5/18 The Apology p.61-70

Q. Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.

A. I chose to highlight Socrates' final words, "If you expect to stop denunciation of your wrong way of life by putting people to death, there is something amiss with your reasoning. This way of escape is neither possible nor credible; the best and easiest way is not to stop the mouths of others, but to make yourselves as well behaved as possible. This is my last message to you who voted for my condemnation. I chose to highlight this portion of the section because I think the only reason why Socrates was put on trial was so that he could be silenced. That way, his thoughts could not affect society anymore as it is. I guess this was the jury's decision so that they can escape from his words that they believe can ruin their society. But in my own opinion, Socrates is innocent because he has the right to freedom of speech, and he hasn't affected anyone from his opinions because even before now, they would have complained. I'm still wondering off on how the society and the government has changed since Socrates' death.

5/17 The Apology p.51-61

Q. Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.

A. I decided to highlight Page 52; two lines down, "And do you seriously suggest that it is from me that the young get these ideas, when they can buy them on accasion in the orchestra for a drachma at most, and so have the laugh on Socrates if he claims them for his own, especially when they are so peculiar? Tell me Meletus, is that your opinion of me? Do I believe in no god?" It was interesting for Socrates to bring up this topic because it made me question my opinions about whether Socrates did have something to do with corrupting the youth. Now I realize that he may not be the only cause, there is a whole world of imitation and misrepresentation that that can be the actual cause of corrupting the youth. So I now have second opinions about this that make me believe Socrates was innocent.

5/16 The Apology p.41-50

Q. Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.

A. I pretty much highlighted all of page 49. This section was when Socrates was questioning Meletus due to the fact that he accused Socrates for corrupting minorities. This was interesting to me because it seemed like Socrates was using his old tricks of minipulating and stirring up the conversation between him and Meletus in order to achieve his point. That would be, Socrates is not the one behind this issue, but the ones who influence them such as the Jury members he takes for example, and the ones that expose them to violence. In my opinion, it is not at all Socrates' fault for the corruption of minorities because he's just letting out his own thoughts, freedom of speech but I think the cause for this is the parents or the government for exposing minorites to such things that they don't want them to know.

5/15 Pericles Funeral Oration

Q. Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one and write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.

A.

>It would be best to be a model to somebody else than to imitate someone

>Power lies in everyone's hands, not just minorities (which goes to the quote, "children are the future")

>Everybody is equal in their society, there is no one advantage

>Their city is open to the world

>Military : They fight for themselves, they don't need to gain support from their allies

The one quote that I found interesting was on page 147 lines 12-17 "We Athenians, in our own persons, take our discussions on policy or submit them to proper discussions: for we do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated." I'm not really sure how this is related to the trial of Socrates, but it got me thinking, because The Athenians seem like they have a strong form of government. They have power, and laws that were made to best benefit their people. But this one quote, just seemed like it was a belief of the Athenians that they rushed to a consequence for Socrates when all he did was express his own personal thoughts and opinions. There is a difference between words and deeds.

4/25 Jigsaw Activity

Q. Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.

A. This packet is about the Patriot Act and whether it has increased censorship in the United States or it has not. I think a good debate resolution would be, The Patriot Act increased censorship in the United States.

Q. Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another?

A. The Patriot Act is a law that allows the government to enforce law powers. This includes allowing agents to follow a suspect through wiretaps and follow the suspect into a library or a bookstore. The government is also able to track down email and internet usage from anyone. Not only this, but the Patriot Act also gives the government the power to limit what a person reads or purshases.

This is a big impact on our constitutional rights because it violates the First Amendment, the right to expression free from government interference. The Patriot Act limits our reading, and that already is an issue. I think that limiting the amount of reading is completely unconstitutional. We have the right to read what we want, and write what we want. Pretty much anything that allows us to express ourselves. There is nothing that can't allow us to do that.

I think this is an important topic because I believe the Patriot Act increases censorship in the United States. It gives the government priveledges to track down a suspect through following them. But those rights are completely unnecessary because that is why we have FBI agents and local cops, they are the ones that help prevent crimes. The Patriot Act is a big invasion of privacy and it's pretty much as we call, "stalking." How would you like it if everytime you were to walk into a library or a bookstore, there were FBI agents there, practically waiting for you to be questioned if you were part of some crime or some act of terrorism? Wouldn't you feel like you were being accused of a crime? I sure would not want that. The library is a place for you to read, and do research and whatnot, not a police station.

