 

Crito arrives to Socrates' jail ceil with the intent to persuade him to exercise the escape arrangements. As the two debate whether it would be just or unjust for Socrates to escape, Crito remains content with going along with the escape, believing it is in fact just. Crito presents many reasons for Socrates to do so, but his main arguments state that if Socrates stays and accepts his punishment then his punishers would succeed in their unjust acts, which would ultimately be unjust. In addition, Socrates would be acting unjustly allowing himself to leave his sons behind to live without the aid of a father and the knowledge he would have to offer and teach them. 

After this reading excerpt, I have come to the conclusion that Socrates is a very respectable man. He has his beliefs, and he does not deviate from them. He is a man that is willing to die for his cause. He clearly does not let others influence his opinions unless they are proven factual.

Apology

Following Euthyphro comes the Apology. The stage is set for Socrates to defend himself against the charges put forth against him and a chance to clear his name. The charges facing Socrates are "corrupting the youth" and his "disbelief in the God's." Contrary to the title Apology, Socrates is not apologetic at all; he is in fact defending himself and his ways. Instead of swallowing his pride and dignity by pleading for his life, he boldly explains the motives behind his way of living.

From the start Socrates tries to explain this "wisdom" that is responsible for his reputation.He goes on about his friend Chairephon's trip to see the Oracle. At this meeting the Oracle states that no man has more wisdom then Socrates. After hearing this, Socrates made it his mission to question men who were known for their great wisdom. After meeting with numerous of these acclaimed "men of reason" he came to a conclusion, "At any rate it seems that I am wiser then he to a small extent, that i do not think that i know what i do not know."(Plato D45) He realizes that after meeting with these men that they in fact do not know much about anything, they only think they do. It becomes clear to Socrates that he is more wise then these men because instead of making up lies to cover up his lack of wisdom, he just admits that he does not know anything. this is where i realized the extent of Socrates boldness. Aside from mopping the floor with Meletus and making him look like a fool or his faulty accusations, he does something on a larger scale with a much bigger risk. These men that he is indirectly calling "fakes" are the very same people who make up the court and the jury. They have Socrates life in their hands and he is standing in front of the entire court practically calling them fools after he just called their bluff. I could almost imagine the jury-men's faces getting redder with anger by the minute. They all must have all had the idea of Socrates begging and pleading for his life in front of the court, but they were sorely mistaken.

After the jury deliberates, they find Socrates guilty and to be put to death. This is where the jury expected to receive a sense of closure and justice but Socrates does not allow this. Socrates does not kick and scream when he receives is sentence, he accepts his fate with a few final words. He lets the men of the jury know that even though he is being put to death now, they all will face a far worse fate, "When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by Truth herself of depravity and injustice. And they accept their sentence even as I accept mine.'(Plato 39b) He even goes as far as almost threatening the men with their own fate, "I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful then you're killing of me."(Plato 39c) If this was not enough he speaks confidently about death and that regardless of where he ends up he will be content. He explains that he will be happy with either of the possible outcomes, eternal slumber of residing with the fellow dead.

After reading I started to think of who really won this trial. Yes, Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death, but did he really lose? From the start to the finish of his defense he preaches his beliefs while at the same time indirectly mocking the men of the court. Even when he was sentenced to death he did not lose an ounce of dignity, he took it confidently. By doing this he stripped the court of any celebration, and left them off to think about their now doomed fate. In my eyes Socrates is the winner, but with the God's on your side could you really lose?

On Plato's "Apology"

Central to Plato’s Apology is Socrates’ perception of piety, and how such a perception clashes not only with that of the jury but also with that of the Athenian public. To Socrates, “piety” is not necessarily synonymous with the traditional, dogmatic values of the city. Instead, he defines piety in whatever terms his interior—his “sign” (70)—suggests. Socrates refers to such a “sign” several times in the text (also calling it a “prophetic voice” (68)), but explains what he means by such a term only once, on page fifty eight: “I am subject to a divine…experience…it began in my early childhood—a sort of voice which comes to me…” It is important to note that Socrates uses the word “divine” to describe the processes of his conscience—his use of the word “divine” implies that every choice he makes in accordance with his “sign” is sanctioned by the gods. He uses such a justification as proof that has not committed “anything unjust or unholy” (59). Although he has gone against the wishes of society at large (and is consequently indicted for such action), he, in an ethical sense, has done nothing wrong, nothing “impious” (59).

