Socrates Cafe

Christopher Phillips' Socrates Cafe describes the Socratic Method as "a way to seek out truths by your own lights." It is a way of questioning everything, and giving purpose to your life through the process of doing so. But this gave rise to a question that appeared frequently in our book club discussions, when does Socratic questioning become obsessive? At what point does investigative questioning as a form of philosophy turn into over-analyzation?

We (my book club) wrote down examples of questions some people posed at these gatherings that seemed obsessive or over-analytical. One such example was a man who was very dissatisfied with his life. Everyday he asked himself variants of "is my life worthwhile enough to not commit suicide?" (Page 41) This seemed like a dangerous question for someone to be asking. To put faith in your ability to answer this one simple question when constantly analyzing your life seems like a misuse of this philosophy. The point of Socratic questioning is to interrogate from many angles (as said by Philips) but when this intense interrogation can mean the difference between a man's life and death it's clear how dangerous this philosophy can become when taken too far.

Another example is a woman who had been struggling with the decision to switch jobs for a little over a decade. This woman felt that the job she wanted  wasn't serious work, and didn't count enough for her to take it. By questioning and re-questioning the benefits and her own self-worth so intensively, she could never bring herself to gather the courage and change. She said that, "community theater was her life." Yet she felt too unsafe making such a big leap due to her questions.

A similar issue is touched upon in the chapter Brother, Can You Spare a Cell? Which shows how Walter Kaufmann 's theory that emotions like fear, jealousy, hate, grief, etc can keep a person trapped is very often true. Phillips tells of a very intelligent and capable friend who was too afraid to change his life, and decided to stay in his safe, if relatively boring life. Phillips likened this to erecting our own prisons,  a sort of safe zone that we are too scared to leave until I turns into a sort of prison. I think that obsessive questioning can lead to emotions like the ones that can create a prison around us. Creating fear and hate can draw us back from goals and changes we wish to make.

This isn't to say that Socratic questioning never brought anyone good. This method pulled the author himself out of a rather dark place in 1996 after a divorce. The above examples just illustrate that this method of questioning can be misused and can lead to obsessive questioning. It's terrifying that these people can paralyze themselves by asking too many questions. It is very difficult to draw a line of when this questioning becomes too much. It has helped some people make a big change, and led to others holding themselves back for years. It has saved some people, and brought up large moral dilemmas in others. There are a lot of grey areas in this, and maybe it just depends on the person. Regardless it is important to not obsess over a few questions, and to not let a philosophical method dominate your life.

Poetry Reading Response

Anna Dardia 804 Poetry Reading Response

It's hard to not take the privileges of living in a good neighborhood for granted. Especially so when the majority of us never have the chance to see true suffering and poverty. As Nikki Giovanni said in her poem Photography, “It’s easy sitting in the sun/to forget that cold exists.” In other words, it is difficult for us to take a different perspective on the good and the bad in our world, especially from such a privileged position.

The issue with living such safe, full lives is that it becomes hard to take a step back and look at our life from another perspective. For example, Giovanni states that, “It’s easy when thinking/we have the best/to assume others covet it.” This insinuates that just because others are not as privileged as we are doesn’t mean that we have the right to pity them. While it is important to not take our luck for granted, we should also try to see not only the bad, but also the good in he lives of others. This is supported in the lines, “both the surf and the sea have their lovers/and their meaning for love.” Meaning that everyone wants different things and we should not pity those who are satisfied (with what seems to us like) less

Another way to think about our perspective is by looking at the camera metaphor itself. Giovanni says, “the eye, we are told/is a camera/but film is the heart.” I took this to mean that while we can view images through our eyes (like through the lens of a camera) we will be unable to see the beauty of them as well as some one who has an emotional connection to the images. For example, to somebody from a more rural area a city may seem ugly and disgusting, but to me (as somebody who grew up in a city), cities have much more appeal. This is another example of how we should look at other people’s lives. If we look from another perspective we may find beauty in something “ugly.”

