text:
BlogFeaturedKidsMusic
Music Industry Pros Train Next Generation of Memphis Stars
Photo: Germantown Performing Arts
Kate Lareau, December 16, 2020
Home Blog Music Industry Pros Train Next Generation of Memphis Stars
In Memphis, the music is everywhere: the streets, the parks, the bars, the venues. It's often free and always great. Well, at least it was—and we hope it will be soon. But the music is still out there, happening in ways that might surprise you, with nationally known and award-winning pros training up the next generation of Memphians who will keep this town on the musical map.
Stax Music Academy students—pre-pandemic—were all about performing. For now, they're in a season of songwriting, and you won't believe the exposure they're getting!
There's a legacy of sound in this city that tells stories of joy and pain for all of us—and those stories matter a lot right now. So listen in as we see how music is shaping the future for young Memphians.
Picture the scene: An opera singer teaching Cordova High kids. The second violin of the Memphis Symphony Orchestra giving lessons for East High School students. The founder of the Memphis Jazz Workshop and an award winning jazz pianist leading Bellevue Middle classes.
Or what about a producer for Chance the Rapper giving feedback to a student at Stax Music Academy?
Now stop in at Rhodes College, where students are creating new arrangements of protest songs from the '60s and creating a virtual performance with local composer, producer, and sound designer James Oliver. Keep scrolling to hear some of their magic!
One more stop: the (almost) empty Germantown Performing Arts Center, where the GPAC Youth Symphony Orchestra has gone to extraordinary measures to safely allow students to play together on stage—or to join via Zoom for an experience that is rich in its own right. And all of this augmented by the exposure the kids receive to world-class musicians through the GPAC and the IRIS orchestra.
If these scenes surprise you, let me tell you about the Memphis music scene, because it's a great story of artists who are determined to pass on the skills and the stories that are captured in everything from opera to rap, from jazz to gospel, and from Handel to W.C. Handy.
Memphis Music Initiative:
In-school music reduces students' stress levels and leads to higher graduation rates. The folks at the MMI know this and they've partnered with Shelby County Schools to provide instruction to 2200 students in K-12th grade.
Putting musicians in classrooms is the norm for MMI—those classrooms just look a bit different this year.
With the onset of virtual learning, MMI shifted from an almost exclusive focus on music skill development to a hybrid that also includes an emphasis on developing a creative growth mindset. What does that mean in real life? It means helping kids open their minds and listen to things they may not have heard before—and think about those sounds and experiences in creative ways. Developing that mindset helps them think creatively about problem-solving and other learning experiences, and that's a win.
And when we mentioned that opera teacher working in Cordova? We weren't kidding. Check out Shannon Lowe from Opera Memphis and the incredible line up of MMI Fellows who serve students across our city. They all agree that one of the biggest wins of music in virtual school is that it motivates kids to be present for—and do well in—all of school. Applause!
GPAC Youth Symphony Program:
Have you driven by the GPAC recently and felt some nostalgia for those performances that make it such a landmark? As quiet as things appear right now, students may have been inside, learning, playing, and growing as artists.
Knowing how central music is to his students' experiences and identities, GPAC Youth Symphony Artistic Director Jonathan Schallert created various opportunities for engagement, both in person and from home.
Early in the pandemic, students processed and responded to their feelings through musical selections for The Listening Project. Selections range from Alabama Shakes to Haydn, and there's a playlist, too.
Masks with wind instruments? The children of the GPAC Youth Symphony have demonstrated flexibility every step of the way.
As the pandemic wore on, science taught us more about how to play music safely in small, distanced groups. GPAC then adopted incredible measures for those children who wanted to gather in person. Incredibly, these students—along with those who continued working from home—recently performed together for a recording session that included in-person and virtual participants.
Dr. Schallert shared his pride in the students, "I was so inspired by their professional approach to the recording process. They were well prepared, focused, and dedicated to beautiful musicianship, even through multiple takes." Thanks to a grant from the Tennessee Arts Commission, and the work of the GPAC staff, the GPAC Youth Symphony hopes to share this recording early next year.
Stax Music Academy:
Last month, Stax brought star power to a Songwriting Workshop that paired 25 Memphis high school students with top songwriting and music publishing experts. SMA Executive Director Pat Mitchell Worley explained how it came about, "Historically, SMA has been more of a performance-oriented music school—but when COVID-19 caused us to shift to virtual learning, we found new opportunities to help students create original music and study music business."
The seeds for the Songwriting Workshop were planted last year when Stax students visited Concord Music Group in Los Angeles. Execs there were impressed with the focused and professional questions from the teenagers and thought they might like to work with them again.
Songwriter Teddy Sinclair has worked with Madonna and Rihanna—and the students at Stax Music Academy.
For the Workshop, students wrote original compositions over a six week period, while Concord execs brought in songwriters and producers to critique the work. Working over Zoom, industry pros like Nate Fox—who has worked with the aforementioned Chance the Rapper as well as DJ Khaled, and Teddy Sinclair—who has co-written songs for Madonna and Rihanna, offered professional critiques to the work.
Rhodes College:
When leaders of the Rhodes College Orchestra realized that there would be no "normal" for the fall semester, they shifted gears. Group discussions, with plenty of input from students, led to a decision to study the music of the Civil Rights era. As studies progressed, students gained a new perspective on the music's relevance to the events of 2020—and also began to understand the ways they could use their own talents as catalysts for social change. Check out this arrangement of "If You Miss Me at the Back of the Bus" with Rhodes student Tim Daso. Students also developed their understanding of production and performance, working with James Oliver to create the final piece we'll share—the Blue Ridge Reel, performed by the Rhodes Orchestral Ensemble, bringing some unexpected joy to that ubiquitous grid on the computer screen.
So as we navigate the winter of this pandemic, feel inspired by the diversity and depth, the creativity and commitment, demonstrated by each of the students and teachers we've profiled here. There's magic in Memphis, and a lot of it's in the music.
Memphis Music Initiative
GPAC Arts Education Fund
Stax Music Academy: Gift of Soul
Rhodes College
Where to Find the Best Holiday Lights In Memphis
Sponsor a Kid's Christmas with the MAM Christmas Store
Kate Lareau
Kate has worked in Memphis doing workforce development, community development, and fundraising for more than a dozen years. She thinks the hustle culture of our city, paired with Memphians' legendary generosity, has led to a shocking number of brilliant ideas in the nonprofit sector—and she's glad she gets to watch the magic happen.


text:
Chandrababu drives Made in India Isuzu D-Max V-Cross pickup
null | 28 April 2016 11:33 AM GMT
This marks the advent of local manufacturing for Isuzu Motors India at an investment of Rs. 3000 crore earmarked for the project.The first India made...
This marks the advent of local manufacturing for Isuzu Motors India at an investment of Rs. 3000 crore earmarked for the project.The first India made Isuzu D-MAX V-Cross pickup rolled out of the SriCity, Andhra Pradesh manufacturing plant today. N Chandrababu Naidu, Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh inaugurated the facility along with Masanori Katayama, President, Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan.
Masanori Katayama, President, Isuzu Motors Limited, Japan, His Excellency Mr. Kenji Hiramatsu, Ambassador of Japan to India, Mr. Kazushi Okawa, Executive Vice President, dignitaries from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Senior Officials from IMI, and Isuzu business partners.
Isuzu SriCity manufacturing plant is spread across 107 acres. Current production capacity stands at 50,000 units, and can be scaled up to 120,000 units.
Isuzu already has manufacturing plants in Japan, Thailand, and the USA. The new gen Isuzu D-MAX pickups manufactured in India are being made with 70 percent localisation to begin with. This will increase with time. Exports from India will also be considered at a suitable time later on making the plant a suitable global manufacturing hub.
