Wonderful teaching, I was always impressed by the way you explained things so precisely in your videos, I figured a career in education would fit you well, definitely your talent! I would love to see more lectures.
+95TurboSol Thanks! I tried out filming the lectures for my students while part of the city I live in was shut down and couldn't make it to class. It turns out those files are huge and take forever to upload and render. I'm not sure how I feel about recording the lectures. Perhaps I can include some small focused snippets from lectures I think are particularly interesting in order to garner some interest in the topics.
Epydemic2020 Aww rats, well I can understand that, I run the sound and video at my church and a single sermon is more than 11GB before I render and about 1.5GB after. You could try high quality SD wide screen render settings, for a 30 min video is should run about 300-500MB. That's still kinda big I guess though.
Excellent lecture. Compelling stuff. I would very much like to see more lectures. I felt really challenged in a way I haven't been in a long time. Would it be possible for you to say what the specific works of Plato these examples come from (the Charioteer, Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges, the Cave). I know that the Cave is in the Republic, but I don't know the others and I thought I might read some of that. In any case, thanks for this.
+smcleod420 I am extremely glad you enjoyed it and found it useful. The background for this that my students have is an understanding of the charioteer, a reading of the ring of Gyges, and significant exposure to the allegory of the cave. Some of our conversations about Socrates and his trial (the apology) set us up for understanding Plato. I think the charioteer analogy comes from a dialog called phaedrus (understanding Socrates and why Socrates is okay with dying really helps make the charioteer make sense). Both Glaucon (book 2) and the cave (book 3) are in the Republic.
The actual wikipedia page for the Ring of Gyges has WP's article on the Online Dis-inhibition Effect linked in the "See Also" section. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges#See_also
Kinda takes me back to thinking about the moral argument for the existence of God. Concerning the evil and good twins: Are we really sure that being immoral cannot make one happy in this life? He may care for others in his personal group but the good of all mankind may be a foreign concept to him? Some people are happy doing what others call immoral. If one can get away with evil, truly get away with it I don't really see how it could be evil. Of course... It's only wrong if you get caught. If God exists you will get caught. If God doesn't exist do whatever you want. Whatever makes you happy personally, even if it means stepping on others. If it will make you more happy than not doing it go for it I guess.
Morals are deeper and more significant than Justice and the like. Simply knowing that I or you learned better to respect all human life, to Love the Almighty, can practice decency as well as practice regard for others.Morals can be the saving Graced from a persons darkest spiritual despair. As morals also help other people who see this in you or I. Is catchy. Like I once said a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Another point to make iisa person is not trusted by their friends if they are immoral and deceitful.
No matter what your goal is, acting in whatever way best optimizes it always furthers its achievement at least as effectively than doing so, but restricting yourself from immoral actions. If one did the wrongest possible thing at every opportunity, they would be killed by a SWAT team within hours, but if they acted purely in their self-interest, they would always do the right thing when it was advantageous and the wrong thing when it was advantageous instead. Because they always do the right thing when it is advantageous, the moral person can never gain a lead on them. The oral person advances their own interest no better than they do when the right thing is also the beneficial thing, and advances it less well in all other cases. Therefore, even to Plato, the man who acts selfishly is just as well off as the man who acts morally. Now, I will admit that most people in real life who we consider to be very immoral are more like the person killed by the SWAT team than like the person who always acts in their self-interest. The right thing is usually also the beneficial thing, as the immoral course of action often entails punishment and people often think they will get away with more than they will, and often have to sacrifice other things to get away with it even if they do. However, assuming a person makes no strategic mistakes, they are better off being totally amoral.
+ThePuppyTurtle 27:12 a very similar question comes up and then I offer up Plato's answer. Plato does not think amorality is the way to go, he thinks that maximum benefit for us involves a commitment to goodness. Evil acts, even if we get away from it, are harmful.
Epydemic2020 If the evil acts are harmful, the rational person would avoid them. I guess what I'm really arguing is that if you act morally purely because you think it will keep your soul in harmony, you're not being authentically moral. You're more intelligent than a murderer, but you're no better of a person.
+ThePuppyTurtle Plato believes the rational people do avoid them. As Socrates says, all wrongdoing is due to ignorance. I'm not so sure Plato does moral things in order to have a soul in harmony, but the act of doing moral things has the consequence of a soul in harmony. The pursuit of reason (which is his real goal and perhaps the purpose of mankind in his view) necessarily leads to both a soul in harmony and to moral behavior.
+ThePuppyTurtle Unless of course the game is rigged and all immoral acts will be punished. Personally, if evil has no punishment, I don't see how it can be truly evil. I might not like some actions, but if it worked out for him and he has no regrets (or he believes what regrets he has are less pain than if he had not done the evil).... how can I argue that he was wrong for doing it?
+Jacob Hood I agree with your third sentence (that it's -potentially- utterly hopeless to try to argue, sometimes). But I don' agree with the second one. Suppose someone declares that they are the arbiter of what is good and what is bad and dishes out punishment for wrongdoings. In what sense has now an evil action become _truly_ evil? Suppose said authority's moral code is antithetical to yours (like a cruel anti-god). Or it's completely arbitrary from your point of view (like, not eating a hotdog on friday is evil, but so is eating it on any other day). Suppose you find the punishment completely excessive. Or on the other hand inadequate. Or what the authority declares punishment for wrongdoings you find to be arbitrary. Or actually even pleasant. Suppose any combination of the previous options, and then multiply that by the variety of opinion which does or could in theory exist among people. What does _truly_ evil mean in the real world, and what does it mean in those scenarios?
Wonderful teaching, I was always impressed by the way you explained things so precisely in your videos, I figured a career in education would fit you well, definitely your talent! I would love to see more lectures.
+95TurboSol
Thanks!
