DUE TUE 3/27 Republic Assignment
The Republic, Part III Education, Section 1. pp. 67-76
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people would want Homer censored because he brings out the light of peoples bad habits and doings. For example in the Iliad, there is killing, stealing, raping, hurting, cursing. All of these terrible things. I think that people would want this censored is because they are happy thinking that they are the greatest nation of all. They want to think that they only do good, and that the Gods only do good.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
2. Short Answers
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Representing the Gods as deceitful and troublesome.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The first main characteristic of "god" is that god is not the cause of all, but only good.
The second main characteristic of the gods is to never show deceit.
3. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
Well, pretty darn close :D
Monday, March 26, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Prep for Seminar
DUE THR 3/22 - Prep for Seminar
DUE THR 3/22
Prepare for Socratic Seminar by writing at least one-half page on at least one of the following prompts, or create your own prompt.
3) Does might make right?
If I understand this prompt correctly, "might" is referring to someone's ability or power in a certain situation or society. I think that might does not "make" what is right. It should not just be people who are higher in rank, it should be your own decision, although there are some cons to that. Some people, disregarding their social classes, have better, or more sophisticated ideas and reasoning on different subjects. For example, a normal person might have a really strong argument on a touchy topic that could sway many other people's opinions. On the other hand most citizens see the people who are above them as being these smarter people, which most times they are equally intelligent.
I see that many want to basically hide behind other opinions and they feel like they must agree. A quote from Fahrenheit 451 I thought had relevance to this topic. “So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, and expressionless. We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam. Even fireworks, for all their prettiness, come from the chemistry on earth. Yet somehow we think we can grow, feeding on flowers and fireworks, without completing the cycle back to reality." They sometimes just want the easy way out of things, compared to saying what they believe or think is right. I even think we can relate it to people in our class. I’m sure some of the people who hardly speak in the Socratic seminars have a lot to say, but they are either to shy or scared that the more “dominate” people might not take their ideas into consideration. But, I feel that everyone had the right to say what they think, and whether that is taken into consideration by the people is up to society.
Another thing is that is it very hard, if not impossible to have opinions. However, it is even more impossible for those opinions to not be shot down by other contradicting voice. Although, if you don’t put it out there to be heard, how can you know that it won’t make an impact on someone, or something? If everyone doesn’t take the initiative and stand out, not to be a shadow in the background crowd, anyone can decide what is “right” and morally just. Make your voice count, is what I think, because at any moment in time, the chance to speak up might be bluntly taken away from you.
DUE THR 3/22
Prepare for Socratic Seminar by writing at least one-half page on at least one of the following prompts, or create your own prompt.
3) Does might make right?
If I understand this prompt correctly, "might" is referring to someone's ability or power in a certain situation or society. I think that might does not "make" what is right. It should not just be people who are higher in rank, it should be your own decision, although there are some cons to that. Some people, disregarding their social classes, have better, or more sophisticated ideas and reasoning on different subjects. For example, a normal person might have a really strong argument on a touchy topic that could sway many other people's opinions. On the other hand most citizens see the people who are above them as being these smarter people, which most times they are equally intelligent.
I see that many want to basically hide behind other opinions and they feel like they must agree. A quote from Fahrenheit 451 I thought had relevance to this topic. “So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, and expressionless. We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam. Even fireworks, for all their prettiness, come from the chemistry on earth. Yet somehow we think we can grow, feeding on flowers and fireworks, without completing the cycle back to reality." They sometimes just want the easy way out of things, compared to saying what they believe or think is right. I even think we can relate it to people in our class. I’m sure some of the people who hardly speak in the Socratic seminars have a lot to say, but they are either to shy or scared that the more “dominate” people might not take their ideas into consideration. But, I feel that everyone had the right to say what they think, and whether that is taken into consideration by the people is up to society.
Another thing is that is it very hard, if not impossible to have opinions. However, it is even more impossible for those opinions to not be shot down by other contradicting voice. Although, if you don’t put it out there to be heard, how can you know that it won’t make an impact on someone, or something? If everyone doesn’t take the initiative and stand out, not to be a shadow in the background crowd, anyone can decide what is “right” and morally just. Make your voice count, is what I think, because at any moment in time, the chance to speak up might be bluntly taken away from you.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
3/21 Republic Assignment
DUE WED 3/21 Republic Assignment
Don’t forget to cut/paste the questions and answers and to post them on your blog with the questions in bold.