Isuzu India manufacturing plant follows the company's global manufacturing standards and Isuzu Manufacturing Management (IMM) practices. Focus on safety, quality and commitment to the environment is a priority.
Masanori Katayama, President, Isuzu Motors Limited says India is one of the biggest automobile markets, and a fast growing economy, globally.
Hiroyasu Miura, Chairman, Isuzu Motors India says D-MAX pickups manufactured at SriCity are in accordance with high-quality standards, having found Indian suppliers who meet Isuzu's global quality standards. High localization strategy is in place.
Local manufacturing operations entail a tie-up with 120 suppliers, including Tier-I and II suppliers for auto-components' supplies. Some of IMI's suppliers have signed a MoU with the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for setting up their manufacturing plant in the region. In future, Isuzu will also consider the possibility of exporting components from India for manufacturing at its global markets .
The new Isuzu pickups manufactured in India will be available in a plethora of models and variants to cater to a wider customer base. D-MAX V-Cross (4×4) Adventure Utility Vehicle 4WD is a premium 5-seater urban vehicle. D-MAX Crew Cab, 4 door pickup with a cargo deck is multi-capable and caters to varying needs through a Single Cab and Cab-Chassis option. Bookings will be opened soon, and deliveries will begin soon after. In time, Isuzu India will launch new vehicles that meet other market segment requirements.
This article has first appeared in Rushlane.com
Isuzu D-Max V-Cross
Unwind Yourself
Yoga for fat burning
Fitness mantra to tackle work schedule, beat stress
Health tests every woman should have in 2020
Health resolutions of women celebrities

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


You've just moved into a new home, and stepped outside to survey the property. So many ideas, but where to start? Borst Landscape and Design has been helping Bergen County homeowners come up with smart landscape plans, then execute them in a way that fits both their vision and budget….


text:
Spotland.it ti fa guadagnare con un semplice dispositivo Android Guadagnare App Android com
L'arte del Cucito is neapolitan textile company which has its origins in quality crafts that once were handed down from father to son, or actually from mother to his son in this case.
This business is a natural evolution of a family tradition launched by mother Franca in 1965, which, at first she cuts and sews for another company and then she decides to work for her own by producing "façon" for a famous Neapolitan firm.
But it is with Gianni, who inherits thanks to his mom the knowledge of fabrics and the tricks of the trade and because of this , the business gains its own independent productive vocation that very soon, however, is directed to the growing needs of the sophisticated world of the banquet and more generally , the catering and hospitality.
L'arte del Cucito, in fact, is the realization of an ambitious project of production packaging and sale of upholstery fabric and all the stuff that complete the furnishing of a lavish table at a stylish ceremony with a particular attention to the relation between price and quality. But moreover, to the various costumer needs.
From this perspective, in fact, the company is in the best position to help, suggest and find the best solution to the issues proposed by the general managers of commercial structures , being able to produce and pack also customized and therefore satisfy every trend and every style.
l'Arte del cucito s.r.l. - P.IVA 07572981210


For people who go on hearing and watching news. Then, they go on pointing fingers. I completely disagree.
For instance, remember the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. You assume every Muslim is a terrorist.
Another example is a lone gunman, Stephen Paddock, killed 59 people and injured more than 500 others in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. It was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. He was not religious. You assume every atheist is a villain.
Last example is a teenage woman tragically, unexpectedly died from multiple knife stabs from her uncle. That was my sister. Now, what do you assume?
That is news for you.
Since I watched this superb film, I am writing about this blog entry, "L-O-V-E."
Love is just a 1-syllable, and 4-letter word. L-O-V-E. Truly, love has many definitions to it. We each have a heart. That is LOVE.
In a nice way, I was telling him stories. I was talking about his problems. He was truly offended by my honesty.
As he raised his voice, he told me, "You are telling me that I am a messed up person!
So far, I have experienced a lot from it in traveling. I met a lot of people in China and in the Philippines. I have built meaningful relationships.
Things can change. Things do not normally go according to plan. This ain't a movie. Expectation is what we want, but this is reality.


text:
Skilled Worker Shortage – Only for "Bad" Companies?
By Mark Graban	 On Nov 23, 2005 Last updated Jul 27, 2011
CNN – Nov. 22, 2005
How ironic that we're reading about mass layoffs in the "big, old, and slow" companies (such as the auto industry) while there is a projected shortage of skilled manufacturing workers. There's no shortage of people who want to "mow lawns for $65 an hour" as Delphi "leader" Steve Miller complained about in a Detroit News Q&A. The days of high pay for low skill are over, that much is clear. But, wouldnt' Delphi do better (and be more lean) if they didn't view their people as a "cost", but rather treated them with respect, as intelligent people who can solve problems and add value? (Thanks to Norm Bodek for expressing that idea so well).
This article, from MSNBC, includes a quote about how young people don't want to go into manufacturing. Who can blame them, with the stories in the news? Manufacturing in America is comatose, dying, or dead according to the mainstream media. Who would want to work at a company like GM or Delphi, based on what you read?
The UAW is fighting, rightfully so I think, the large bonuses being paid to Delphi executives. How hypocritical to be talking about cutting workers' pay in half, but thinking you're so valuable as executives that you have to be kept happy.
Delphi has claimed that its "key employee executive compensation" is vital to retain executives during bankruptcy, as well as to "boost employee morale" among its top management.
I find it hard to believe the Delphi execs couldn't realize how callous that statement sounds when they're ignoring the morale of their value-adding employees. What a way to boost morale!
I'd imagine that Delphi, at whatever size it operates in the future, will have trouble finding skilled workers. Who would want to work for people like this? Delphi is right, maybe, to be offering $10 wages because that's all they'll be able to attract in the future — people who are worth $10 an hour. That will push Delphi deeper into the death spiral while smaller, growing companies, who treat their people with respect will be able to attract quality people, grow, and succeed.
Last I heard, Toyota doesn't have trouble finding skilled workers. They're beating down the doors at new factories Toyota is building. Go figure.
Please check out my main blog page at www.leanblog.org
The RSS feed content you are reading is copyrighted by the author, Mark Graban.
, , , on the author's copyright.
Respect for People
Level Loaded Heart Attacks?
'Roger & Me' all over again
Commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. Day — Keep Moving Forward
Episode #20 of "Lean Whiskey": Live from the Colorado Lean Network…
CEO Akio Toyoda's Perspectives on the Toyota Production System
Respect for People as a Competitive Advantage in Major League Baseball


You are here: Home / Mice / What is The Best Bait to Use for Catching Mice?
What is The Best Bait to Use for Catching Mice?
One of the most successful baits for catching mice is peanut butter. Place it on a candy wrapper to enhance the aroma. The next most successful bait is nest making material like cotton wool. Remember, mice breed frequently so are always looking for materials to build new nests.
Peanut butter, cream cheeses, smelly cheeses, chocolate fudge, marshmallow, jam, gumdrops, Vanilla extract, beef jerky, cooked streaky bacon, seeds, sausage, pet food (wet not dry food).
Cotton wool, floss, shredded paper, wood shavings, string, yarn (glue or tie the bait to the trap so the mouse can't just run away with it).
Now you know what bait to use, what's next?
Keep reading to learn about the do's and don'ts of baiting traps or click the link to discover which are the Top 3 Mouse Traps.
3. Do Different Types of Traps Need Different Baits?
4. How Much Bait Should You Use?
5. Where Do You Place The Bait?
6. Where do You Place the Trap?
7. How Long Do You Leave The Bait In Place For?
8. How Often Should You Replace The Bait?
12. What Do You Do If The Mouse Doesn't Take The Bait?
Mice sniff their food before they eat it. That's not because they are peanut butter connoisseurs. It's because they won't eat food that might be attracting a larger predator, such as you.
