Scheduled maintenance: Thursday, January 26 from 6PM to 7PM PST
Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Philosophy Midterm Part 2

Terms in this set (48)

LECTURE 9
...
How is Plato's account of justice in the city similar to, but different from, our
ordinary concept of legal justice?
Under a system of legal justice, everyone possesses the right to have one's own property, where this includes one's life and freedom. Recall that Polemarchus already offered a definition like this in Book 1: justice is "to give to each what is owed to him"
But Plato thinks that true justice involves a whole other side not captured by this notion of legal justice. True justice involves not only the right to have one's own property, but also the duty to do one's own work, to perform the function for which one has the greatest natural talent, and thereby to make the greatest contribution towards the good of the city as a whole.
Explain the distinction between the right to have one's own property and the duty to
do one's own work.
The functions of guarding and ruling the city play a more important role in its survival and well-being than does the practice of any other craft. Thus, the guardians and rulers, above all, must not shirk their duty to do their own work. In other words, if those who are best at guarding and ruling the city give up on these activities and simply try to make money as an ordinary craftsmen, the city will be unjust and will tend towards collapse.
What is injustice in the city?
Injustice in the city is when members of one of the three classes meddle with the work of a different class, which leads to the downfall of the city.
How is justice in the city a different sort of virtue than wisdom, courage, and
temperance in the city?
the power that makes it possible for [the other three virtues] to arise in it, and that preserves them when they have arisen for as long as it remains there itself" (433b).
In what way is there a relation of interdependence between justice in the city and the other three virtues?
This appears to imply that justice must be the first virtue for a city to achieve (such as the cooperation of the craftsmen in the healthy city), and then the other virtues can be achieved.
Why is justice in the city the constitutive principle (or constitutive norm) of the city as a whole, according to Korsgaard?
according to Plato, the normative force of the constitution consists in the fact that it makes it possible for the city to function as a single unified agent. For a city without justice ... above all lacks unity—it is not one city, he says, but many ... . When justice breaks down, the city falls into civil war, as the rulers, the soldiers, and the people all struggle for control. The deliberative procedures that unify the city into a single agent break down, and the city as such cannot act. ... Platonic justice is a constitutive principle of action.
What is the principle of opposites?
he same thing cannot do or undergo opposite things; not, at any rate, in the same respect, in relation to the same thing, at the same time. So, if we every find that happening here, we will know that we are not dealing with one and the same thing, but with many
Explain what conclusion we can draw, using the principle of opposites, if something
is both in motion and at rest at the same time.
So if something is in motion and at rest at the same time, like a person standing still but moving their hands, this is only possible because they are moving in one respect but are at rest in a different respect. That is, the person must have multiple parts, one of which is in motion, while the other is at rest. If the person did not have multiple parts, it would be impossible for them to be in motion and at rest at the same time.
What is a motivational conflict?
the person has two motives, at the same time, which push him or her to act in opposite incompatible ways, and thus conflict with each other.
What example does Socrates use to distinguish appetite and reason, and how does
he use the principle of opposites in doing so?
It would not be unreasonable for us to claim, then, that there are two elements, different from one another; and to call the element in the soul with which it calculates, the rationally calculating element; and the one with which it feels passion, hungers, thirsts, and is stirred by other appetites, the irrational and appetitive element, friend to certain ways of being filled and certain pleasures.
What is appetite (or the appetitive part of the soul)?
which are desires for material goods and bodily pleasures (including both basic needs and luxuries),
What is reason (or the rational part of the soul)?
are desires that are based on thought and deliberation about what is good for oneself as a whole (or perhaps what is good not just for oneself, but for everyone).
Give your own example of a conflict between appetite and reason that can occur in
ordinary life.
Someone wants to have sex (appetite) but doesn't want to get romantically involved (reason).
What is a desire?
a state of the soul that leads the person to act in a certain way, for the sake of a certain end that the person wants to achieve
LECTURE 10