In the passage, they say "it is possible for them to investigate a person who is not suspected of criminal activity, but who may have some connection to a person. Worse... there is a gag provision barring bookstores or libraries from telling anyone-- including the suspect about the investigation. Violators of the gag order can go to jail." What I believe this means is that it the govenment may also track down ANYONE they please. From my perspective, I think there might be times where they may take advantage of this right and "stalk" someone that may not have done anything wrong.

This also limits many powers for me as an individial because I would never feel safe when I'm on the computer. If I were to send an email to a friend or a family member, I think the government could easily have access to that. The Patriot Act would completely cover for them.

Q. Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side.

A. Con : It is a fact that the violent crime rate has plunged down to it's lowest point in 30 years. This is not due to the Patriot Act, but the FBI and the local cops that have worked hard to prevent crimes.

Pro : The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor a suspect or even a terrorist through wiretaps.

4/24 The Press in Times of Crisis

Q. Indicate wheter your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
A. I decided to read the chapter that was against the resolution. The three main points that I chose to support the Con side of the argument. One, it is unconstitutional to censor the media's opinions. Two, there was the issue about a man named Maher Hawash who was arrested and his home was also raided. He could not explain why exactly he was being held. This related to our topic, because later the article discusses how the press first heard about this story, such as The New York Times and the story was ran in their newspapers. This is a great example to support the Con argument because this was an issue that was hidden under secracy. Very few people were not aware that this had happened. And finally, the issue about a man, Jose Padilla who was arrested at an airport in Chicago who was a "known terrorist" and was planning to explode a radioactive bomb. I don't really know this is related to our topic, but this was a great issue that appreared in the text that I think could be used later on.
Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. My personal opinion on the issue is that I am definitely against censoring the media. The media should have a right to broadcast the news to us. After all,it is their job to deliver the news to us. Especially during a major event such as a war, or an attack. We want to be kept informed what's going on in our society, and what possible challenges we may face later on. But I also believe there should be a limitation as to the content that is expressed by the media. Sometimes they can take advantage of their air time to broadcast their own personal opinions. Sometimes that may be a good thing because it can change your own personal opinions about a particular subject, but it can be a bad thing as well because if they include anything from violence, to language in their opinions and it may not be appropriate for the audience. But in my overall opinion, even if there may be some negative sides to the media, I believe that the media is something that we cannot live our lives without.

4/23 Viewpoints

Q. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
A. America is crumbling because people are becoming very opinionated and they're not giving any thought as to what can be affected from what they say. They also don't know where to stop, and they don't know the limit as to the law. Not only this, but the youth have been affected as well. There are many things that are open to young children that they should not even be taught yet. Young children are learning things that is not yet concerned with them, only as to the "adult world."

Q. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" arguement.

A. Freedom of Speech is our right to have a say in what we believe in. But without it, we would not be able to express our thoughts on a particilar subject that we feel strongly about. But I also believe that we should follow the law as well because without it, we wouldn't have order in our country. People would not be able to know what is right or what is wrong. People would not know the limit.

Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. I think everyone should have the right to Freedom of Speech, but we sometimes tend to take advantage of it, and we take matters too far. They push things too far that before they know it, they're doing something wrong, and they have to face a consequence. What I think should be the solution to this is there should be an extension to the limit to what we want to say. I think it's wrong for people to get in trouble over a small issue that was probably not made intentionally. But I think the right thing to do is to create a consequence if you go pass that limit. So in my opinion, we need refinement in our country.

4/19 Don Imus Controversy

Q. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
A. NAACP believes he should be silenced because it not only looks bad on the network, but it really created a big controversy about racism and sexism.

Q. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
A. Frank Rich believes he should not be silenced because he wouldn't actually say anything that would be offensive towards someone, mainly only to get a few laughs. It's not really a bid deal because he makes fun of everyone. Frank Rich also believes that he has freedom of speech, and he can say his own personal opinions.

4/18 Plato Reading & Blog

Q. Why should plays, and acting in them, be regulated? What is potentially beneficial or harmful from acting in a play?

A. I really don't think plays and acting in them should be regulated at all. People should be able to express themselves in a way that they want. If acting is their hobby, then they should pursue their goal. But as to Plato's quote, "And it will also apply to representation; a man cannot play many parts as well as he can one (pg. 89),"

this made me question. I think plays should be regulated because a person cannot control another person because that is not what was meant for him. That person can only control their own life. When a person acts in a play, he cannot BE that person. He can only do his best to try to portray that character.

