The Argument:
1. If Ion is an exegete or explicator of Homer's poems, he must surely understand what the poet means, else he could not explain the poet's thoughts. This seemingly commonsensical point is asserted by Socrates at the start (530c1-5), and happily accepted by Ion.
Therefore: if Ion understands what the poet says about X, and judges that the poet speaks best about X, he must be in a position to assess other poets' pronouncements about the subject in question.
2. If Ion is the greatest of all Greek bards, he must know good poetry from bad. Homer is the best of all. He must be able to judge good poetry form bad. Ion agrees to this.
Plato’s conclusion: If you can knowledgeably (531e10) pick out a good speaker on a subject, you can also pick out the bad speaker on it, since the precondition of doing the former is that you have knowledge of the relevant subject matter. But this seems to contradict Ion's assertion that he can explain only Homer, not the other poets.
He only knows Homer, he can’t judge good from bad.
For the bard and the muse to invoke Homer can not be proven to be the best way to truth because there is no way to judge. It must be justified.
Furthermore, Homer himself must have understood well that about which he speaks.
2. It would seem that Homer claims to be wise, and that as his devoted bards must be claiming to be wise (532d6-e1).
In passage after passage, Homer pronounces on subjects that are the province of a specialized techne (art or skill), that is, a specialized branch of knowledge.
But neither the rhapsode nor Homer possesses knowledge of all (or indeed perhaps any) of those specialized branches (generalship, chariot making, medicine, navigation, divination, agriculture, fishing, horsemanship, cow herding, cithara playing, wool working, etc.).
So Ion, and by extension Homer, are faced with a series of unpalatable alternatives:
a. They could continue to defend the claim that they really do know the subjects about which they discourse — in the sense of possess the techne kai epistemeof them, i.e., a mastery of the subject matter. Yet if they do defend that claim they will be liable to examination by relevant experts.
b. They could admit that they do not know what they are talking about.
For Plato, this means that they must be held accountable. It is philosophy's mission to force them to give an account of themselves, and to examine its soundness.
This would mean that they are required to engage philosophy on its turf, just as Ion has somewhat reluctantly done. The legitimacy of that requirement is itself a point of contention, it is one aspect of the quarrel between philosophy and poetry.[8]
From Ion we get directly to Homer.
Ion claims to know good poetry from bad, Plato proves that he does not.
Ion claims knowledge from Homer, Plato proves he does not know.
Homer is held to be the Greek standard of truth. Plato shows that it is not.
Because Homer deceivers truth, what he teaches is true. Plato shows that it is not.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Phil of Religion
My mistake on the readings. I will bring copies into class tomorrow. I have two short videos to watch and chat about, they are great!
Dr. Berg
Dr. Berg
Friday, January 20, 2012
Anselm
I. The Main Argument
1. We (even Fools) understand the meaning of the word God to be
“a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”. (Premise)
2. What we understand exists at least in our understanding (mind, intellect). (Premise)
Ex: The painter’s picture, before it is painted.
3. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists at least in our
understanding. (from 1 and 2)
4. To exist in reality is greater than to exist only in the understanding. (Premise)
5. Hence, a being having all of God’s properties plus (if God lacks it) real
existence is greater than a being that exists only in the understanding. (from 4)
6. If the being than which no greater can be conceived existed only in the
understanding, we could conceive of a greater being (one that also had real
existence outside the understanding). (from 5)
7. But it is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (by definition)
8. Hence, this being has real existence. (from 6 and 7)
1. We (even Fools) understand the meaning of the word God to be
“a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”. (Premise)
2. What we understand exists at least in our understanding (mind, intellect). (Premise)
Ex: The painter’s picture, before it is painted.
3. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists at least in our
understanding. (from 1 and 2)
4. To exist in reality is greater than to exist only in the understanding. (Premise)
5. Hence, a being having all of God’s properties plus (if God lacks it) real
existence is greater than a being that exists only in the understanding. (from 4)
6. If the being than which no greater can be conceived existed only in the
understanding, we could conceive of a greater being (one that also had real
existence outside the understanding). (from 5)
7. But it is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (by definition)
8. Hence, this being has real existence. (from 6 and 7)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Phil of Rel - Aquinas 1,4, and 5
The First Way: Argument from Motion
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Welcome back!