While it is important to not take things for granted, readers should still attempt to look at the world from someone else’s point of view. It is in no way easy to try to see from an opposite, or different perspective, but we should try to understand others opinions. It seems to me that by taking a different perspective on the relative ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ in our lives, we will be more able to become more flexible in our opinions, and more compassionate as well.

Creative Writing

GREY
I am the color of winter in the city
day old discolored snow
I am the color of water flowing from a broken fire hydrant
the shine of oil on the street

the sound of ice crunching underfoot
frozen branches dipping down under the weight of ice
the screech of tires on the roundabout
fat icicles hanging in a row

I am the color of smoke-stained snow
cracked slate sidewalk
I am the color of an early-morning sky
melting sleet pressed down by the footprints of strangers

an abandoned bike, falling apart
the glow of headlights reflected on a watery street
the gleam of faded light off a window pane
rust eating away at an old car on the corner

I am not beautiful, nor do I catch the eye
I am muted, the backdrop of the stage
the shades between the extremes
I am the soft touch of sleep
the first, unseen rays of morning
I am the forlorn and the unseen
I am the ruined and the unborn
I am grey

Independent Reading Response

     Imagine a world without choices. A world without the right to choose who we want to be and how we want to live. The book Matched by Allie Condie takes place in such a world. The government decides who you marry, what you do fora living, even when you die. Through the eyes of Cassia, this society seems like a horrible, horrible place. But I think that some level of control is very justifiable, even if it is not moral.

     For example, Cassia is "matched" when she is seventeen. This means that her husband is chosen for her, and she is allowed to meet him and get to know him before they get married. This may seem very impersonal for some thing as… personal as marriage. It seems odd to Cassia too when she is matched to her best friend. But later in the book, one of the Officers says, "how do you think we cured cancer? why do you think we are all so healthy?" By this the Officer meant that when the couples were being matched, they made sure to pair the right people together to ensure that mutations such as cancer, down syndrome, and other genetic diseases would not occur. It was a simple match of genes, and nothing more.

     Another example of the governments control over the people is that Cassia is not allowed to choose her own job. Nobody can. Everybody's job is picked by a test they must take. The people are then matched to their job based on natural skills and capabilities. This may seem to us like an injustice, seeing how it isn't always easy to love something just because you're good at it. But by making sure that the most skillful people get put in the jobs they are best at, more gets done. It is far far FAR more efficient than letting us choose.

     However, just because an action is justifiable doesn't mean it is definitely the right thing to do. While health and progress are important, they are worth nothing if nobody is happy. And Cassia is miserable by the end of the book. She must get married to somebody that she doesn't want to, and she is not satisfied with her life. I don't think that there is a definite answer to this dilemma. While control was clearly improving the health, progress, and safety of the people, it also made them miserable or unsatisfied. There must be a perfect middle ground; seeing as complete freedom is dangerous, and complete control is immoral.

The 'Cheerleader Effect'; Group VS individual

     The "cheerleader effect", reffered to in the popular TV show how i met your mother, is a theory that being in a group gives the illusion of being more attractive. The author of the article Gauging the "Cheerleader Effect" discuses psychology, and what attracts us to particular people.The article suggests that walking in a group may actually be a good dating strategy. The text shows you how many people feel towards one another, and how we judge based on not only on physical appearance, but also the appearance of those around us. (hence the name; because cheerleaders often walk around in a group)

      The author proclaims that  "When shown in a group (whether big or small), the same person was rated as more attractive then when he or she appeared alone in a picture." This clearly shows that if you are alone in a photo, you will be judged more harshly than when you are with others. This seems rather unfair to me. Is it right that part of our initial assessment of a stranger is based on the looks of not only the appearance of the person him/herself, but of those AROUND HIM/HER? It seems that the author of the article is almost advising us to move around in, groups as to appear more attractive. I think that it is unfair, that we judge people in this way, and that it should not be encouraged.