Print out your work and keep it in your binder so you can reference it in class.
Read the italics on p. 37 (that's right, only one paragraph). Read the rest of the section, up to p. 40, if you like. It is not required.
As you read, remember that function means purpose. When Socrates talks about a person or a thing’s “function” he means his/her/its purpose. The function of a student is to learn, the function of a knife is to cut etc…Minimum one long paragraph
Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
As usual you can develop your own prompt. If you do, keep in mind the guidelines I have written in the previous blogs.If you are stuck with this section and cannot write anything about happiness and justice, then you can develop your own prompt based on another section from the Plato readings.
response:
Personally, i think the only person who can decide if you are just or not, and it is you. Everyone has a conscience. Everyone knows right from wrong, and if you choose to be "true" to yourself then you know that you are doing good. If you do "wrong", most of us feel a little guilty. In life, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with someone else. No matter if it is on the topic of being just, religion, or politics, etc. I think that no matter what, you and only yourself, can be your true inner opinion on the topic of being "just." It's one of those things where whatever you have to say, there is always going to be a voice to contradict yours. It is so frustrating to try and make your point across. Socrates is lucky because in that day in time so many important people were so easily persuaded to believe in what he believes. Although this day in age, it is much, much harder. Everyone has their own say in things and argueing about it usually just starts conflict. I have come to the conclusion that what i think is just, is waht i think is just, so if i can be that, then thats all that matters. If someone else doesnt approve of that, thats just too bad because, quite frankly, i could care less.
screw da haters :D
Don’t forget to cut/paste the questions and answers and to post them on your blog with the questions in bold.
Print out your work and keep it in your binder so you can reference it in class.
Read the italics on p. 37 (that's right, only one paragraph). Read the rest of the section, up to p. 40, if you like. It is not required.
As you read, remember that function means purpose. When Socrates talks about a person or a thing’s “function” he means his/her/its purpose. The function of a student is to learn, the function of a knife is to cut etc…Minimum one long paragraph
Prompt: In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?
As usual you can develop your own prompt. If you do, keep in mind the guidelines I have written in the previous blogs.If you are stuck with this section and cannot write anything about happiness and justice, then you can develop your own prompt based on another section from the Plato readings.
response:
Personally, i think the only person who can decide if you are just or not, and it is you. Everyone has a conscience. Everyone knows right from wrong, and if you choose to be "true" to yourself then you know that you are doing good. If you do "wrong", most of us feel a little guilty. In life, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with someone else. No matter if it is on the topic of being just, religion, or politics, etc. I think that no matter what, you and only yourself, can be your true inner opinion on the topic of being "just." It's one of those things where whatever you have to say, there is always going to be a voice to contradict yours. It is so frustrating to try and make your point across. Socrates is lucky because in that day in time so many important people were so easily persuaded to believe in what he believes. Although this day in age, it is much, much harder. Everyone has their own say in things and argueing about it usually just starts conflict. I have come to the conclusion that what i think is just, is waht i think is just, so if i can be that, then thats all that matters. If someone else doesnt approve of that, thats just too bad because, quite frankly, i could care less.
screw da haters :D
Monday, March 19, 2007
Republic Assignment 3/20
Due Tuesday, 3/20 Republic Assignment
Read The Republic pp. 15-29 (that’s 14 pages)
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Well, from what I understood, Thrasymachus was saying that it is up to the leader to define justice, or whatever the leader tells you, that us justice. Socrates comes back at him by saying that what if the leader makes a mistake while giving an order? What if he makes a decision that will benefit the leader, but not the people, is that still justice?
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus' two main points are that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" and that "injustice is the interest and profit of oneself." Socrates points were that "no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it" and "all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves."
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I honestly think it depends on the situation. If harming someone is being used as a self defense is completely different if you were hurting someone for no reason; not enough of a good reason. Also if harming this person is the best for the majority of the people, there could be some exceptions. Basically, by using your common sence you can desyfer whether harming someone could be along the lines of being "right" or flat out, morally "wrong." It all revolves around opinions.
Read The Republic pp. 15-29 (that’s 14 pages)
1. Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?
Well, from what I understood, Thrasymachus was saying that it is up to the leader to define justice, or whatever the leader tells you, that us justice. Socrates comes back at him by saying that what if the leader makes a mistake while giving an order? What if he makes a decision that will benefit the leader, but not the people, is that still justice?
2. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymachus' two main points are that "justice is the interest of the stronger party" and that "injustice is the interest and profit of oneself." Socrates points were that "no one really wants authority and with it the job of righting other people's wrongs, unless paid for it" and "all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others rather than the labor of affording it to others themselves."
3. In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I honestly think it depends on the situation. If harming someone is being used as a self defense is completely different if you were hurting someone for no reason; not enough of a good reason. Also if harming this person is the best for the majority of the people, there could be some exceptions. Basically, by using your common sence you can desyfer whether harming someone could be along the lines of being "right" or flat out, morally "wrong." It all revolves around opinions.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friends
2. Blog entry: “Personal Reflection 3/16” – Since Socratic philosophy is largely about definitions, lets start with some of our own. In one paragraph (or more) define what a friend is and how you should act towards a friend. Instead of that, you can write a paragraph (or more) that defines what an enemy is and how you should act towards an enemy. Of course you can also write about both if you like.
A friend:
I am stumbling on how to start this off, because it is hard to explain what a friend truly is. I think it is someone who you feel comfortable around and enjoy spending time with, but you share more than just the “hey, what’s up?” with them. A friend is someone who you do stuff with and whatever it is, it ends up being fun because you can just simply enjoy each other’s company. Although friends are special people and mean a lot more than the random acquaintance, a best friend is something completely different. I would say, personally, I have 4 best friends. I can tell them anything and everything about me. From what you ate that day to your deepest secrets. Sometimes when you feel down all it takes in that text message or phone call that means the world and makes me feel ten times better. You can confide in them, and you know, they will always be there in the end. Whether you get in pointless fights, or don’t see each other for weeks at a time, you know when you do something wrong, no matter what they will be standing by your side. True friends are like family, you love them unconditionally even when they make you angry. You make up, and get over those stupid arguments and afterwards it makes your bond stronger. Friends are wonderful to have in your life, but best friends are a necessity.
A friend:
I am stumbling on how to start this off, because it is hard to explain what a friend truly is. I think it is someone who you feel comfortable around and enjoy spending time with, but you share more than just the “hey, what’s up?” with them. A friend is someone who you do stuff with and whatever it is, it ends up being fun because you can just simply enjoy each other’s company. Although friends are special people and mean a lot more than the random acquaintance, a best friend is something completely different. I would say, personally, I have 4 best friends. I can tell them anything and everything about me. From what you ate that day to your deepest secrets. Sometimes when you feel down all it takes in that text message or phone call that means the world and makes me feel ten times better. You can confide in them, and you know, they will always be there in the end. Whether you get in pointless fights, or don’t see each other for weeks at a time, you know when you do something wrong, no matter what they will be standing by your side. True friends are like family, you love them unconditionally even when they make you angry. You make up, and get over those stupid arguments and afterwards it makes your bond stronger. Friends are wonderful to have in your life, but best friends are a necessity.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Plato Assignment 3/16
DUE FRI 3/16 Personal Reflection and Plato Assignment
Read The Republic Part I Section 2. “The Conventional View of Justice Developed” pp. 8-15
Answer question(s) from one or more of the sections that follow.
Short responses 2-5 sentences
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
Part of his definition is much improved from his fathers definition of "paying ones debts and telling the truth." That statement is very general, and has a lot of cons in it. The idea of helping ones friends is of course, good, but by only helping your friends doesnt make you just. I think hurting ones enemies is very unjust, unless good can come from it, which also goes into whether harming someone can be "right".
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?Simonides definition of justice is to give everyone their dues and telling the truth. Polemarchus thinks of this as helping friends and hurting enemies, which I guess, is true.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates says that a man with justice wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, regardless of if they are a friend or an enemy, because hurting anyone intentionally is very unjust.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think he is trying to prove that wisdom comes with age, and the younger generation is more easily persuaded then the elderly.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
Socrates is more convincing. He has examples to back up his stance, which is obviously a strong argument tactic. He is also known to be a philosopher, which gives him an intelligence advantage, because Polemarchus is young, and much less wise then Socrates.
(As we can see Socrates influences many of the philosophers in the republic, with hardly any effort)
Read The Republic Part I Section 2. “The Conventional View of Justice Developed” pp. 8-15
Answer question(s) from one or more of the sections that follow.