I hope you all had a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
This is the place for information for classes in this department and IOCC 201.
Have a great semester.
Dr. Berg
This is the place for information for classes in this department and IOCC 201.
Have a great semester.
Dr. Berg
Friday, December 2, 2011
IOCC 201 Final Exam Study Guide
IOCC 201 Final Exam Study Guide
• This is a very basic guide. The best guides to study by are your class notes and the readings.
• DO NOT TAKE THIS TO BE AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS.
Know the source languages from EVERYTHING we read in this class.
Know the basic chronology of persons, text, and ideas presented in the ENTIRE class.
Types of monks
Method of excommunication
7 Divine Offices
Basic life of Saint Benedict
Basics of Monastic life
The Vow of Stability (stabilitas loci)
Work and Prayer
How the monks keep their “rank”
The Western world at the end of 201
Basic history of the Roman Republic, Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
Fundamental virtue emphasized in Cicero’s speech
What the edict of Milan did financially, legally and in terms of Christian places of worship.
Myth of Rome
Cultural points connected to the fall of Rome and the barbarians.
Later Christian development
What group burned Rome and the complexities that followed this event.
Church traditions brought forth by the Early Church
Basics of the Doctrine of Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ
Words of the day
Basic Heresies
Augustine on God, time, original sin, human nature, basic human anthropology and literature.
Cicero’s speech, the main point.
Map Exam: Rome, Athens, Jerusalem, Hippo, Alexandria, Constantinople, Troy, Paris, Ireland, Ancient Greece, Italy, The Mediterranean, Spain, The Straight of Gibraltar, Gaul, Norway (The Land of Ice) Africa, The British Islands, Judea, Germania, The Atlantic Ocean, Ionia, Galatia., the Aegean sea.
• This is a very basic guide. The best guides to study by are your class notes and the readings.
• DO NOT TAKE THIS TO BE AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS.
Know the source languages from EVERYTHING we read in this class.
Know the basic chronology of persons, text, and ideas presented in the ENTIRE class.
Types of monks
Method of excommunication
7 Divine Offices
Basic life of Saint Benedict
Basics of Monastic life
The Vow of Stability (stabilitas loci)
Work and Prayer
How the monks keep their “rank”
The Western world at the end of 201
Basic history of the Roman Republic, Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
Fundamental virtue emphasized in Cicero’s speech
What the edict of Milan did financially, legally and in terms of Christian places of worship.
Myth of Rome
Cultural points connected to the fall of Rome and the barbarians.
Later Christian development
What group burned Rome and the complexities that followed this event.
Church traditions brought forth by the Early Church
Basics of the Doctrine of Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ
Words of the day
Basic Heresies
Augustine on God, time, original sin, human nature, basic human anthropology and literature.
Cicero’s speech, the main point.
Map Exam: Rome, Athens, Jerusalem, Hippo, Alexandria, Constantinople, Troy, Paris, Ireland, Ancient Greece, Italy, The Mediterranean, Spain, The Straight of Gibraltar, Gaul, Norway (The Land of Ice) Africa, The British Islands, Judea, Germania, The Atlantic Ocean, Ionia, Galatia., the Aegean sea.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Rhet 102
Greetings!
Three points for the Rhetoric class.
1. We are having poor attendance for the oral presentations. Remember you will loose 10 points per missed class during these presentations and it will ultimately alter your final grade when I figure in the the points for attitude and participation. Do not fail this course because you did not show up for your colleagues' presentations.
2. You can not make up your oral presentation if you miss your day (or did not sign up for a time slot).
3. Your papers are due on the last day of class. No exceptions.
Dr. Berg
Three points for the Rhetoric class.
1. We are having poor attendance for the oral presentations. Remember you will loose 10 points per missed class during these presentations and it will ultimately alter your final grade when I figure in the the points for attitude and participation. Do not fail this course because you did not show up for your colleagues' presentations.
2. You can not make up your oral presentation if you miss your day (or did not sign up for a time slot).
3. Your papers are due on the last day of class. No exceptions.
Dr. Berg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)