Socrates: Brother of the Sisterhood
spencer wood
I shall start this blog post with an anecdote.
If you, as a person, ever want to be successful, only two things are required: ability and motivation. So I wish to be successful in anything I must have the ability and the motivation to complete the activity. So I can be successful in writing a blog post because I have the ability to write and the motivation to pass. However, I can never be successful in giving birth; I can have all the motivation to give birth, but I just do not have the ability to give birth so I cannot be successful in birthing a child.
One thing I did not anticipate when opening Plato's Republic was feminism. And the way that Socrates explains it to the men around him is incredible. First, he starts with just a simple hypothetical situation and giving a caveat saying that they could decide later if it 'seems appropriate.' and then brings in an example that they would agree with saying that they don't separate male and female dogs on hunts or shepherding the fields. And the men said 'there should be no differentiation.' Now that Socrates has an opening, he used the foot in the door technique to bring in his main point. He says, '...can one get any animal to perform the same functions as another without giving the same guidance and training? Then if women are to do the same things as men, we must also teach them the same things. ... it follows that we must teach the women [music and gymnastics], as well as learning the practice and art of war.' This is where we see the real art of Socratic thinking; Socrates has taken an utterly agreeable argument and added a small extra that you can't disagree with disagreeing with his whole statement. And if you disagree with his entire speech, then he can just go right back to his previous comments that you just whole-heartedly agreed with. Then, Socrates helps you feel more comfortable by giving you an example of an outrageous idea that is now seen as normal given modern thought, in this case working out and fighting naked. This calms the men who are most likely just now realizing what they just agreed to.
Finally, he solidifies his point with basic, agreeable, and increasingly progressive, ideas. Such as: how we cannot limit people of who they are by what the look like (bald people cannot/can only be cobblers), people of the same nature are similar in their ideas and abilities (the man and woman who are both physicians), people who have different natures are different from each other (the physician and the carpenter), and how is someone has a natural capacity to do something then who are we to stop them from being their best self. but then Socrates gets crazy; he says, 'then we must conclude that sex cannot be a criterion in appointments to government positions.' He backs this argument up with his idea that people are more naturally apt to do some things while other people are not as apt and are better at other things. So how can we, as enlightened thinkers, limit people from what they are best at and replace them with people who are mediocre.
socrates ends his argument with justification, 'now we designed our inquiry to test whether our proposals would turn out to be both possible and desirable. ... our argument that men and women guardians should pursue all things in common turns out to be consistent in itself, since we have found our proposals to be both possible and beneficial.' Socrates has stated that equal rights for women can be successful because it is possible (ability) and it is beneficial (motivation) and that is all you need to be successful.
AnnaKate and Gary
I shall start this blog post with an anecdote.
If you, as a person, ever want to be successful, only two things are required: ability and motivation. So I wish to be successful in anything I must have the ability and the motivation to complete the activity. So I can be successful in writing a blog post because I have the ability to write and the motivation to pass. However, I can never be successful in giving birth; I can have all the motivation to give birth, but I just do not have the ability to give birth so I cannot be successful in birthing a child.
One thing I did not anticipate when opening Plato's Republic was feminism. And the way that Socrates explains it to the men around him is incredible. First, he starts with just a simple hypothetical situation and giving a caveat saying that they could decide later if it 'seems appropriate.' and then brings in an example that they would agree with saying that they don't separate male and female dogs on hunts or shepherding the fields. And the men said 'there should be no differentiation.' Now that Socrates has an opening, he used the foot in the door technique to bring in his main point. He says, '...can one get any animal to perform the same functions as another without giving the same guidance and training? Then if women are to do the same things as men, we must also teach them the same things. ... it follows that we must teach the women [music and gymnastics], as well as learning the practice and art of war.' This is where we see the real art of Socratic thinking; Socrates has taken an utterly agreeable argument and added a small extra that you can't disagree with disagreeing with his whole statement. And if you disagree with his entire speech, then he can just go right back to his previous comments that you just whole-heartedly agreed with. Then, Socrates helps you feel more comfortable by giving you an example of an outrageous idea that is now seen as normal given modern thought, in this case working out and fighting naked. This calms the men who are most likely just now realizing what they just agreed to.
Finally, he solidifies his point with basic, agreeable, and increasingly progressive, ideas. Such as: how we cannot limit people of who they are by what the look like (bald people cannot/can only be cobblers), people of the same nature are similar in their ideas and abilities (the man and woman who are both physicians), people who have different natures are different from each other (the physician and the carpenter), and how is someone has a natural capacity to do something then who are we to stop them from being their best self. but then Socrates gets crazy; he says, 'then we must conclude that sex cannot be a criterion in appointments to government positions.' He backs this argument up with his idea that people are more naturally apt to do some things while other people are not as apt and are better at other things. So how can we, as enlightened thinkers, limit people from what they are best at and replace them with people who are mediocre.
socrates ends his argument with justification, 'now we designed our inquiry to test whether our proposals would turn out to be both possible and desirable. ... our argument that men and women guardians should pursue all things in common turns out to be consistent in itself, since we have found our proposals to be both possible and beneficial.' Socrates has stated that equal rights for women can be successful because it is possible (ability) and it is beneficial (motivation) and that is all you need to be successful.
AnnaKate and Gary
Comments
Post a Comment