Nonetheless, it is clear, according to his accusers, that Socrates is on trial because he “[corrupts] the young” (48) and “disbelieves in gods altogether” (51). Socrates responds to such allegations with an anecdote, recounting a choice he made when he served on the city’s “Council” (59). He mentions that every member of the “executive” (59) decided to try the accused “en bloc,” which “was illegal, as [the members of the Council] recognized later,” while he was “the only member” who opposed “acting in any way unconstitutionally” (59). Socrates voted against the proposal, in the face of denunciation and arrest. The reason Socrates provides for making such a choice is that he “thought it was [his] duty to face it out on the side of law and justice rather than support [the majority]” (59)—Socrates was able, in his anecdote, to make the distinction between the often flawed justice of men and the always, “eternally good” (57) justice of the gods. Naturally, voicing a view that is inconsistent with that of society (or, in the case of Socrates’ anecdote, the “Council”) poses a threat to such a society’s stability. Nonetheless, Socrates does so—in spite of the apparently purveying Athenian idea of groupism—because he is following his own interpretation of divine law.

Thus, the reason why Socrates “[incurs] a great deal of bitter hostility” from his fellow Athenians is not because he is disregarding what is “holy,” but rather because he disregarded society’s definition of “holy.” He reconciles such inconsistencies by suggesting that “the true champion of justice…must necessarily confine himself to a private life and leave politics alone” (58), implying that, as humans, it is virtually impossible for us to agree on absolute definitions of justice and piety. It is in this way that Socrates is perhaps suggesting that a purely democratic society is destined for failure—in the eyes of Socrates, “humanity” is inextricably interwoven with individual thought, and, consequently, disagreement. If the basis of a harmonious democratic society is absolute agreement and a conspicuous absence of conflict, then what is means to be democratic is inconsistent with what it means to be human.

Euthyphro

Euthyphro is a reading that concerns a discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates. Both Euthyphro and Socrates are involved with the law, Euthyphro is a prosecutor and Socrates is a defendant for his respective case. Euthyphro is respected among many in the state, most importantly he is respected by those that are in power. He is a wise man, just like Socrates, except Socrates has more of open-minded view on issues which is why he is in court. Socrates believes in the Gods that the ancient Greek society worshiped, but he was a man that questioned things in an aim to find the ultimate truth. Euthyphro on the other hand did not question the way things worked, he just accepted them as they were.

As the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro prevailed, Socrates believed that if he understood Euthyphro's wisdom then he had a greater chance in being victorious in his court case. More specifically Socrates was being targeted as unholy, and he wanted to understand from Euthyphro what the difference was between holy and unholy. Everytime Euthyphro would give Socrates an explanation of what the difference was, Socrates would always find a way to question his explanation. This is because Socrates wanted to comprehend what qualifies something as holy or unholy, not simply what is or isn't holy. Eventually, the best explanation that was said was that something is holy only because gets holy. Just like something can not be seen unless it gets seen first; ideas can not be true just because somebody said they are true. A quote that best represents this is when Socrates explains, "I mean that if something is coming to be so or is being affected , then it's not the case that it gets to be so because it's coming to be so, but that it's coming to be so because it gets to be so; nor that it gets affected because its being affected, but that it's being affected because it gets affected," (pg 21). This quote represents the meaning of the Euthyphro reading because it clearly cultivates Socrates's point of view that concepts can't just be holy or unholy.

Also Socrates made a great point that Euthyphro's views seemed to shift as the conversation between the two developed. Euthyphro was no longer dead set on his beliefs, but was switching back and forth of how to answer the questions that Socrates posed. For example Euthyphro said that prosecuting a criminal for murder or sacrilegious was holy, later changing his defition of being holy to having gratification to the Gods in order to pray to receive something from them too.

Euthyphro-Plato

Euthyphro is a dialogue written by Plato in 399 B.C. It takes place outside a courthouse named King Archon’s Court in Ancient Greece. The story revolves around two men named Euthyphro and Socrates. As we all know, Socrates is a world renowned philosopher and writer, but in 400 B.C. being a philosopher can be a very dangerous job. Without guaranteed freedom of speech and with all the controversial questions that Socrates asked back then it’s easy to see why Socrates is at the courthouse; he is being charged with impiety by the Athenian Government.