What example does Socrates use to distinguish appetite and spirit, and how does he
use the principle of opposites in doing so?
Leontius ... saw some corpses with the public executioner nearby. He had an appetitive desire to look at them, but at the same time he was disgusted and turned himself away. For a while he struggled and put his hand over his eyes, but finally, mastered by his appetite, he opened his eyes wide and rushed toward the corpses, saying: "Look for yourselves, you evil wretches; take your fill of the beautiful sight.
What is spirit (or the spirited part of the soul)?
'emotion', 'passion', or 'aspiration'
Give your own example of a conflict between appetite and spirit that can occur in
ordinary life.
Someone wants to eat a burger (appetite), but is disgusted with his gluttony (spirit).
What is the difference between appetitive, spirited, and rational desires?
...
What example does Socrates use to distinguish spirit and reason, and how does he
use the principle of opposites in doing so?
Here, Plato uses the example of Odysseus from Homer's Odyssey. Odysseus, king of Ithaca, returns home after twenty years at sea to find his queen, Penelope, surrounded by suitors who are trying to take over his kingdom and are having sex with Penelope's maids. Odysseus reacts emotionally to this scene and wants to kill the suitors and maids immediately, but he realizes that if he charges in, he would be greatly outnumbered, so he tries to tame his spirit (or "heart") with his reason (or "mind"):
Give your own example of a conflict between spirit and reason that can occur in
ordinary life.
Someone is romantically involved with another person (spirit), but judges that the relationship is unhealthy for both of them (reason).
Explain why it makes sense for Socrates to use the hydra, the lion, and the
homunculus as images of the three parts of the soul.
Our appetite is like a hydra (a many-headed dragon) that can be imagined as living in our viscera, hands and feet, and genitals.

Our spirit is like a lion (or perhaps a noble hound) that can be imagined as living in our heart.