Mice can smell (what are for them) alarm pheromones from the sweat on your hands if you touch the bait with your ungloved hands. Wear gloves when you are handling mousetraps. Wear gloves when you are handling bait. And to prevent contact with E. coli, Salmonella, and Streptococcus bacteria, wear gloves when you are disposing of the mice you catch. Gloves used in health care, or for washing dishes, or for food preparation are adequate.
Successful fishing is mostly about using the right bait, and like fishing, if you don't use the best bait for catching mice, you may not catch any mice at all. It's true that mice will be attracted to just about any kind of food, but when you use the best bait, you will catch a lot more mice.
In the wild, mice mostly eat seeds and insects. However, while mice will be attracted to food, whatever it may be, they are known to practically lose their minds with desire when presented with peanut butter. In the winter, when mice are building nests, they go on the prowl for soft threads, but thread isn't really a very practical bait. You would have to tie the thread to the trap so the mouse couldn't just run away with it.
Different types of mouse traps do not really need different baits. What will work for one trap will, by and large, work for all types of traps. However, there is one thing that all bait should have in common; they should be sticky, and not solid.
In Tom and Jerry cartoons the mouse bait is always a traditional chunk of cheddar cheese. The main problem with this is that it could be possible for the mouse to steal the cheese without triggering the trap. That's why sticky bait works best. Examples of sticky bait include peanut butter, jelly, marshmallows or cream cheese.
Because the sticky bait cannot be lifted up and carried away by the mouse, it will have to eat it where it finds it and that will usually mean it will trigger the traps, sooner or later.
The exception to this rule is if you use poisoned bait chunks in a mouse bait station. This is solid, but it has a hole through the middle which is used to hold the bait in place in a bait station. This means the mouse can't walk off with it.
It isn't necessary to use a lot of bait, and it is probably a good idea to use just a small amount. Use a teaspoon (5 g) or so. The idea is not to feed the mouse, but to entice it into the trap. For this reason you will need enough bait to produce a strong smell that the mouse can easily detect, without having too much bait.
In the case of traditional mouse snap traps, the bait needs to be placed on the trigger mechanism. There are usually a few short metal spikes on the trigger to hold solid bait, but using sticky bait will work well too. Make sure the bait is held securely with snap traps, so that the mouse cannot steal it without triggering the trap.
With electronic mouse traps and humane traps, always place the bait as far into the trap as possible, right up to the far end. These type of traps depend on the mouse entering the trap far enough to complete an electric circuit, in the case of electronic traps, and triggering a mechanism that will close the door and prevent escape, in the case of humane mouse traps.
If the mouse can get at the bait without entering far enough to trigger the trap, then it will simply eat the bait and go away, thereby negating the reason for baiting the trap in the first place.
Mice keep close to cover. They navigate by keeping their whiskers in contact with a flat surface, such as a wall. They don't ordinarily visit open spaces unless they absolutely must. You will need to leave baited traps close to a wall. It helps to place the narrower end of the trap against the wall so that whole trap is perpendicular to the wall. This forces the mouse to explore the trap while moving down its runway.
Whenever you can, place traps where mice have overhead cover. Under the stove is a great place for glue traps. Take out the oven drawer for easier access.
If you have a serious infestation of mice, you will not be able to keep up with demand for the bait, so this will not be a problem. However, if you only have the occasional mouse problem, the bait may be left in the trap for several days without any mouse trying to eat it.
This could also mean you have positioned the trap in the wrong place. It needs to be placed where you detect the most mouse activity. However, if the mice are not taking the bait, and the trap is positioned right, you will need to change the bait regularly.
Mice are attracted to strong smelling fresh food, so keep the bait fresh. In hot weather that might mean changing it more regularly than in colder weather. In any case, don't leave bait that is not seeing any mouse activity for so long that it becomes stale. Check your traps on a regular daily basis.
It is best to replace the bait after each time a mouse is caught. It is likely that the mouse will have nibbled some of the bait before triggering the trap mechanism. Other mice might detect this, and while this may not deter them, it is best if they are presented with fresh bait every time.
You should also replace the bait if it is left in the trap without mouse activity for more than a few days to prevent it going stale.
A tiny, basically defenseless mouse will be very cautious about anything new in its environment. It's best to put out bait without traps for a few days to help the mouse become accustomed to the intrusion. Putting out bait will also ensure that you are putting traps in the right place later. When bait starts disappearing on a regular basis, then put out your mouse traps (notice that's mouse traps, plural).
Don't put out just one trap. Put out a dozen or two dozen traps. A single female mouse can give birth to six or seven babies in just three weeks. If you don't have lots of mice now, you will soon. Because they multiply so rapidly, you need to catch them all.
Place at least one trap every 18 inches (50 cm) or so along highly trafficked areas, and for best results, place traps 2 or 3 inches (5 to 7 cm) apart along the entire length of any "rodent runway" you have identified by mouse droppings, mouse urine (visible by black light), or that icky mouse sludge that tends to accumulate when lots of mice travel down the same path at night.
Mice are fast learners. Any mice that escape your traps the first night will be able to avoid them the second night. Take the time to identify rodent traffic patterns and to get the mice accustomed to their bedtime snack, and then put out as many traps as possible with as many different types of bait as possible.
For ongoing mouse catching, it's OK to give the little pests a steady diet of peanut butter. But while you are getting the mice used to the presence of the bait and on the first night you set out traps, offer an all you can eat buffet. This is the one time it might be OK to leave out bacon, cheese, cold cuts, or hot dogs in very small amounts.
This is where testing comes in. Assuming you have a lot of mouse activity in the area, if the mice don't take the bait in the trap, it could mean several things. It could be, for example, that they have a source of food that is easier to get at than the bait in the trap. One way to find out is to use a camera trap and catch them on video. Take a look at my top 3 camera traps here.
In addition ensure that the only food supply available is the bait in the trap. However, if the uptake of bait is still much lower than you would expect, then experiment with changing the bait on a fairly regular basis.
Leave new bait in the trap for a day or two, and if it is not being as effective as you would like, change it to something else and try again. Get inventive, think like a mouse, and you will be successful.
If you're going to buy glue traps to catch rats and mice and don't know the difference between a "Glue Tent" and a "Glue Board", read this short article.
My surefire baiting method is to tie two Cheerios, or a goldfish cracker to the trigger mechanism using some fishing line (6 lb. test). Most traps have a hole or loop to string the line through. I have NEVER had the mouse steal the bait without getting caught.
Thanks for the tip Phil.
Best way to kill them! Glue a peanut or whatever you have to the victor mouse trap trigger. The mouse will get frustrated and eventually try and grab it. I was using peanut butter but had no success kept walking back to traps licked clean. This trick has produced everytime, even glued dog or cat food works!
That is a novel idea, I hadn't heard of that before. I've heard of tying bait to a trap, but I definitely like the idea of gluing it. Interesting to note that the smell of the glue does not put them of.
I have a mouse that doesn't pay rent in the house. I set up two snap traps. This mouse is so smart he ate the bait but trigger didnt snap. I tried a second time. He still ate the bait but pushed the trap to my walk area. I was looking for the traps and they snapped on two toes. The mouse is a college graduate from Micky mouse university it seems. My shotgun worked but have to fix bullet holes in house.
Ha ha good story Micky!
That's a great tip thanks.
Place the sticky traps either side of a snap trap.
Mice will tend to follow the same path, are the droppings normally in the same place, can you determine the mouse's route from the droppings?
