Is Ignorance Bliss?

In Chapter 12 of the Republic Socrates argues that pleasure based on the truth is more substantial than pleasure based on illusion and falsehood. Since a moral person is ruled by reason, he or she will have a clearer access to the truth and therefore will choose more substantial pleasure.  But is Socrates correct?  Does it matter if pleasure is based on truth -- or are all pleasure equally valuable?  Does it matter if your pleasure in your spouse's love is based on actual love -- or an amazing acting job designed to finagle your inheritance when you die?  Does it matter if the pleasure you have in the belief you scored a winning touchdown is based on reality -- or a dream which you will never wake up from (since you are in a coma from trying to play a game of football)?   Is ignorance bliss?

Plato's Cave

Plato argues that most of us are like prisoners in a cave who are bound in such a way that we can only see shadows of objects projected on a wall. Not only can we not see the objects that cast the shadows, we cannot even see the objects outside of the cave. A more modern analogy might have the prisoner's watching a movie or perhaps "plugged in" to a virtual reality program. What is Plato claiming about the ordinary person? What is our epistemic state? Do we have any hope in escaping? And most importantly, is Plato correct? In short, what is your interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave and is the allegory the correct way to view the human quest for knowledge?

Expertise or Popularity?

Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?

Is Plato a Feminist?

Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, advocates some radical views about woman in Chapter 7 of the Republic.  In particular, he argues not only that women can be guardians, but that they can have equal duties (more or less) and an identical education.  The only exception he makes is for physical difference between the sexes.  These views are in stark contrast to a woman's place in 5th century Athens, in which a woman was prohibited from a political life and confined to the domestic household (and had a similarly limited education).  Does it make sense to call Plato a feminist (and does it depend on your notion of feminism)?  Or does Plato still miss something important about women?  Furthermore, have we in 21st century America realized his ideas?

The Definition of Morality

In Chapter 6 of the Republic Socrates defines morality in terms of the proper functioning of the mind.  He states that "[i]ts sphere is a person's inner activity; it is really a matter of oneself and the parts of oneself"(443d). A person is moral if and only if the parts of her mind work together and the rational part guides and directs the other parts.  Given such a definition, Socrates proceeds to show that such a mind is healthy and a disordered mind leads to unhappiness.  Yet is Socrates' definition of morality correct?  Is that definition close to your working definition of morality?  If he fails, where or how does he fail?  Is the connection between morality and mental health as tight as Socrates argues?

Hasta La Vista Homer

As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?