GORGIAS BY PHOEBE
What stands out and captures my attention
1) His unconventional values
Throughout the book, Socrates challenges and overturns many ideas and beliefs traditional to the Greeks (or even to people today). For example, he proposed that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong, that the evildoer who goes unpunished is worse off than one who is justly punished--ideas that may seem illogical and even nonsensical at first glance, but proves to be enlightening and convincing as Socrates confidently argues his case. Due to the fact that his arguments are based, not on facts or common logic, but on the philosophical viewpoint of what is right and wrong, it may seem too subjective or waffly to some (for who can really define what is right or wrong?), but it certainly appeals to our moral conscience, something that we pay little attention to in our daily lives because we rarely thought it is something worth questioning. Of course, a lot of it has to do with the ambiguous use of words (e.g. ‘worse’, in this case, means bad or evil, and NOT painful), and with such use of verbal traps he was able to make his opponents concede defeat.
2) His political ideals
Personally I find his political ideals rather too ‘utopian’. He insists that morals should rank above pragmatism in policy-making, that politicians should aim, not to please the people or fulfill their desires, but ‘at making the souls of the citizens as good as possible, and is always striving to say what is best, whether it is pleasing or not to the ears of the audience’. Such ideals come across as too idealistic, like wishful-thinking, not because we doubt that good politicians exist (although they are rare breed), but because the mere execution of such philosophy in politics is almost impossible. Humans always value instant gratification of their own desires to be much more important than the upholding of morals or justice, simply because the former brings out obvious, tangible benefits, while the latter, which does not attend to the immediate needs of the people, is something that can be easily compromised. Also, humanity has yet to come up with a fixed set of moral values that everyone can agree upon (and I doubt if such an endeavor should even be undertaken), so how can the government ever be sure that their policies will certainly be for the ‘good’ of the people, when what is ‘good’ cannot be defined? Some may view drinking as harmful, and others believe that it is an acceptable social activity. Some may feel that films that touch upon controversial issues such as homosexuality erode the moral values of the society, while others view them to be educational or artistic. In such cases, it would definitely be wiser for the government to leave things to the discretion of the people instead of adopting draconian methods of illegalizing, banning or censorship.
Lessons learnt
1) The desirability of temperance
Here in CDC one of our objectives is to assist the vulnerable groups in society such as the elderly and disabled through financial or social aid. Because there are so many people to help, and so little funds to go around, CDC has to be careful and meticulous in allocating its resources. And yet there is always a limit to how much help CDC can provide, hence we have to distinguish between their needs and their wants, and provide assistance on a needs-based approach. It is impossible for us to fulfill ever single want or desire that these people might have, and of course we do not want to give out money indiscriminately and fuel their desires for things that are not of utmost importance. However, unlike Socrates, I do not condemn the desire for excesses or riches. Humans are never satisfied with what they have, and it is this insatiable greed that fuels technological advancements and economical development. Or else, we would have been stuck in the age of horse carriages and charcoal stoves. Socrates argue that the intemperate are unhappier than the temperate, because their desires can never be satisfied, like ‘pitcher with holes in it, because it can never be filled up’. Yet, I’ll like to modify this analogy, and draw parallel between the desires of people, and the size (not condition) of their ‘pitchers’. People who crave for greater wealth or higher achievements are those with bigger pitchers, and although it will take them more time and effort to attain satisfaction, they are certainly not eluded of it. This goes the same for the vulnerable groups we are helping. Instead of simply demanding that they be contented with their lives as of now, we should encourage them to set higher goals for themselves that are within their capabilities to achieve. Of course that will require greater efforts on their part, but if intemperance can bring about a better life, I don’t see why it’s undesirable.
What stands out and captures my attention
1) His unconventional values
Throughout the book, Socrates challenges and overturns many ideas and beliefs traditional to the Greeks (or even to people today). For example, he proposed that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong, that the evildoer who goes unpunished is worse off than one who is justly punished--ideas that may seem illogical and even nonsensical at first glance, but proves to be enlightening and convincing as Socrates confidently argues his case. Due to the fact that his arguments are based, not on facts or common logic, but on the philosophical viewpoint of what is right and wrong, it may seem too subjective or waffly to some (for who can really define what is right or wrong?), but it certainly appeals to our moral conscience, something that we pay little attention to in our daily lives because we rarely thought it is something worth questioning. Of course, a lot of it has to do with the ambiguous use of words (e.g. ‘worse’, in this case, means bad or evil, and NOT painful), and with such use of verbal traps he was able to make his opponents concede defeat.
2) His political ideals
Personally I find his political ideals rather too ‘utopian’. He insists that morals should rank above pragmatism in policy-making, that politicians should aim, not to please the people or fulfill their desires, but ‘at making the souls of the citizens as good as possible, and is always striving to say what is best, whether it is pleasing or not to the ears of the audience’. Such ideals come across as too idealistic, like wishful-thinking, not because we doubt that good politicians exist (although they are rare breed), but because the mere execution of such philosophy in politics is almost impossible. Humans always value instant gratification of their own desires to be much more important than the upholding of morals or justice, simply because the former brings out obvious, tangible benefits, while the latter, which does not attend to the immediate needs of the people, is something that can be easily compromised. Also, humanity has yet to come up with a fixed set of moral values that everyone can agree upon (and I doubt if such an endeavor should even be undertaken), so how can the government ever be sure that their policies will certainly be for the ‘good’ of the people, when what is ‘good’ cannot be defined? Some may view drinking as harmful, and others believe that it is an acceptable social activity. Some may feel that films that touch upon controversial issues such as homosexuality erode the moral values of the society, while others view them to be educational or artistic. In such cases, it would definitely be wiser for the government to leave things to the discretion of the people instead of adopting draconian methods of illegalizing, banning or censorship.
Lessons learnt
1) The desirability of temperance
Here in CDC one of our objectives is to assist the vulnerable groups in society such as the elderly and disabled through financial or social aid. Because there are so many people to help, and so little funds to go around, CDC has to be careful and meticulous in allocating its resources. And yet there is always a limit to how much help CDC can provide, hence we have to distinguish between their needs and their wants, and provide assistance on a needs-based approach. It is impossible for us to fulfill ever single want or desire that these people might have, and of course we do not want to give out money indiscriminately and fuel their desires for things that are not of utmost importance. However, unlike Socrates, I do not condemn the desire for excesses or riches. Humans are never satisfied with what they have, and it is this insatiable greed that fuels technological advancements and economical development. Or else, we would have been stuck in the age of horse carriages and charcoal stoves. Socrates argue that the intemperate are unhappier than the temperate, because their desires can never be satisfied, like ‘pitcher with holes in it, because it can never be filled up’. Yet, I’ll like to modify this analogy, and draw parallel between the desires of people, and the size (not condition) of their ‘pitchers’. People who crave for greater wealth or higher achievements are those with bigger pitchers, and although it will take them more time and effort to attain satisfaction, they are certainly not eluded of it. This goes the same for the vulnerable groups we are helping. Instead of simply demanding that they be contented with their lives as of now, we should encourage them to set higher goals for themselves that are within their capabilities to achieve. Of course that will require greater efforts on their part, but if intemperance can bring about a better life, I don’t see why it’s undesirable.
No comments:
Post a Comment