Try using a combination of traps, e.g. glue traps either side of a snap trap. Place the traps along the path the mouse takes. Do not handle the traps with your bare hands as mice can smell your scent.
You could also try setting out bait without traps to see if is being eaten.
Because of our very small house most of the skirting board is covered by furniture etc. As a result it is virtually impossible to put the traps against the wall. Our mice are quite happy to come into the centre of the room and hastily scurry back under the furniture when ever they detect movement. So…….where do we set our electronic mouse traps if not against the wall?
You have two options. Mice normally follow the same path whenever moving around a house, you can normally detect this path by their mouse droppings. You then place the trap on this path.
If you don't want a big mouse trap in the middle of your room, you can try putting snap traps under furniture, in addition, place a glue trap either side of the snap trap.
we have mice that have taken the poison from traps, corn for our stove and stored them in different places. We will catch some in traps with peanut butter. But wondered what type of mice store the food. The ones that took the D-Con cleaned out the boxes every night, never found a dead mouse but they emptied 4 boxes and stored it in the accordian case.
I haven't of that before lol. Mice are very smart, and we are heading for mid-winter. They could be thinking about creating a nest in your accordion case.
However, if they are successfully removing food from traps and not getting caught. Place glue traps either side of your existing traps.
I had a question as far as bait stealing goes. I placed 4 snap traps with peanut butter as the bait. I made sure to squeeze it into the little tube on the trigger and everything. I check on the traps daily, and 99% of the time the trap is licked clean but not tripped. Is this a problem with the trap, or just a coincidence? Lol i did find one tripped the other day but nothing in it and licked clean too…. help?
You obviously have some light-fingered mice. Have you tried putting a glue trap either side of the snap trap?


text:
Let Plato Entertain You (II)
A little while back I wrote up some lessons from reading the first third or so of Plato. Having now completed the entire 1800 page tome, it's time to report on the next bit. In a future third post I'll look at the Republic and Laws, Plato's attempts to design an ideal society. The other works in the final third, quite honestly, aren't really worth bothering with - they're rather long-winded works of theological cosmology and for the most part they're just boring. Republic and Laws, as we shall see, are both an intriguing mixture of wisdom and madness.
It's unfortunate that the Republic is such a popular work. I first read it many years ago as a stand-alone work, but reading it in context is quite a different experience. This post is (partially) an attempt to explain why, without the need for the reader to read the entire thing themselves... though it would be better if you did. If Plato's ideal societies are deeply flawed, then I still contend that the first thousand pages of Plato's works are a monumental achievement. A brief Google search reveals that modern philosophers agree with only about 5% of his work today, but honestly, anyone who thinks that's either meaningful or important wouldn't understand philosophy if it successfully argued that them into a state of continuously questioning their own assumptions.
Here, then, in no particular order, are what I found most interesting in the first, best section of Plato.
Tautological Analysis
This is my term for a common tactic of the Socratic dialogues (I mentioned it last time but it deserves a fuller treatment). The most common manifestation is that Plato's Socrates will ask someone to define a term - justice, courage, virtue, that sort of thing - and they will respond by giving an example-:
SOCRATES : He's asking you not what a fine thing is, but what is the fine.
HIPPIAS : My friend, I understand. I will indeed tell him what the fine is, and never will I be refuted. Listen, Socrates, to tell the truth, a fine girl is a fine thing.
SOCRATES: That's fine, Hippias; by Dog you have a glorious answer.
Socrates is of course being very sarcastic in his response, something which happens a lot. He wants to know what fineness itself is, not an example of things which are fine. A fine girl is indeed a fine thing, but she's not fineness itself. Not even if she's Sarah Michelle Gellar.
But nearly. Maybe Scarlet Johannson... ?
That's a facetious example, and there's often a large element of sarcasm and mockery in Plato. Other works are deadly serious, and highlight how deep our assumptions can run. Is justice a good thing ? What about freedom and democracy ? Often they're thoughtlessly chanted as being the defining, crowning achievements about modern civilisation... but they are not goodness itself. Which forces the question as to what the nature of their goodness is, in what circumstances it applies and if there are any situations in which they're actually bad things. But that's for next time.
Plato is famous for this theory of forms : that there are perfect "forms" of ideals like justice, goodness, mercy, beauty and so on, in which individual things can partake. So Mrs Gellar isn't the Platonic form of beauty*, she just shares some aspect of the beautiful. The law courts aren't the ideal of justice, they just have something in common with it.
* With wonderful irony, Plato does go on about the importance of physical beauty quite a lot, while cheerfully acknowledging that Socrates, his hero, was considered to be extremely ugly.
Platonic forms can't exist in the real world. They are, I think, a useful linguistic theory and a way of understanding thought processes, but I wouldn't get caught up in more theological approaches where they actually exist in some higher plane or whatnot. Even though Plato himself tended towards a strongly mystical view of cosmology, which I reject, the theory of forms is extremely useful. Are good things always beneficial ? Must that benefit be immediate or should you integrate over some time ? What if it benefits one person but harms many ? Is pain always bad or is it just unpleasant ? Are bad things always unpleasant ? They can seem like simple, silly questions, but as Plato examines, they are revealed to be anything but. Plato hints at utilitarianism, at one stage (in Protagoras) even praising the importance of mathematics in order to behave ethically :
How else does pleasure outweigh pain, except in relative excess or deficiency ? Isn't it a matter (to use other terms) of larger and smaller, more or fewer, greater or lesser degree-? And if you weigh pleasant things against painful, and the painful is exceeded by the pleasant — whether the near by the remote or the remote by the near — you have to perform that action in which the pleasant prevails; on the other hand, if the pleasant is exceeded by the painful, you have to refrain from doing that. Since it has turned out that our salvation in life depends on the right choice of pleasures and pains, be they more or fewer, greater or lesser, farther or nearer, doesn't our salvation seem, first of all, to be measurement, which is the study of relative excess and deficiency and equality ?
How much Plato really believed this is unclear. He often does advocate maximising goodness, especially for the whole population rather than the individual, but he rarely dwells on the prospect of being able to quantify moral actions. And in other dialogues, he's very much against the idea that "goodness" and "pleasure" are the same thing. If you're the sort of person who thinks that terminology problems are straightforward, a few dozen pages of Plato will soon cure you of that.
What I like about this approach is that at his best - which is very frequent - Plato offers a tremendous, somewhat perverse, clarity of thought. Having knowledge means that you know things, right ? And there's no way you can know things you don't know ? OK, then... what does it mean to know things ? Clarity of thought does not mean clarity of conclusions, but this approach of questioning the very basic assumptions forces acknowledgement of one's own ignorance. Which is no bad thing at all.
Conclusions are for losers
Many of Plato's works have no firm conclusion - or they do, but other works reach the exact opposite conclusion. This more than anything else should be borne in mind while reading anything of Plato : for every dialogue, there is an equal and opposite dialogue. In Phaedrus, he goes on for many, many ironic pages that one shouldn't put too much trust in the written word :
And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.
Or in other words... Don't. Take. Plato. Literally.
In one of his letters - the editor's notes say we're not sure if any of these are genuine, so bear that in mind - he elaborates further :
On this account no sensible man will venture to express his deepest thoughts in words, especially in a form which is unchangeable, as is true of written outlines... Only when all of these things — names, definitions, and visual and other perceptions — have been rubbed against one another and tested, pupil and teacher asking and answering questions in good will and without envy — only then, when reason and knowledge are at the very extremity of human effort, can they illuminate the nature of any object.
