Blog #11: "Crito vs. Socrates"

To be plain and simple, I agree with Socrates. While Crito started with a few good arguments, Socrates answered them with many more, and to a greater extent. When looking at the dialogue, it's clear that Socrates had much more to say, as he had probably one hundred words to Crito's one. Also, when Socrates convinced Crito that he should remain in his cell, awaiting his death sentence, he also convinces the reader. Crito wanted to break out Socrates because he wanted Socrates to think that his friends and followers actually cared about him, and that it would make the public's view of them bad if they did nothing to try to save him. Socrates answered with the “Don't care what others think of you” response, but took it one step further to say that the only opinions worth anything are those from officials, because they have the power to change things. Everyone else will merely hold you back from your true potential.

Finally, Socrates stated that if it was just and “legal” for him to escape, he would follow Crito, but because it was not, he was bound by the Laws of Athens. These were the foundations of their society, and breaking one of the laws, would be the same as breaking all of the laws, which Socrates couldn't do because he would be exiled from the society.

The amount and certainly the depth of Socrates' arguments forces me to choose his point of view over that of Crito's. I'm not saying that Crito didn't try, he just wasn't a fair match for Socrates.

The Law and Justice packet relates closely to this situation. On one hand, the law, or the death sentence that Socrates has received, is the concrete ruling. It is uniform for all people, and is generally formed in the best interest of the citizens as a whole. On the other hand is justice. Even though it seems unfair, Socrates would be breaking his personal morals, and for him, this would be unjust. However, to us, it seems as though justice would prevent Socrates' death, because when fire is fought with more fire, the only thing that happens is a bigger fire that soon spirals out of control.

Blog #10: “‘The Apology’ from ‘The Dialogues of Plato’”

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

I believe this quote best relates to me. When I think about my life and life in general, I believe that it is always best to ask questions. When someone is forced to ask “Why?” they are also forced to discover the answer for themselves. This is much more rewarding than simply being force-fed the answer. This leads to many more questions and many more answers that are truly rewarding.

I also like the approach when someone asks “Why?” to ask “Why Not?” I believe this forces people to look on the other side of the debate, and take in both views. In doing this, people become more well-rounded, and they understand the reasons behind their opinions, other than one or two major reasons. It is this thought process that leads to many new discoveries in our world.

When someone does not ask questions, and merely accepts the decisions of others, nothing good can come from it. The basis of our country rests on this basic principle, and it is an inspiration to people all around the world. Without thinking for yourself, and questioning those in charge, you’re just setting yourself up for disaster.

I believe this is a great motto for the rest of my life. With college and a future career literally, right around the corner, I truly believe that this is the right direction that I need to take. In order to be successful, I need to implement this method of thinking.

Blog #9: "Flock of Dodos and the Evolution versus Intelligent Design Debate"

To begin with, the debate between teaching evolution and intelligent design in our public schools is one of many complications. When evolution is taught as part of the required curriculum, it can lead to people who question their faith. When intelligent design is taught, all sorts of red flags spring up because while intelligent design doesn’t necessarily involve God, it still involves a “higher being” and this violates the separation of church and state. And to teach both and the controversy between them brings still more problems with it. Usually it is best to present both sides to an argument, and let the people decide for themselves what they feel is the best answer for themselves, but this case is different. When the concept of “Where did we come from?” comes into play, the stakes are raised ten-fold. The teachers involved could intentionally or subconsciously teach biased lessons either for or against intelligent design, based on their own religious beliefs. Because of this, most educators and officials are against the concept of “teaching the controversy.”

Personally, I believe that there is no simple answer to a problem such as this. To begin with, it’s kind of like achieving world peace. Sure, it’d be nice, but who are we kidding? There are too many strong supporters on either side willing to fight at all costs. That being said, there are four possible solutions, none of which promise a satisfactory nod from all the people involved.

First, there is the “teach only evolution” option. This raises conflicts because as stated above, it can force students to question their own faith. The Evolution versus Intelligent Design article however, states that “evolution does not imply atheism” and that “evolution doesn't disprove God, it tries to prove how he did it.” If others could understand this, perhaps the debate wouldn't be as heated. It then continues with “We think students should learn [evolution]. It's a very influential theory in modern biology, and students need to understand what it is. What hurts them is if you teach them to just absorb and swallow evolution as uncritical fact.” This is a problem, because with many different teaching style, there is no absolute way to enforce a uniform teaching standard.