    On their own, an observer is able to spot all our faults and physical shortcomings, however,  when in a group, the brain blurs each person together. "The researchers think that the brain is melding together the groups facial features into a composite average, mentally Photoshopping out all then idiosyncrasies that become obvious when examining just one persons face." We can conclude from this that the brain does not view each person as an individual, rather, it view each member of the group as only part of a whole. This is not at all a good thing, and not something that we should be taking advantage of. Instead of focussing on individual characteristics, we are only trying to see who looks better than those around them in a group. This is an instinct that, while natural, is not something we should use as a dating method. We should remember that everyone has their shortcomings, thats what makes us HUMAN. Perhaps this 'cheerleader effect' was once used to find the best available mate in a group of women, but today, in a more civilized age it is important to look at the individual.

edited Reading response

ELA    CTQ Number 5

Reading Response -Edited

 In life threatening situations, people show their true selves. The book 'No Safety in Numbers' by Daynba Lorentz is an exciting book, which takes place in a mall in the suburbs. On a busy Saturday a biological bomb in found in one of the mall's air ducts. The mall is locked down. Soon food and supplies begin to run out, and the people turn against one another. Although these people tend to form small, tightly knit groups, the groups themselves are in constant competition with everybody else in the mall.

     Early on in the book, when there is still food and the bomb isn’t such a huge problem, the people begin to form groups. For example, Ryan and his football team join up almost instantly. Mike says, " Stick with us!" and reassures Ryan that he will watch his back. This shows that even early on in the book, people begin to look out for one another and protect each other. These little groups are very tightly knit, and difficult to enter.

     However, these groups are ONLY looking out for themselves. When Ryan is beaten up by some boys (over some food), his group comes after the people who beat him up. Ryan's friend Mike says, "you mess with my family, you mess with me." Although this sounds endearing, this little vengeance fight results in one boy with a broken nose, and a few others unable to walk. This shows how the groups, although they watch out for each other, are in constant competition with everyone else in the mall.

The groups are also very distanced from other people. They are very unwilling to help others. When the flu breaks out in the mall, for example, Ryan saw a family being forcefully detained because they had some symptoms of the flu. When the little boy “began to sob uncontrollably,” Ryan wants to help. But Mike (the group ‘leader’) insists that they only watch out for themselves. Even though these people were in obvious need of help, Ryan’s group didn’t want to risk any confrontation. This seems incredibly selfish to me.

     In these types of situations, people show that deep down, they only care about themselves. All they want is their own survival. Although they may have formed small groups, they were in NO way united. In some cases, the groups fought against one another even if they needed to be working together. This book does not envision teamwork; rather, it shows how difficult it is for people to be selfless when their lives are in danger.

CTQ Number 5

     In life threatening situations, people show their true selves. The book 'No Saftey in Numbers' by Daynba Lorentz is an exciting book which takes place in a mall in the suburbs. On a busy Saturday a biological bomb in found in one of the mall's air ducts. The mall is locked down. Soon food and supplies begin to run out, and the people tyrn against one another. Although these people tend to form small, tightly knit groups, the groups themselves are in constant competition with everybody else in the m,all.

     Early on in the book, when there is still food and the bomb inst such a huge problem, the people begin to form groups.For example, Ryan and his football team join nup almost instantly. Mike says " stick with us!" as reassurs Ryan that he will watch his back. This shows that even early on in the book, people begin to look out for one another and portect each other. These little groups are very tightly knit, and hard to tear apart.

     However, these groups are ONLY looking out for themselves. When Ryan is beaten up by another guy (over some food), his group come after the people who beat him up. Ryan's friend Mike says, "you mess with my family, you mess with me." Although this sounds endearing, this little vengence fight results in one boy with a broken nose, and a few others unable to walk. This shows how the groups, although they watch out for eachother, are in constant competition with everyone else in the mall.

     In these types of situations, people show that deep down, they only care about themselves. All they want is their own survival. Although they may have formed small groups, they were in NO way untited. This book does not evision teamwork, rather, it shows how difficult it is for people to be selfless when they are in danger.