Our reason is like a homunculus, i.e. a miniature human being, that can be imagined as living in our head
What is the combat model of the soul, according to Korsgaard?
...
Why is the combat model of the soul unable to explain how human beings act as
unified agents, according to Korsgaard?
According to the Combat Model, the difference between reason and passion is pretty much the same as the difference between one passion and another; they are two forces, each urging a certain action upon the soul. Deliberative unification takes place when one side wins. ... the person's actions are just the result of the play, or rather of the combat, of these forces within her. But ... action cannot just be the result of forces working in or on an agent. If the movement is to be assignable to the agent in the way that the idea of action requires, then the agent must be something over and above the forces working in her and on her, something that can ... determine herself to action.
Why is the combat model of the soul unable to explain how a person could choose
to side with their passion (appetite or spirit) instead of their reason, according to
Korsgaard?
what is the essence of the person, in whom reason and passion are both forces, neither of them identified with the person herself, and between which she is to choose? ... The philosophers Hume describes here seem to be imagining that the person chooses between reason and passion by assessing their merits ... But surely that presupposes that the person already identifies with reason, since that is the part of us that assesses merits. How then could the person ever choose passion over reason?
What is the constitutional model of the soul, according to Korsgaard?
conceives of the agent as something over and above her parts. But the agent is not ... a separately existing entity who chooses to identify with one of those parts. Instead, the agent is something over and above her parts in the way that the constitution of a city is something over and above the citizens and officials who live there. If the agent conforms to the dictate of reason, it is not because she identifies with reason, but rather because she identifies with her constitution, and it says that reason should rule. Following Plato, ... I will argue that using this model we can explain action, because we can explain how an agent achieves the kind of unity that makes it possible to attribute her movements to her as their author.
How is the function of reason in the soul analogous to the function of the rulers in
the city?
Reason is the part of the soul which corresponds to the rulers of the city, so its function must be to rule the soul, i.e. to rule over spirit and appetite.
What virtue(s) does reason need to achieve in order to perform its function well,
and why?
Reason rules the soul by engaging in a variety of intellectual activities: thinking, reflecting, using concepts, calculating, reasoning, deliberating, and making judgments and decisions on behalf of the person as a whole.
What is the definition of wisdom in the soul?
the knowledge that allows it to "exercise foresight on behalf of the whole soul; and for the spirited [part] to obey it and be its ally"
How is the function of spirit in the soul analogous to the function of the auxiliaries
in the city?
Spirit is the part of the soul which corresponds to the auxiliaries in the city, so its function must be to defend the person, both against external threats to her life or honor posed by other people, as well as against internal threats to her well-being posed by her unruly appetites for excessive amounts of material goods or bodily pleasures.
What virtue(s) does spirit need to achieve in order to perform its function well,
and why?
To perform its function well, spirit must achieve the virtue of courage,
What is the definition of courage in the soul?
preserv[ing] through pains and pleasures the pronouncements of reason about what should inspire terror and what should not
How is the function of appetite in the soul analogous to the function of the craftsmen in the city?
Appetite is the part of the soul which corresponds to the craftsmen in the city, so its function must be to provide for the person's basic needs and satisfy their bodily desires.
What virtue(s) does appetite need to achieve in order to perform its function well, and why?
For appetite to perform its function well, all three parts of the soul must achieve the virtue of temperance, which consists of "concordant relations between these same things: namely, when both the ruler and its two subjects share the belief that the rationally calculating element should rule, and do not engage in faction against it"
What is the definition of temperance (or moderation) in the soul?
"concordant relations between these same things: namely, when both the ruler and its two subjects share the belief that the rationally calculating element should rule, and do not engage in faction against it"
LECTURE 11
...
What is akrasia or weakness of will?
in which one acts against one's rational judgment about what is good for oneself as a whole and uncontrollably acts on one's desires for excessive amounts of material goods or bodily pleasures—excessive because they go beyond what is necessary for bodily survival and health.
What is the definition of justice in the soul?
"in the case of each of one us ..., the one in whom each of the elements does its own job will be just and do his own job.
How is justice in the soul a different sort of virtue than wisdom, courage, and
temperance in the soul?
In order for each of the parts of the soul to do its own job well, it needs to achieve the virtue(s) proper to it: reason must be wise, spirit must be courageous, and all three parts must be temperate.
If these three virtues are in place, then the soul as a whole exhibits the virtue of justice, i.e. the individual human being is a just person, or has a just character.
In what way is there a relation of interdependence between justice in the soul and
the other three virtues?
In order for each of the parts of the soul to do its own job well, it needs to achieve the virtue(s) proper to it: reason must be wise, spirit must be courageous, and all three parts must be temperate.
If these three virtues are in place, then the soul as a whole exhibits the virtue of justice, i.e. the individual human being is a just person, or has a just character.
Why is justice in the soul the constitutive principle (or constitutive norm) of the
being a human being, according to Korsgaard?
In Korsgaard's terms, we can say that justice is the constitutive norm (or standard, or principle) of being a human being. A good person is a just person, is a person who performs, in the best possible way, the function(s) that define what it is to be a human being.
In what way is justice in the soul analogous to a musical harmony?
He then restates the definition of justice in the soul in a more vivid way than before, using the analogy of musical harmony. The parts of the just soul harmonize each other like the notes of a chord, each one doing its own work (making its own sound) and thereby contributing to the whole. So this gives us another way of defining justice in the soul—it is the harmony of appetite, spirit, and reason
What is the difference between just actions and just character, and in what way
are just actions external to a person, while just character is internal to a person?
Perhaps we should say instead that just character is conceptually (or logically) prior to just actions, since just actions (and unjust actions too) have been defined in terms of just character: a just action is one which contributes to the achievement or preservation of just character; an unjust action is one which hinders the achievement of, or contributes to the destruction of, just character.
What are the definitions of just action and unjust action in terms of just
character?
...
Explain why it makes more sense to say that just character is conceptually prior to
just actions than it does to say that just character is temporally prior to just actions.
...
How can the definitions of just and unjust actions be used to guide one's deliberation about which actions one should perform in a given situation?
...
In what way are justice and injustice in the soul analogous to health and disease in the body?
...
Explain how Socrates' account of justice shows that justice is good, or worth pursuing, for its own sake (even if it had no good consequences), while injustice is not worth pursuing for its own sake (despite its good consequences).
...
Students also viewed