I tried out filming the lectures for my students while part of the city I live in was shut down and couldn't make it to class. It turns out those files are huge and take forever to upload and render. I'm not sure how I feel about recording the lectures. Perhaps I can include some small focused snippets from lectures I think are particularly interesting in order to garner some interest in the topics.
Epydemic2020 Aww rats, well I can understand that, I run the sound and video at my church and a single sermon is more than 11GB before I render and about 1.5GB after. You could try high quality SD wide screen render settings, for a 30 min video is should run about 300-500MB. That's still kinda big I guess though.
More!
Plato is very interesting to learn about. I had fun learning about him.
Nice lecture, it inspires me to read some plato today.
I Love the way you explain PLATO. Nicely done!!
THANKS! :D
Excellent lecture. Compelling stuff. I would very much like to see more lectures. I felt really challenged in a way I haven't been in a long time. Would it be possible for you to say what the specific works of Plato these examples come from (the Charioteer, Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges, the Cave). I know that the Cave is in the Republic, but I don't know the others and I thought I might read some of that. In any case, thanks for this.
+smcleod420
I am extremely glad you enjoyed it and found it useful.
The background for this that my students have is an understanding of the charioteer, a reading of the ring of Gyges, and significant exposure to the allegory of the cave.
Some of our conversations about Socrates and his trial (the apology) set us up for understanding Plato.
I think the charioteer analogy comes from a dialog called phaedrus (understanding Socrates and why Socrates is okay with dying really helps make the charioteer make sense).
Both Glaucon (book 2) and the cave (book 3) are in the Republic.
I read a lot of this years ago. Thanks for the shot in the arm.
The actual wikipedia page for the Ring of Gyges has WP's article on the Online Dis-inhibition Effect linked in the "See Also" section. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges#See_also
+ThePuppyTurtle
Interesting.
Kinda takes me back to thinking about the moral argument for the existence of God.
Concerning the evil and good twins: Are we really sure that being immoral cannot make one happy in this life? He may care for others in his personal group but the good of all mankind may be a foreign concept to him? Some people are happy doing what others call immoral. If one can get away with evil, truly get away with it I don't really see how it could be evil.
Of course...
It's only wrong if you get caught.
If God exists you will get caught.
If God doesn't exist do whatever you want. Whatever makes you happy personally, even if it means stepping on others. If it will make you more happy than not doing it go for it I guess.
Morals are deeper and more significant than Justice and the like. Simply knowing that I or you learned better to respect all human life, to Love the Almighty, can practice decency as well as practice regard for others.Morals can be the saving Graced from a persons darkest spiritual despair. As morals also help other people who see this in you or I. Is catchy. Like I once said a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Another point to make iisa person is not trusted by their friends if they are immoral and deceitful.
Someone is said to be moral by practicing and preaching morality.
No matter what your goal is, acting in whatever way best optimizes it always furthers its achievement at least as effectively than doing so, but restricting yourself from immoral actions.
If one did the wrongest possible thing at every opportunity, they would be killed by a SWAT team within hours, but if they acted purely in their self-interest, they would always do the right thing when it was advantageous and the wrong thing when it was advantageous instead. Because they always do the right thing when it is advantageous, the moral person can never gain a lead on them. The oral person advances their own interest no better than they do when the right thing is also the beneficial thing, and advances it less well in all other cases.
Therefore, even to Plato, the man who acts selfishly is just as well off as the man who acts morally.
Now, I will admit that most people in real life who we consider to be very immoral are more like the person killed by the SWAT team than like the person who always acts in their self-interest. The right thing is usually also the beneficial thing, as the immoral course of action often entails punishment and people often think they will get away with more than they will, and often have to sacrifice other things to get away with it even if they do.
However, assuming a person makes no strategic mistakes, they are better off being totally amoral.
+ThePuppyTurtle
27:12 a very similar question comes up and then I offer up Plato's answer.
Plato does not think amorality is the way to go, he thinks that maximum benefit for us involves a commitment to goodness. Evil acts, even if we get away from it, are harmful.
Epydemic2020 If the evil acts are harmful, the rational person would avoid them.
I guess what I'm really arguing is that if you act morally purely because you think it will keep your soul in harmony, you're not being authentically moral. You're more intelligent than a murderer, but you're no better of a person.
+ThePuppyTurtle
Plato believes the rational people do avoid them. As Socrates says, all wrongdoing is due to ignorance.
I'm not so sure Plato does moral things in order to have a soul in harmony, but the act of doing moral things has the consequence of a soul in harmony. The pursuit of reason (which is his real goal and perhaps the purpose of mankind in his view) necessarily leads to both a soul in harmony and to moral behavior.
+ThePuppyTurtle Unless of course the game is rigged and all immoral acts will be punished. Personally, if evil has no punishment, I don't see how it can be truly evil. I might not like some actions, but if it worked out for him and he has no regrets (or he believes what regrets he has are less pain than if he had not done the evil).... how can I argue that he was wrong for doing it?
+Jacob Hood I agree with your third sentence (that it's -potentially- utterly hopeless to try to argue, sometimes).
But I don' agree with the second one. Suppose someone declares that they are the arbiter of what is good and what is bad and dishes out punishment for wrongdoings. In what sense has now an evil action become _truly_ evil?
Suppose said authority's moral code is antithetical to yours (like a cruel anti-god). Or it's completely arbitrary from your point of view (like, not eating a hotdog on friday is evil, but so is eating it on any other day).
Suppose you find the punishment completely excessive. Or on the other hand inadequate. Or what the authority declares punishment for wrongdoings you find to be arbitrary. Or actually even pleasant.
Suppose any combination of the previous options, and then multiply that by the variety of opinion which does or could in theory exist among people.
What does _truly_ evil mean in the real world, and what does it mean in those scenarios?