I think Plato wants to regulate plays because if children were to watch plays that could involve violence or drugs, or anything not sitable for children, they could become influenced. Plato wants to adjust the play standards to something a little more appropriate. What's harmful in acting in a play is that a person can get so into that character, that they can do something harmful in reality. The only thing beneficial in acting in a play is that person's own enjoyment.

3/28 Plato Assignment

Q. 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 Homer (yesterday the question was about Hesiod)? You might want to think about Achilles as a "hero," and why or why not his personal characteristics are something that should be promoted, or not.
A. I think Plato would want to censor Homer because from what I have learned yesterday, some poets seem to misrepresent the gods. I think Homer has twisted up some of the traits of gods. I also think that Homer writes alot of about violence and betrayal, I don't think that's a good influence on society. Achilles for example, he seems like he's this powerful warrior who he believes he can do anything he wants, and noone can stop him because he is all that powerful. But then Homer describes him as this lazy, self centered coward, who I think is a bad influence on the younger audience.

Then read pp. 76-85 (Section b). Secondary or Literary Education)
Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
Q1. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?

A1. Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are the facts. Some poets go overboard and tend to "lie" to make their poetry seem more interesting. But I mean, good poetry has to be unsuitable for young audience even if it means stretching it far from the truth. Poetry can undermine the education of a Guardian because the Guardians need to be influenced with suitable stories and facts that will make them strong, fearless and wise. But hearing poetry such as the one's from Homer and Hesiod can influence them that their poetry is what they need to believe in, that is what's right.
Q2. What should poetry “teach” and why?

A2. Poetry should teach younger audience what's right from what's wrong, and they need to teach self control. For example, there's a short paragraph about how Zeus could not control himself that he wanted to make love to Hera. That's not exactly what we need to be teaching the young. First of all, it's inappropriate for younger ears, and second, it's teaching us that if you want something, there is nothing that can stop you from doing that. You have no self control. So I think if poems are going to be written, they need to have a lesson or a moral that atleast teaches us something.
Q. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?

A. Some of Plato's ideas are a little over the top. Some aren't even necessary. But I do have to agree on some of them, like if poetry shall be written, they need to be appropriate for younger audience because what we teach the young now, can affect us in the future.

3/27 Plato Assignment

Q. 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.
A. I think Plato would want to censor Hesiod because Hesiod has alot of strong opinions about the Gods and Goddesses. They somehow can influence others that this version of their story is correct, or this is what they must believe. I also think that Hesiod has alot of violence that wouldn't be a good influence on society.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions
Q1. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
A1. They both are guilty of misrepresenting the gods. By this, I mean they made up stories and poems, misinterpreting the gods, the true purpose of the Gods.
Q2.What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
A2. The two main characteristics of God, are good and perfect. God is the cause of good, and is incapable of causing evil. The cause of evil has no explanation, no responsibility, no factors of what may cause evil, if only we caused it ourselves. God is also perfect, he cannot change himself for he is already perfect, the only need to change is if there was any situation that went wrong, God is also incapable of causing harm or any evil upon us.

The two principles that is proposed in the text is 1) God is good, and cannot cause harm nor evil. A person who is punished is not God's fault, but their own. That person needs to learn that they made a mistake, and they can also benefit from it, because being punished means what they had done was wrong. 2) God, nor any immortal God or Goddess can transform themselves into any way shape or form as they wish.

Q. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?

A. I think I was pretty close, my first thoughts were that Hesiod had alot of strong opinions about the Gods, and that what he has written doesn't seem all that true. But what Plato wrote was that Hesiod has misinterpreted the Gods.

3/22 Prep for Seminar

Q. Do you think that someone who is enlightened (has seen the "light of knowledge") will be better or worse as a law maker than someone still in the cave, though many of their subjects are in the cave as well? Remember that a man who has seen the light can't see in the darkness of the cave and a man in the cave is blinded by the light.

A. I'm not very sure which one would make the better law maker, because both of these have their negative and positive issues. Someone who is enlightened will know more about the issues going on in their society, and they will also know what's the appropriate decisions for their society. But sometimes when you know too much, you can go greedy with power, and knowing that you have power, you can become self-centered, and make decisions that's in your own interest, but not always benefit your society. Someone who has not yet seen the light won't always make the decision that would be in their own interest, or what could benefit themselves, but their society as well. But on the negative side, they won't always know what's going on in their society, so that can cause them to make the inappropriate decision. If they lived in a cave their whole life, their customs, and what they think is right and what is wrong has been based on the personal thoughts and opinions of another peoson with a higher power in the cave, that made the laws. So a person who has never seen the light, what they think is what is right or wrong, they have just been following someone and I don't think that could be best in the outside world, where there is knowledge, because they have not yet been exposed to a world that they never even knew existed.