Ironically for a man who wrote so much down, he seems quite sincere when he says that you can't learn everything from books. Yet this is absolutely consistent with his other works, which often reach no conclusion or contradict one another. There are no absolute conclusions beyond all reproach, revision is always possible - and usually stated so : "here is what anyone who disagrees with us will have to show in order to refute our conclusion". Take no text as an authority, question everything. Only through repeated questioning and discussion with others is there any hope of glimpsing "the" truth, if there even is such a thing. It's a echo of one of the most powerful sections of the Apology :
On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me even less. What I say is true, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you.
Without bearing this in mind, large parts of Plato can seem monstrous. Indeed, even remembering this some sections seem today to be irredeemable, as we shall see.
Plato's world view was undoubtedly complex, both morally, theologically, and rationally. At times it seems like he thought everything was relative, at other times he's a staunch material rationalist (almost an atheist), at others devout (though never the equivalent of a Creationist - he certainly didn't believe that a big beardy Zeus hurled thunderbolts from atop Mount Olympus). Despite his relativist leanings he still seemed to be searching for an objective ethical theory, even if such a theory couldn't be absolute. His theory of forms had led him to the idea that he could never express his deepest thoughts correctly because language is fundamentally limited and flawed : a name is not the same as the thing itself. So as for what he really meant, we'll simply never know.
Rhetoric is the same as pastry baking
He literally says this. Or more accurately, and with that characteristic ironic streak, he says that oratory is the same as pastry baking. So written text can't convey literal truth, and the spoken word is as useful as a pastry. What's a philosopher to do ? Well in Gorgias, with typical wit and verve he goes off on one about pastry baking :
SOCRATES : Ask me now what craft I think pastry baking is.
POLUS : All right, I will. What craft is pastry baking?
SOCRATES : It isn't one at all, Polus. Now say, "What is it then?"
POLUS : All right.
SOCRATES : It's a knack. Say, "A knack for what?"
SOCRATES : For producing gratification and pleasure, Polus.
POLUS : So oratory is the same thing as pastry baking ?
SOCRATES : Oh no, not at all, although it is a part of the same practice... I call it flattery, basically.
In fact in context "oratory" really means "rhetoric" - the art of persuasion, though specifically in this case by using appeals to emotion through the spoken word. "Pastry baking" means flattery, in the sense that sweet pastries may taste nice, but they aren't good for you. You might enjoy them for a while, but you can't live off them forever. The art of persuasion is important, but it must be accompanied by a search for the truth. Those who seek to persuade without an understanding of the truth - who just want whatever whimsical fancy comes to mind without caring if it's good for them in the long term - will soon come to ruin. In essence, ignoring the truth and caring only for your base desires is a terribly bad idea.
A more modern way to phrase it is the question, "Do you want to be right or do you want to win ?". For Plato - as it should be for anyone - the only sensible answer is both.
Obvious ? Not really - at least not to politicians of the time, and certainly not to politicians of today. Politics seems utterly consumed with one side being right and the other wrong, and barely pays any attention to the objective evidence at all. The other side must be attacked, whether that's because they're argument is flawed or because their character makes them untrustworthy... whatever. It's not about discovering the best course of action, just about winning. No wonder the world is in such a mess.
One might perhaps conclude that therefore "post truth" and "fake news" are nothing new. And they're not. It doesn't mean that they're excusable, however, or that the current state of affairs isn't worse than it was in the relatively recent past.
Crime never pays
The importance of respecting objective truth ties in with another crucial idea of Plato's : that it's better to suffer an injustice than commit one. I don't mean that it's morally superior - everyone would agree to that trivially - but that it is literally better in every material and spiritual sense to suffer an injustice than inflict one on other people. In Gorgias, Socrates argues that even suffering the physical punishments the law demands (so long as they are truly just) after conviction of a crime is a benefit to be enjoyed by the criminal. The problem is, of course, that for this to work the criminal must understand the punishment. If he does not, then he won't gain anything.
Yes, my good man, I take it that these people have managed to accomplish pretty much the same thing as a person who has contracted very serious illnesses, but, by avoiding treatment manages to avoid paying what's due to the doctors for his bodily faults, fearing, as would a child, cauterization or surgery because they're painful... For on the basis of what we're now agreed on, it looks as though those who avoid paying what is due also do the same sort of thing, Polus. They focus on its painfulness, but are blind to its benefit and are ignorant of how much more miserable it is to live with an unhealthy soul than with an unhealthy body, a soul that's rotten with injustice and impiety.
Gorgias is a particularly brilliant and lively work. While Socrates often acknowledges that most people disagree with him, what he doesn't seem to appreciate is how many tyrants brought to justice also disagree with him. He argues very convincingly that pleasure is not the same as moral good (of course), but he seems hell-bent that no-one would willingly choose to commit an injustice. And perhaps they don't; perhaps they are truly ignorant of what they're doing, but this is never really convincingly explained. There are just too many examples (then and now) of people who do seem to know that what they're doing is wrong*. But in Plato's view this sort of thing is an abnormality, a sickness of the soul for which there is only one cure :
* His argument would be strengthened considerably if he focused more on the aspect of ignorance required to commit an injustice, the everyday lesser injustices rather than the extreme evils of tyrants and despots, and the extent to which injustice results in the physical, material suffering of the wrongdoer (rather than the corruption of their soul).
For a corrupt person it's better not to be alive, for he necessarily lives badly.
He means that literally, both for the corrupt person and those around him. Sometimes this takes the remarkably crude theological perspective that evil-doers will be punished in the afterlife. Occasionally it almost takes the from of the "everything happens for a reason" crap that's popular on dumb internet memes. Socrates himself says in the Apology :
I assure you that if I am what I claim to be, and you put me to death, you will harm yourselves more than me. Neither Meletus nor Anytus can do me any harm at all; they would not have the power, because I do not believe that the law of God permits a better man to be harmed by a worse. No doubt my accuser might put me to death or have me banished or deprived of civic rights, but even if he thinks — as he probably does, and others too, I dare say — that these are great calamities, I do not think so. I believe that it is far worse to do what he is doing now, trying to put an innocent man to death.
Socrates had it that if he himself was innocent, then death could not be a disaster. But not just from the religious perspective of being rewarded in the afterlife : Socrates considered the other option, that death is an annihilation :
Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything, or, as we are told, it is really a change — a migration of the soul from this place to another. Now if there is no consciousness but only a dreamless sleep, death must be a marvellous gain. I suppose that if anyone were told to pick out the night on which he slept so soundly as not even to dream, and then to compare it with all the other nights and days of his life, and then were told to say, after due consideration, how many better and happier days and nights than this he had spent in the course of his life — well, I think that the Great King himself, to say nothing of any private person, would find these days and nights easy to count in comparison with the rest.
For Socrates and Plato alike, there is no prospect of an unhappy death for a good man - without any need for the crude notion of being compensated in heaven. Yet Plato (arguably) disagreed that lesser men cannot harm their betters. In a moving passage in Gorgias, Plato has Socrates recount how other great Athenian statesmen had been put to death and so could not have been the skilled leaders and teachers of men that they claimed to be. The reader then realises that Socrates too claimed to be improving those around him yet he suffered the same fate. Plato then has him say, in apparent contradiction to his own words in the--Apology :
If I do come into court involved in one of those perils which you mention, the man who brings me in will be a wicked man — for no good man would bring in a man who is not a wrongdoer — and it wouldn't be at all strange if I were to be put to death... I'll be judged the way a doctor would be judged by a jury of children if a pastry chef were to bring accusations against him.