Short responses 2-5 sentences
A) In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
Part of his definition is much improved from his fathers definition of "paying ones debts and telling the truth." That statement is very general, and has a lot of cons in it. The idea of helping ones friends is of course, good, but by only helping your friends doesnt make you just. I think hurting ones enemies is very unjust, unless good can come from it, which also goes into whether harming someone can be "right".
B) What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?Simonides definition of justice is to give everyone their dues and telling the truth. Polemarchus thinks of this as helping friends and hurting enemies, which I guess, is true.
C) What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?
Socrates says that a man with justice wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone, regardless of if they are a friend or an enemy, because hurting anyone intentionally is very unjust.
D) What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
I think he is trying to prove that wisdom comes with age, and the younger generation is more easily persuaded then the elderly.
E) Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why?
Socrates is more convincing. He has examples to back up his stance, which is obviously a strong argument tactic. He is also known to be a philosopher, which gives him an intelligence advantage, because Polemarchus is young, and much less wise then Socrates.
(As we can see Socrates influences many of the philosophers in the republic, with hardly any effort)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Similie of the Cave Reading Questions
UE THUR, 3/15 Similie of the Cave Reading Questions
Reading Questions
Plato. “The Simile of the Cave.” The Republic.
1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?
The prisoner can’t look up because he is so used to being in the cave with no light. Socrates and Glaucon said it would be the easiest for the prisoner to see shadows because that is what he was used to seeing. Then he will move up to being able to see the reflections of himself and other people in the water. After he would be able to see the actual objects. The prisoner would move up slowly to see the actual objects and be able to live like the normal people. Then he would be able to look at the sun itself without blinking.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
The prisoners are happy with the way they are. They don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want to realize that what they thought was the truth is a lie. So the prisoners didn’t want to be led out of the cave in fear that they didn’t know anything else other then pointing at the shadows and knowing what they were.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don't let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside "the intelligible region" and associates it with "the divine." What is special about "the intelligible region" and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e)?
It is very important for the higher power because that is how they control the prisoners or the people below them. Because without it it would give the prisoners and people below the higher power room to think for themselves.
4. What is wrong with having uneducated people run society? What is wrong with having intellectuals (i.e. well-educated people) run society (p. 323 section 519c)?
Socrates says that things will never be properly governed if the uneducated dictact. The reason being that they would have no clue what to do or say. Because they are uneducated they need directing in everything they do.And Socrates says the problem with having intellectuals govern would be that they know many things. So they would think they were godly and just want everyone to serve beneath them. And the people would be too controlled.
5. On pp. 323 – 324 (section 519 section d – section 520) Socrates tells Glaucon what the "job" of a lawmaker is. What is the job of a lawmaker and how is a lawmaker supposed to influence the best minds?
What the law makers do is they listen to Socrates and Glaucon tell them about what is good and what is bad. They then take that and they spread to the people what they heard about the good and bad, which controlls them even more.
Reading Questions
Plato. “The Simile of the Cave.” The Republic.
1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?
The prisoner can’t look up because he is so used to being in the cave with no light. Socrates and Glaucon said it would be the easiest for the prisoner to see shadows because that is what he was used to seeing. Then he will move up to being able to see the reflections of himself and other people in the water. After he would be able to see the actual objects. The prisoner would move up slowly to see the actual objects and be able to live like the normal people. Then he would be able to look at the sun itself without blinking.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
The prisoners are happy with the way they are. They don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want to realize that what they thought was the truth is a lie. So the prisoners didn’t want to be led out of the cave in fear that they didn’t know anything else other then pointing at the shadows and knowing what they were.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don't let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside "the intelligible region" and associates it with "the divine." What is special about "the intelligible region" and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e)?
It is very important for the higher power because that is how they control the prisoners or the people below them. Because without it it would give the prisoners and people below the higher power room to think for themselves.
4. What is wrong with having uneducated people run society? What is wrong with having intellectuals (i.e. well-educated people) run society (p. 323 section 519c)?
Socrates says that things will never be properly governed if the uneducated dictact. The reason being that they would have no clue what to do or say. Because they are uneducated they need directing in everything they do.And Socrates says the problem with having intellectuals govern would be that they know many things. So they would think they were godly and just want everyone to serve beneath them. And the people would be too controlled.
5. On pp. 323 – 324 (section 519 section d – section 520) Socrates tells Glaucon what the "job" of a lawmaker is. What is the job of a lawmaker and how is a lawmaker supposed to influence the best minds?
What the law makers do is they listen to Socrates and Glaucon tell them about what is good and what is bad. They then take that and they spread to the people what they heard about the good and bad, which controlls them even more.