3/21 The Republic Assignment

Q. 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?

A. I think it all depends on your personal thoughts on what is "right" or what is "wrong." When you believe what you're doing is right, then that makes you feel good, and that creates happiness. For example, for me, when I do good on a test I feel good about myself, and that makes me really happy. So it all depends on what you think. When you know you're doing wrong, it's just the exact opposite of what's right, you don't believe in yourself, and you don't feel good about yourself, which makes you gloomy, guilty, and you know you did wrong. I think Socrates would not agree with me, he would most likely question me, for example "Don't you think what's right for you, would not be right for another?" I think Thrasymachus would just give his own opinion, for example "You could only believe what's right for you, if you have the stronger power."

3/20 The Republic Assignment

Q. 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?
A. He mostly says that leaders are making the decisions that benefit mostly themselves, and for what's in their best interest, which is the law, and anything else that doesn't fit in with his decisions is against the law. But then I also read that if a leader makes an order, and it hurts them, then that would be against the law. I'm really confused.
Q. In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
A. I'm not very sure, but I think Thrasymachus' two main points are justice is for interest of the stronger people, and injustice is for for your own interest. I also think Socrates two main points are noone wants to be controlled by another, noone wants authority from another, and wise men would rather have other men do their work, rather them having to do it themselves.
Q. 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?
A. It is never right to harm another, because you're not only effecting that person, but you're also effecting yourself. If you hurt someone, you could have regret over what you have caused, because that person could backfire on you, and even hurt you as well, sort of like revenge. You also wouldn't make a big impact on that person if you hurt them physically, because you're only hurting them on the outside, when you hurt them mentally, then you're effecting them, causing an emotional state. I think Socrates would most likely agree with this, but would not exactly agree with fighting mentally, or with words. I think Socrates would say something like, you could cause this, but you could also force other men to take the consequences.

3/17 The Republic 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. You have to answer all the questions in each section, but you only have to answer one section. Don’t forget to cut/paste them into your blog and to print them out and keep them in your binder for easy access later.

Section 1
Short responses 2-5 sentences
Q. In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?
A. I don't really think Polemarchus' definition of justice is an improvement from his father's definition, because I actually think Cephalus' definition was much better. Cephalus thinks that justice is paying your debts and just telling the truth, but Polemarchus' view is getting back at your enemies.
Q. What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?
A. Simonides' definition of justice is that everyone has their own dues. Polemarchus interprets it as helping your friends, and hurting your enemies.
Q.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?
A. I think what this means is that you can't always be right, you only base your decisions on your likes or dislikes. I don't think this is an accurate definition of justice because a friend might not be good, and an enemy might not be bad. I think it all depends on your personal thoughts and your personal decisions.

Q. What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?
A. I'm not very sure if there is a lesson trying to be given, I'm a little confused at this point.
Q. Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).
A. I don't think there's an argument at this point, because all I'm reading is that Socrates is just trying to bring Polemarchus down by proving that's wrong, and he's not giving an argument.

3/17 Personal Reflection

Q. “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. These are topics that you will read about in the assignment below.

A. My definition of a true friend is someone who you can really trust and rely on. Someone who will always be there for you when you really need them and someone who has your back no matter what happens. A friend is also someone who you just enjoy their company, someone who you feel comfortable with, someone who you feel safe with. You should act the same way a friend acts towards you. You kind of have to return the favor. If they're going to be there for you, and have your back always, then you should do the same.

3/16 Republic Assignment

Q. Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?
A. Cephalus is Polemarchus' father. They are both residents in "Piraeus".

Q.What is the profession of Cephalus?
A. Cephalus is a business man.

Q.What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?
A. Cephalus was sacrificing in the courtyard.

Q. According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?
A. When you become older you have a better outlook on life, you become alot wiser. Being old is the same as youth, but sometimes even better.

Q. What are Cephalus’ view of justice?
A. I don't really think Cephalus has any views on justice.

Q.What is Socrates response?
A. Socrates believes that not everyone can agree with Cephalus. He says "I'm afraid that most people don't agree with what you say, Cephalus, but think that you carry your years lightly not because of your character, but because of your wealth. For they say that the rich have many consolations." Later in the text, he mentions that Cephalus is a business man and has inherited and made a good amount of money, but Socrates says that he doesn't seem to be over-fond with it. I think what Socrates it trying to say is that when you have inherited or made a great amount of money, you seem to be really proud of it, and kind of want to show it off, but Cephalus doesn't seem to be like that.