Euthyphro, on the other hand, is at the court house for another more interesting matter. He is trying to prosecute his own father for murder. Here’s the situation; Euthyphro’s father captured, bound, and gagged a worker that murdered a slave on the island of Naxos. While he waited to hear from the “religious enforcement” in the area about the punishment, the murderer (who was gagged and bound in a ditch); wound up dieing after being exposed to the elements for to long. Socrates is amazed that Euthyphro (a man who had no relationship or assimilation to anybody in the situation but his father) would bring up such serious charges against his own kin. The part that’s even more bizarre is the fact that Euthyphro is actually going against Athenian Law, only the relatives of the dead can bring up murder charges. Why would a man go so far out of his way to bring up murder charges against his own father? Why doesn’t Euthyphro just let the relatives of the deceased take care of it?

Socrates is extremely intrigued by Euthyphro because of his confidence in religious and ethical matters. To make things even more interesting Euthyphro also claims to be a “religious expert”. Naturally if you’re going on trial for impiety wouldn’t you want to learn from a religious expert? The main argument starts when Socrates asks Euthyphro, what is Piety? (Piety is reverence for god or devout fulfillment of religious obligations) When Socrates finds the definition of piety from Euthyphro he can use his new knowledge to defend himself during his trial, but first he needs a clear “universally true” definition that works in all situations and scenarios. In total Euthyphro gives Socrates five unsatisfactory definitions.

Every time Euthyphro tries to define “piety” Socrates outsmarts him and shoots down his definitions. The reason why Euthyphro is unsuccessful is because his definitions are either examples, they aren’t “universally true”, or they aren’t correct. For example, in Euthyphro’s second definition he says piety is what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates disagrees with this statement because the gods can disagree about what is pleasing to them. If one god disagrees with another on what’s pious, then wouldn’t that make something both pious and impious at the same time? Throughout the rest of the dialogue Socrates uses techniques like this to shoot down Euthyphro and eventually the “religious expert” walks away with excuses, frustration, and anger.

United Nations’ “Declaration of Human Rights” (1948)

My blog posting will address two separate issues: first, the status of human rights in the first sentence of the Preamble (71); and second, the qualification of entitlement in the first part of the Article 2 (72).

I find this first sentence of the Preamble perplexing. The emphasis in this first sentence is on “recognition,” since everything hangs on it. This recognition is the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (71). But is there a difference between the recognition of the “inherent dignity” of the human person and that “dignity” itself? What constitutes “recognition” of that dignity? I would surmise that it means the legal and political recognition, i.e. by legal, political institutions, and not the recognition of John Q. Public, private citizen. But if recognition is separate from that dignity, I question if there is such a dignity and what its basis is. Is the recognition of that dignity what constitutes that dignity? Such dignity is a lovely thing for two individuals to speak about on a summer afternoon, but that conversation means little in comparison to the legislative and judicial actions bearing on that dignity. The latter is what matters for the UN.

However, I think we can come to the following agreement: that this statement in the preamble could be construed as the conclusion in the argument the Declaration advances. In other words, even seemingly innocuous political documents like this Declaration make arguments and therefore require reconstruction. The question is, what are the premises affirming this conclusion. I’ll leave that to you all, or our classroom conversation.

The second issue I wanted to raise concerned the meaning of the phrase “or other status” at the end of the first sentence of Article 2. We might ask who is the “everyone” being granted in this sentence, but the answer to that question comes in what follows, by the characteristics of what it means to be a human—we’ll address this concretely in class on Friday. But when the authors write “or other status” that seems troublingly ambiguous. For example, does this other status include an individual’s judicial condition? A person guilty of a crime and imprisoned, or worse, on death row for a crime, both imprisonment and the eventual death sentence are infringements upon an individual's human rights. And let’s consider the cases in which this would be truly problematic, such as that of war crimes. Even if “other status” does not include war criminals, it would seem that they would be covered by “political distinction,” since all agents in wars are acting for political causes.

This turns me back to the first question. What is the status of these rights? Are they something that should be recognized, as a kind of ideal goal for the international community?