Or is this a contradiction ? Not necessarily, if you accept that "death" and "harm" are not the same thing. Still, it's hardly the "everything happens for a reason" or "there's a Big Plan" rubbish that fills stupid internet memes. It's simply that the accuser would be evil and would accomplish his goal, whereas the noble philosopher is not able to persuade people that he acts in their best interests. Socrates will die, even though he doesn't particularly want to. So a good man can be harmed by a worse... it was hardly the most just outcome possible. On the other hand, Socrates seems to have genuinely believed that by his death the city would be harmed even more than he would. There wasn't any kind of plan or reason at work, but there was an underlying justice. Killing Socrates stopped his advice, which he thought a far worse thing done to his accusers that his own misfortune by merely being executed. If nothing else, it was a remarkable theory to actually put into practise.
Education, Education, Education
Whenever he addresses the topic directly, Plato arrives at different conclusions as to whether virtue can be taught - that is, whether education can improve people. It can make them more knowledgeable of course, but can it make them wiser ? Or does wisdom - knowing how to use that knowledge to achieve the greatest good - come from nature rather than nurture ? Plato never really had an answer.
... at least, he didn't during his direct examinations. Yet the constant implication of his whole corpus is that it can be taught, that by reading and studying his works the reader might become wiser. "A life without self-examination is not worth living" were perhaps truly the words of Socrates himself, but Plato's relentless questioning, considering different perspectives (including ones he clearly disagreed with), his different and contradictory conclusions, his understanding of the importance of rhetoric... these are all hardly the actions of a man who thinks that education doesn't matter. If self-examination is so critical to life, then it follows that everyone should do it.
Many of his dialogues feel like genuine accounts of real exchanges. Even if they weren't, the protagonists often behave so much like real people, it's clear they must have been inspired by actual discussions even if they're not verbatim reproductions. Protagonists get angry and upset, they threaten to leave or even violence. And sometimes - just sometimes - they change their minds. People can be persuaded by the appropriate arguments. Which I think makes the conclusion inescapable : education matters. It can make people better. Though it's worth mentioning that often the participants feel trapped by the logic of an argument but not really persuaded by it.
Quotes (very lightly edited) are from Euthydemus and Gorgias.
An alternative interpretation is possible. In Meno, Plato describes the possibility that learning is actually recollection. The knowledge already exists inside us - or at least the tools to understand it do - so discussion and examination are methods to find out who's best at what, rather than improving people. This would fit with his statements in other dialogues that we should act according to our natures. Education would then still be extremely important, but for the purpose of discovery rather than change. It would be a sort of hunt to find the best young people, and then lock them away to prevent their corruption... though it wouldn't fit with his repeated statements that justice is necessary as a sort of teaching tool in itself, that mends the corruption of the soul.
Perhaps the most direct clues to Plato's beliefs come from his statements about ignorance, a topic about which he had much (probably worth its own post eventually) to say - nearly all of it well worth scrutiny. Ignorance, for Plato, is a vice that actually makes people worse. Knowledge and wisdom are virtues, but they must be properly taught. Upstart youngsters who learn the methods of debate before they're ready like to employ them as a game :
And isn't it one lasting precaution not to let them taste arguments while they're young? I don't suppose that it has escaped your notice that, when young people get their first taste of arguments, they misuse it by treating it as a kind of game of contradiction. They imitate those who've refuted them by refuting others themselves, and, like puppies, they enjoy dragging and tearing those around them with their arguments. Then, when they've refuted many and been refuted by them in turn, they forcefully and quickly fall into disbelieving what they believed before. And, as a result, they themselves and the whole of philosophy are discredited in the eyes of others. But an older person won't want to take part in such madness. He'll imitate someone who is willing to engage in discussion in order to look for the truth, rather than someone who plays at contradiction for sport.
Teaching methods are deemed to be supremely important in his world-building exercises, but in the present context, strictly speaking, he doesn't commit to saying that virtue can be taught. But he's tremendously keen to encourage the practise of philosophy, and thus far there's no hint that any particular group of people would be better at it than any others. In fact there's very little hint of any kind of class system in Plato at all, certainly nothing anyone is born in to. Excessive wealth (which of course would be for the upper echelons of society) is seen far more as a dangerous vice than something to aspire to. Instead of the boring question, "will earning more money make me happier ?", Plato focused on the much more interesting, "can I make myself a better person through learning-?"
Further evidence can possibly be found in Hippias, but we must be careful. Hippias is a an arrogant sophist who boasts of his own money-making skills as evidence for his cleverness. It's with withering irony that Socrates tells him, "The mark of being wise, I see, is when someone makes the most money."*. Yet he also declares that "early craftsmen are worthless compared to modern ones", and, for example, "Daedalus also, according to the sculptors, would be laughable if he turned up now doing things like the ones that made him famous". It's much harder to tell if he was being ironic here. Elsewhere he has nothing but praise for the ancient poets, but sculptors and craftsmen haven't had much of a look in.
* This is coming from someone who shouts loudly and often about wealth not being goodness and poverty not being a mark of stupidity; irony is the only sensible interpretation here.
Well I wouldn't call it a masterpiece anyway.
The argument I find most convincing is one in Protagoras, using a method of Plato's I described last time : consider the opposite case. Specifically, Protagoras argues that OK, perhaps the son of a great flute-player won't necessarily become a great flute player himself even though he has such a wonderful teacher as his father... but he'll become a damn sight better than if he had no teacher at all. Protagoras argues that it's the same with virtue. Education is necessary for people to reach their innate limits, even if it's not necessarily so powerful as to be able to alter those innate limits. You still need education for people to reach their full potential. If you don't teach people how to behave, then left to their own devices they become - in gloriously politically incorrect terms - "savages such as the playwright Pherecrates brought on stage at last year's Lenaean festival".
A closely related, reoccurring theme is that morality is objective. It's not necessarily absolute by any means : the moral status of any action can depend on context. But if you have the full facts of a situation, you can always assess what's right and wrong. In the Symposium, Plato has Pausanias say :
The reason for this applies in the same way to every type of action : considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, honourable or shameful. Now, in itself none of these is better than any other: how it comes out depends entirely on how it is performed If it is done honourably and properly, it turns out to be honourable; if it is done improperly, it is disgraceful.
You have to be taught how to do things correctly otherwise you'll end up as one of Pherecrates' "savages". But who is to teach you ?
Expert knowledge matters
This is an almost ubiquitous theme in Plato. Virtually every dialogue seems to contain at least one reference to shipbuilders, flute players, carpenters and the like. You don't hire a bricklayer to prescribe medicine. You don't get a philosopher to conduct a choir. You don't hire a shipbuilder to write rhetorical speeches. Unless they're about ships, presumably.
One would think that this would be obvious, but it wasn't at the time and to vast numbers of morons on the internet, it still isn't today. Plato went to extraordinary lengths to refute the then-popular notion of Protagoras that, "man is the measure of all things" : that opinions are the only thing that exist and are true for the individual. This is taken to comical extremes in Euthydemus, in which a couple of sophists declare that everyone knows everything about everything :
But perhaps, Euthydemus, said Ctesippus, you are not uniting flax with flax, as the proverb has it. Because you are making an alarming statement if you say your father is the father of all.
But he is, he replied.
Just of men, said Ctesippus, or of horses and all the other animals ?
All of them, he said.
And is your mother their mother ?
Yes, she is.
And is your mother the mother of sea urchins ?
Yes, and so is yours, he said.
So you are the brother of gudgeons and puppies and piglets.
Yes, and so are you, he said.
And your father turns out to be a boar and a dog.
And so does yours, he said.
Dammit, philosophy !
There's a much more serious discussion in Theaeteus, but even here Plato cannot resist a snarky quip or two. The discussion revolves around whether knowledge is the same as perception and if opinion is the only form of knowledge. Socrates refutes this :
I was astonished that he did not state at the beginning of the Truth that 'Pig is the measure of all things' or 'Baboon' or some yet more out-of-the-way creature with the power of perception. That would have made a most imposing and disdainful opening. It would have made it clear to us at once that, while we were standing astounded at his wisdom as though he were a god, he was in reality no better authority than a tadpole —let alone any other man.