The next option is the “teach only intelligent design” option. This requires introducing an aspect of a “higher being,” though not necessarily God, still a god-like being is involved, and this poses a problem for public schools. Religion cannot be a part of required curriculum in public schools, because it violates the separation of church and state. Again, the Evolution versus Intelligent Design article mentions that “the Constitution prohibits the states from endorsing or promoting a religious view.”

The third option is the “teach the controversy” option. This would include teaching both sides, and the reasons for the disagreements between the two. However, with this brings more problems, because as the article mentions “the problem comes when school boards or teachers want to push their own religious agenda and include it in regular curriculum.” This is not allowed in public schools, as stated above in the separation of church and state concept. The Flock of Dodos talked about the fact that teaching both has problems that leads into a never-ending cycle. Teaching intelligent design violates the separation of church and state, and teaching evolution causes people to doubt their beliefs and question what they believe in. This cycle continues, and forces the debate on and on.

The last option may make the most sense, now that we've covered all the problems that the previous three, but in reality, it comes with the most. This option is the “don't teach either.” However, we learn from the article that “administrators can't avoid the conflict by declaring they'll teach neither. If the state science standards include evolution, you have to teach it to qualify for the No Child Left Behind standards. Removing evolution is most likely an unconstitutional move...”

Whatever the best choice is, I'm not sure. I agree with most of the facts the article presented, even though they don't provide a clear-cut answer. My opinion is that to ensure proper funding results from the No Child Left Behind, and to ensure religion doesn't play a role in public education, my vote is to continue teaching evolution only in the classroom. Extreme care must be given to ensure that it is only presented, and not forced upon the students involved. If this can be achieved, then perhaps we are on the right track to solving this great argument.

In class, we discussed the debate that evolutionists use against intelligent design supporters. It is the “rabbit example,” and the hypothetical question is “If there was an intelligent designer, why didn't rabbits get designed better?” This is as a result of the rabbit's poor digestion system. A rabbit has to eat food, poop it out, and re-eat it to gain the necessary nutrients from the food. This is one of the questions evolutionists propose to intelligent design supporters.

Blog #8: "Most Valuable / Worthwhile / Interesting Topic This Year"

The topic or issue that I have found to be most interesting and valuable to me later in life, is that of law and justice.

To being with, I particularly enjoyed the movie, A Few Good Men. I’m not sure what it was about the movie, but I really liked watching it. In this resource, the concept of law versus justice was presented, and to me at least, was very easy to see. Throughout life, to this point, I had never realized the difference between the law and justice, but through a combination of my own experiences and this unit, especially this movie, I now have a better understanding of this debate.

Recently I was involved in a minor car accident. I was stopped at a red light and was rear-ended. The person who hit me had apparently looked away and didn’t react in time to safely stop in time. However, because the damage was only to my bumper and looks as though it is under $1,000, chances are, nothing will be done about it. What I mean, is that, even though she hit me and she has insurance, if I want it fixed, I’m on my own. Either I or my insurance would have to pay for it, thus making my rates skyrocket. Is this fair? Absolutely not, she rear-ended me at a RED LIGHT! I was not at fault what-so-ever. However, the law in the state of Wisconsin stands that if the damage is under $1,000, no official report has to be filed. Because of this, I would have to pay for her mistake, even though I am the victim. The law says one thing, but in my mind, justice is a complete opposite. This is because the law must provide for everyone, as if they are all the same, robot-like person. Under the law, we are all the same, but justice is not the same way. Because justice is based on morals, and everyone has a different set of them, there is no cookie-cutter for what justice can bring. Sure it’s unfair, but I understand the way our government has to work to provide for the country as a whole.

I take from this unit many things. First, my belief that the world is not fair was strengthened. But I must move on, and “get used to it.” Secondly, and by far more importantly, is the fact that the government does all it can to satisfy the needs of its people. Laws are in place to protect and provide for the citizens, and even though one incident feels unfair, the overall picture of what happens and what is in place for us is a pretty good deal. As I advance in my life, I can only learn more. This foundation is a good base for all that is what we consider government and politics. Being that the newest presidential election is today (November 4, 2008), provides a good example of this point. The more a person knows about how their government works, the more apt they are to make informed decisions on important matters, like an election. Even though I am too young to vote today, I will use this knowledge in four years when I can vote for the next presidential election.