Q. 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?
A. I think I have to agree with Cephalus because when you do get older, you have alot more experience throughout the years. You have a better outlook on life, and you have learned from your previous mistakes, and learned how to benefit from them. As for him inheriting and making his own money, I think it's great that he's not too over obsessed with it. I agree, because if you make the money that you made the biggest most important thing in life, what else would you have?

Q. Try to give this a shot, if you can’t answer it that’s okay: What do you think Cephaus represents? What is particular or unique about his view of justice compared to the others you have discussed in class?

A. I think Cephalus is someone who is comfortable in his own skin. He's not afraid to tell his opinions, and what he has to say. I think he represents someone who believes in justice, I'm not quite sure what exactly the true definition of justice is, but it seems like he has a good opinions about himself and what he believes in.

3/15 Simile of the Cave Reading

Answer ALL of these questions with short answers (3 - 5 sentences).

Q. 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?

A. The prisoner is blinded by the sun's rays. This happens because throughtout the prisoner's whole life, he's lived in a cave. The only light that he's ever seen in his life, was behind a curtain where a fire was lit while they were doing shadow puppets. Therefore, when the prisoner first gets outside, the sun's rays were so strong, it blinded him.

Q. 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?
A. I think the prisoner was kind of intimidaded. I don't think the prisoner has made any human contact throughout his whole life. I also think that he didn't know the person very well, who would trust a stranger?

Q. 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) ?
A. The "intelligible region" is special because it's basically the world that we live in today. It's where people can have a say in what they believe in, people have a mind of their own. It is important for the public servants and the political leaders because they need to know what's going on in their society, in order for them to make the appropriate decision for what's best for their society.

Q. 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)?
A. It is wrong for uneducated people to run society because they don't always understand what's was going on. If they run their society, they could end up destroying it by one little wrong decision they make. But it is also wrong for intellectuals to run society because they can't always be the perfect leader. Just because they may have the brains of a good leader, doesn't mean that they can make all the right decisions.

Q. 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?

A. Based on Glaucon's description of what a lawmaker is, I think a lawmaker must encourage their people to be the best they can be. But it's also confusing, because then he says after they have achieved this, they must also prevent them from what they have been encouraged by.

Personal Reflection

Q. Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?

A. I think there was a time the beginning of 6th grade, when my friend and I started taking voice classes. I knew I didn't have much of a voice, but I was willing to learn, and to get better at it. Every Saturday we would go to our voice classes, and we got to perform a song, and out voice instructor would give critiques on what to improve on. I chose a song, but I can't quite remember now. My voice instructor said it was really really good, and the song went really nice with my voice. So I was thinking, I guess I don't have such a bad voice after all. After a couple weeks of voice classes, I was feeling pretty confident in myself, so I decided to put my voice to the test. At my middle school, we were having a talent competition, singing, dancing, anything we were good at. My friend and I decided to do a duet. So for tryouts, we actually did pretty good, and we got in. Sadly, this girl that I really disliked was going to sing as well, but I didn't really care. The day of the talent competition, we all sat along the stage, waiting for out turn to show off what we've got. It was finally our turn. The song started, and we both sang. Every applauded, and I thought the show went alright. After we had performed, we were all backstage, waiting for the results. I overheard the girl that I dislike, say that I had a really bad voice, and I sounded really weird when I sang. Her friend started saying the same thing. I was crushed, but hearing that from someone who I really didn't like, didn't matter as much. When the results were in, my friend and I came in 6th place. I guess I don't have much of a voice after all. I still continued to take voice classes, but about a year after, I decided to take a break off it, and start something different, guitar.

The Iliad Book 16 3/2 Assignment

Q. Summarize the main parts

>Patroclus doesn't listen to Achilles and decides to go to war with Troy

>Apollo wanrs Patroclus to back off and go back home

>Hector gets on his chariot and wants Patroclus to be his next target

>Patroclus sees men crowding over the chariot driver, Cebriones' body

>Apollo slammed Patroclus and his helmet fell off

>When Patroclus tried heading back to the Achean's rank, Hector was there, and he stabbed a spear right though Patroclus

>Patroclus tells Hector that his own death will near, Achilles will return

>Patroclus dies

Q. Ask Questions

>What would be Achilles' reaction that Patroclus went behind his back to go to Troy?

>What would be Achilles' reaction that Patroclus is dead?

>Would Achilles want to return to war for revenge for the death of his friend?