Here he's taken the idea of expert knowledge and perverted it. If all creatures are the judges of what's true, then human intelligence is equal to that of a god or a baboon. Yet how can Socrates be a better judge of his own health than a doctor ? Plato has Protogoras get very grumpy :
You keep talking about pigs and baboons; you show the mentality of a pig yourself, in the way you deal with my writings, and you persuade your audience to follow your example. That is not the way to behave... I certainly do not deny the existence of both wisdom and wise men: far from it... Now what we have to do is not to make one of these two [men] wiser than the other — that is not even a possibility — nor is it our business to make accusations, calling the sick man ignorant for judging as he does, and the healthy man wise, because he judges differently. What we have to do is to make a change from the one to the other, because the other state is better.
Protagoras denies the existence of objective truth, but not that some things are better than other things. Therefore some men are better judges than other men, and gods are better judges than baboons (fortunately the ancient Greeks didn't have any monkey gods...), though how one determines who's better without an absolute, objective standard for comparison isn't clear. Plato plays both views off against the other with equal credibility, never trying to make one seem more ridiculous than the other. For a man who vehemently insisted not to take him literally, it's hard not to take him sincerely.
Yet ultimately, reading between the lines, one gets the impression that Plato hated the idea of knowledge as opinion (and especially that false judgement is impossible), but he respected it. There are strong hints in these oft-repeated comparisons to shipbuilders and musicians that he made the now-standard scientific assumption that the external world is real, objective, and measurable (although he toys with the idea that dreams represent another reality in Theaeteus, elsewhere it's pretty clear he thinks they're mere illusions). He holds that you can judge the skill of a shipwright by the quality of the ships that they built - you can judge them on their reputation or examine their ships for yourself. If there is a single key to science, it's this evidenced-based, provisional, objective judgement.
... except, perhaps, where it comes to justice. In Protagoras :
And so it is, Socrates, that when the Athenians (and others as well) are debating architectural excellence, or the virtue proper to any other professional speciality, they think that only a few individuals have the right to advise them, and they do not accept advice from anyone outside these select few. But when the debate involves political excellence, which must proceed entirely from justice and temperance, they accept advice from anyone, and with good reason, for they think that this particular virtue, political or civic virtue, is shared by all.
This is one of those dialogues in which Plato attempts to directly tackle whether virtue can be taught. But whether knowledge in general can be taught (even, as we've seen, critical thinking skills), whether you can objectively examine the world and test it, doesn't seem to be open to much doubt (Theaeteus aside). In Alcibiades, Socrates discusses with the Athenian general what it is he wants to talk about in the Assembly (here edited to remove Alcibiades one-word affirmative answers) :
Then what will they be discussing ? I presume it won't be building, because a builder would give better advice on these matters than you. Nor will they be discussing divination, will they ? Because then a diviner would be better at giving advice than you, regardless of whether he's tall or short, or handsome or ugly, or even noble or common. And when the Athenians are discussing measures for public health, it will make no difference to them if their counsellor is rich or poor, but they will make sure that their adviser is a doctor. I suppose that's because advice on any subject is the business not of those who are rich but of those who know it.
In general, Plato doesn't seem to have had much truck with the idea that reality is a simulation or the imaginings of a god. Like the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun, this is widely taken for granted these days - but it's very, very hard to prove it from first principles (as we discover at length in Theaeteus and hilariously in Euthydemus), and that's something well worth remembering. You may fairly assume that it's true, but that's not at all the same as proof.
As for the popular idea that Plato claimed to know nothing, this is pure frickin' nonsense. Even in the Apology, when Socrates passionately defends his right to ignorance, he doesn't claim that wisdom is knowing you know nothing. That's only a relative state : it's knowing you know nothing when you actually do know nothing and everyone else thinks they know things but actually know nothing. If they know nothing and know they know nothing but you know something, then you're wiser.
In other words, Socrates only claimed to be the wisest man in Athens because he knew he knew nothing, whereas everyone else professed to know many, many which things they didn't. He never denies that they do actually know some things, especially the craftsmen, it was just offset because of their massive professed knowledge of all other areas which they didn't actually have. The wisest person of all would of course be someone who really did know everything and the best actions to take in all circumstances. In Statesman, Plato advocates for benevolent dictators :
... the truest criterion of correct government of a city [is] the one according to which the wise and good man will govern the interests of the ruled. Just as a steersman, always watching out for what is to the benefit of the ship and the sailors, preserves his fellow sailors not by putting things down in writing but offering his expertise as law, so too in this same manner a constitution would be correct, would it not, if it issued from those who are able to rule in this way, offering the strength of their expertise as more powerful than the laws.
The only way in which ignorance is a virtue in Plato's discussions is when you're aware of it and try to change it, and try to get others to acknowledge their own ignorance when they claim false, damaging knowledge.
I know that's skipping ahead of my stated limit of the first thousand pages, but it sums up the situation very well.
What's frustrating is that we never hear Plato's voice directly, except possibly in his letters although we don't know for certain that they're genuine. So, just like a play, we get to examine all the issues, but not what Plato himself really thinks or prefers, except by looking for trends and persistent themes (of course, he did warn us not to take him literally !). Although it's clear that he didn't claim to know everything, it therefore remains frustratingly ambiguous as to what he did claim to know. What effects had the all-important examination of the self had on him personally ? To what extent should his world-building exercises be seen as hypothetical explorations and to what extent did he think they should be applied practically ? More on that next time.
It's also worth mentioning that the heroic Socrates of the Apology - the one who died not for knowledge but for ignorance and the right to question - re-emerges on many occasions throughout Plato's corpus. He is the principle protagonist in most dialogues, and usually gets the upper hand with all the cleverest arguments. But we also get an altogether more human view of Socrates in the other dialogues. He's sarcastic, mocking, doubtful, unsure of himself (often floored by an opponent's argument and has to sit out the discussion for a while) and sometimes even extremely petty - on one occasion even threatening to walk out if his opponents won't argue on his terms. He achieves moments of greatness, and you could even call him a truly great man, but he's not a saint and his conclusions certainly aren't held as dogma. Dogma, if anything, is anathema to everything the examinations stand for.
This one is only discussed directly on occasion. Most notably, a throwaway line in Gorgias :
You'd certainly be in a terrible way, my good friend, if upon coming to Athens, where there's more freedom of speech than anywhere else in Greece, you alone should miss out on it here. But look at it the other way. If you spoke at length and were unwilling to answer what you're asked, wouldn't I be in a terrible way if I'm not to have the freedom to stop listening to you and leave ?
This is the heart of the problem of so many issues surrounding free speech then and now : freedom from versus freedom to, the right to offend versus the right to be offended, freedom of actions versus freedom of consequences. If you force people to listen to things they don't like, you've take a freedom from them. But if people are allowed to speak, what's the point if no-one's listening ? What kind of freedom do they have if, say, they can be fired from their job for saying things people don't like ?
More famously, the Apology is a powerful rallying cry for the virtues of free speech and the dangers of oppression by the state :
If you put me to death, you will not easily find anyone to take my place. It is literally true, even if it sounds rather comical, that God has specially appointed me to this city, as though it were a large thoroughbred horse which because of its great size is inclined to be lazy and needs the stimulation of some stinging fly. It seems to me that God has attached me to this city to perform the office of such a fly, and all day long I never cease to settle here, there, and everywhere, rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you. You will not easily find another like me, gentlemen, and if you take my advice you will spare my life. I suspect, however, that before long you will awake from your drowsing, and in your annoyance you will take Anytus' advice and finish me off with a single slap, and then you will go on sleeping till the end of your days, unless God in his care for you sends someone to take my place.