Republic Assignment
DUE FRI, 3/16 Plato Assignment
Read: Part I Introduction, Prelude pp. 2-8 (all of the Prelude)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Polemarchus is socrates friend. It is his house in which the scene from the book takes place. His father is Cephalus.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a Business man.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was preparing/taking part in the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
As long as you are living a happy life at an old age, you should minimize you're intensity of your desires.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying one's debts.
What is Socrates response?
He replies with the point that this idea of justice, is not always just. He gives an example; if you were to borrow a weapon from a mad man, it would not be smart, or "justice" to return it to your friend, although returning it represents "paying ones debts." This meaning, sometimes you must break the law to be just/get justice.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I think both have their strong points in the argument. I liked Socrates' example of the mad man and the weapon, but Cepheus' definition is in general, is true to me. It seems as though Socrates believes that if someone says something that he doesn't agree with, there has to be something wrong with their point of view. Socrates has yet to offer an alternative to his idea, and i doubt he plans on it.
Read: Part I Introduction, Prelude pp. 2-8 (all of the Prelude)
Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
Polemarchus is socrates friend. It is his house in which the scene from the book takes place. His father is Cephalus.
What is the profession of Cephalus?
He is a Business man.
What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
He was preparing/taking part in the daily sacrifice.
According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
As long as you are living a happy life at an old age, you should minimize you're intensity of your desires.
What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
He thinks that justice is telling the truth and paying one's debts.
What is Socrates response?
He replies with the point that this idea of justice, is not always just. He gives an example; if you were to borrow a weapon from a mad man, it would not be smart, or "justice" to return it to your friend, although returning it represents "paying ones debts." This meaning, sometimes you must break the law to be just/get justice.
II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:
Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?
I think both have their strong points in the argument. I liked Socrates' example of the mad man and the weapon, but Cepheus' definition is in general, is true to me. It seems as though Socrates believes that if someone says something that he doesn't agree with, there has to be something wrong with their point of view. Socrates has yet to offer an alternative to his idea, and i doubt he plans on it.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Personal Reflection
DUE FRI 3/2 Personal Reflection
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences
(or related to that, your inablity to forgive).
You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.
How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
One time when I was was younger, probably in about 3rd of 4th grade, we used to have
Write about a time that your pride had negative consequences
(or related to that, your inablity to forgive).
You can also write about someone else or write about pride in another book.
How was your pride, or the other person's, similiar or different to that of Achilles?
One time when I was was younger, probably in about 3rd of 4th grade, we used to have
3/2 Iliad Assignment
DUE Friday 3/2 Iliad Assignment
Book 16 - Read pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end
Remember we are skiping the middle half, but you can read it if you like. It gives details of the battle and chronicles the accomplishments of Patroclus as he saves the Greek ships and leads the Greeks to the walls of Troy.
Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.
Period 4 - How do you think Achilles will respond? Predict what's going to happen next.
Main Points:
- Hector kills Patroclus with the help of Apollo.
- Before dieing Patroclus tells Hector that will kill him in the near future to seek revenge.
(Hector brushes these words off his shoulders and basically laughs in the face of danger)
No questions really because the text was pretty clear and i have already seen the movie "Troy" and know the main parts of the text, which were also clarrified by classmates while reading.
I think that Achilles is going to come back into the war because he had a very strong love for Patroclus and now he is dead, and he now will be pushed over the egde.
Also that what him mother told him, that he would not be returning from the war, is true and will happen in the reading sometime soon.
Book 16 - Read pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end
Remember we are skiping the middle half, but you can read it if you like. It gives details of the battle and chronicles the accomplishments of Patroclus as he saves the Greek ships and leads the Greeks to the walls of Troy.
Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.
Period 4 - How do you think Achilles will respond? Predict what's going to happen next.
Main Points:
- Hector kills Patroclus with the help of Apollo.
- Before dieing Patroclus tells Hector that will kill him in the near future to seek revenge.
(Hector brushes these words off his shoulders and basically laughs in the face of danger)
No questions really because the text was pretty clear and i have already seen the movie "Troy" and know the main parts of the text, which were also clarrified by classmates while reading.
I think that Achilles is going to come back into the war because he had a very strong love for Patroclus and now he is dead, and he now will be pushed over the egde.
Also that what him mother told him, that he would not be returning from the war, is true and will happen in the reading sometime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