I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful than your killing of me. You have brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting your conduct to criticism, but I say that the result will be just the opposite. You will have more critics, whom up till now I have restrained without your knowing it, and being younger they will be harsher to you and will cause you more annoyance. 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 creditable. The best and easiest way is not to stop the mouths of others, but to make yourselves as good men as you can.
Throughout the other dialogues, Plato considers all manner of crazy ideas. Despite one of the charges against Socrates being impiety, at times he even flirts quite brazenly with atheism. He surely cannot have been unaware of the importance of free speech, how critical it must be to tell people things they don't want to hear without fear of reprisal by the state - otherwise how can people learn and grow ? It ties in closely with his often highly ambiguous conclusions and contradictory statements : being able to explore different ideas, even offensive ones you don't actually believe, is paramount.
Much more on that next time.
This is an impossibly crude summary of a thousand pages of beautiful dialogue, but there are some reasonably clear overall points :
Rigour is important. Plato analyses any statement by reducing it down to its most basic components, often to the level where it seems tautologous. He also blends theory (by trying to rigorously define what words mean) with observations (by employing supporting analogies). He never quite gets to the notion that if there's a clear conflict between observation and theory then observation must win (the modern scientific view), but he comes very close.
Conclusions are provisional. His dialogues sometimes contradict one another (quite starkly) and often fail to reach any definitive conclusion at all. Even those that do usually contain statements about what would be necessary for anyone to refute them. The search for the truth is usually more important than the truth itself. Revising a conclusion is light of new evidence or theory is essential.
Ignorance isn't bliss. While we can't know everything about the world around us with 100% certainty, we can know some things. Just because some complicated notions (like the concept of virtue or knowledge) are difficult doesn't mean that everything is. You can learn how to build or ship or play the flute and objectively test your abilities. Knowing your own ignorance is important (the Delphic inscription, "know thyself" features several times), but it's even more important to actually try and bloody learn something.
There are other themes which re-occur in the dialogues which are less important in general but are important for anyone to bear in mind if they specifically want to read the Republic or Laws. For example, Plato takes the great poets as authorities on various matters, virtually never contradicting them on anything. He's frequently unsure as to the existence of the gods, veering wildly between a devoted believer and quasi-atheism (even though he never questions the existence of the soul, he does question if it's immortal). Moderation too is a very common theme, often held to be an essential part of virtue ("Nothing in excess", says the Delphic oracle*), as is the notion that things should be done in a certain correct way by experts. Expertise is a common theme; only slightly less common is the idea of elite experts : "in every pursuit most of the practitioners are paltry and of no account whereas the serious men are few and beyond price", he says in one of the more serious moments in Euthydemus. Homophillia runs rampant, to the extent of almost completely ignoring what certain people would deem to be "normal" heterosexuality today.
* But also nothing too little, tying in nicely with the ideas of wisdom being knowledge of how much is appropriate.
The surface level topics of the dialogues vary. They cover rhetoric, theory of knowledge, how to judge expertise, wisdom, the nature of happiness, morality... that sort of thing. Plato's famous forms are woven throughout many different dialogues rather than being given their own explicit section. Don't make the mistake I made of trying to choose a particular topic, because they're all (with the possible exception of Parmenides, which is an exceptionally tough piece about the nature of one) very broad-ranging. In fact, they're like nachos. The surface level topics exist only as a substrate by which to deliver the cheesy goodness of their nutritious subtext - the constant running theme being, "what's the best way to live ?". The answer being, "by eating lots of nachos", obviously.
However, in recent years a rival theory has emerged stating that the best way to live is by teaching your cat to drink wine. I'm not entirely digressing here. Dozens of pages of the text are (I swear !) about the best way to organise a drinking party.
Plato has this other frustrating habit which has a perverse appeal : he'll explain an idea with beautiful rhetoric (often the most commonly-held position on a topic) and them demolish it seconds later with a series of ugly facts or counter-arguments (for particularly extreme examples see Phaedrus and Symposium, both partially about the different kinds of love and both with some of Plato's most eloquent dialogue). This is not a scientific method, of course, but it strongly supports Plato's sincerity to find the truth. While Plato does value both physical and rhetorical beauty, it's abundantly clear that they're much lesser concerns. As Socrates mockingly says of himself in Hippias :
He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Of course, being biased myself, I've picked out the things that I find most interesting and tend to agree with most strongly. Still, I find it hard to imagine that the three main points would be disputed by more serious scholars.
There's one final point that must be made, however, because I think I may have given a rather rose-tinted view of Plato thus far. Some of Plato's throwaway lines are profound, but others are downright mad. For instance, while in Statesman he finds that the best form of government would be a single ruler who was a paragon of wisdom, the next best thing would be a state in which the penalty for disobeying any law is death. He says, as we've seen, that the corrupt deserve death with virtually no analysis of this. There are many hints that he believes that morality is so objective that it should be forced on people against their will. And, as discussed previously, he clearly believes that people are not equal - not merely in flute-playing abilities, but overall some people are better than other people.
Most damming of all is what he does not say, which is anything at all about whether slavery is moral. For other men, imprisoned as they are in the thoughts of their own times, we might perhaps forgive that lapse. But for a man who foresaw the transporter problem through sheer reasoning, who repeatedly stated over and over again that it's a person's actions and abilities that matter, not his wealth or social status, who dedicated himself to the pursuit of virtue... well, for such a man I don't think we can allow the same leeway. Which doesn't negate anything that he did say, but it cautions us to do the very thing Plato advises : continue the process of examination, both of his conclusions and our own.
Posted by Rhysy at Saturday, August 12, 2017
Ask An Astronomer Anything At All About Astronomy ...
This Isn't The Law You're Looking For


Sometimes it's fun to play the "villain." Being a fan of anything Duke, especially Duke basketball, thrusts you into this role whether you like it or not. People are programmed to dislike us, whether or not they've ever had a bad encounter. I read a great article yesterday that tried to explain this, which can be read here.
With that said, no matter who you are or where your allegiances lie, you have to have the right attitude and mindset. My father said it best when as a kid I asked him a question about Duke and being a fan (for those of you who don't know, he went to Duke and is the reason I've been a Blue Devil my entire life). Essentially I asked my Dad whether or not he hated UNC and their fans. Much to my surprise he said "Absolutely not. UNC is a great school and it's a beautiful rivalry because of the fans from both sides. Having a good attitude and giving each other a hard time is great, so long as it comes from a place of mutual respect." At least he said something very close to that. Not everyone may view it that way, but at the end of the day sports is a form of entertainment, and that should never be forgotten.
In any event, that was essentially the moment that I realized that you have to have the right mindset when it comes to rivalries and rooting against other teams. If people have the right mindset about it, then I love being able to play the villain. In fact, I embrace it.
So tomorrow, Monday, April 6, when most of the United States is rooting against me and my Blue Devils, I'll be smiling. Hopefully the villain wins for the 5th time in the last 3 decades.


FÉILTE will have Fringe elements to it for the first time, encouraging teachers to gather socially outside of the main FÉILTE programme. We hope you will make a weekend of it, and enjoy the various elements that are part of our fringe festival.
On Friday, when FÉILTE closes for the evening, join us in Dolans for Teachers Got Talent, hosted by Paul Harrington.
Come along to our dance and wellbeing event on Saturday morning. You will wake up to dancers, wake up angels, performers, Talented DJs, MC/Hype Team, Massage Therapy, Yoga and face painting!
TV3 covered a Morning Gloryville that took place in Andrew's Lane Theatre in Dublin! Look out for the teacher!