Arguing with a Condescension to the Realm of Reality:
Three of the Ideas from Republic that I Disagree with
There are different degrees of arrogance. Some people think they're right, and you're wrong. Others think they're right and you're wrong, so they're better than you. Then, there's a special category for just one man, and his subsequent disciples. He thought he was right and the rest of the world was wrong, which meant that everyone else was ignorant, and needed to follow other people like him blindly, because anyone who thought different than him was stuck in an imaginary hole, waiting to be rescued, and didn't understand anything, and lived lives of naught, and couldn't say a single word of value. Socrates was a special guy. He made up a philosophy, and then made up a story telling why anyone who disagrees with it is an idiot, and any counterarguments should be ignored without …show more content…
In Republic II, on page 174, he asks Adeimantos, "Shall we just carelessly allow the children to hear any chance fables moulded by chance persons, and to receive in their souls opinions which are generally contrary to those which we believe they ought to have when they grow up?" The alternative must be considered. The second option is to choose everything a child is exposed to. Doing so requires the assumption that you know best. You don't. It should be up to the child, not the custodian. Even if the parent knows the best way to accomplish his objectives, the child's objectives may be different. If he is propagandized, he won't be able to decide what they are. Bon Scott, in his ballad, Rock n Roll Singer, says, "By the time I was half alive, they knew what I was gonna be. But I left school and grew my hair. They didn't understand. They wanted me to be respected as a doctor or a lawyer man, but I had other plans." A parent should not be intentional in his child's
Three of the Ideas from Republic that I Disagree with
There are different degrees of arrogance. Some people think they're right, and you're wrong. Others think they're right and you're wrong, so they're better than you. Then, there's a special category for just one man, and his subsequent disciples. He thought he was right and the rest of the world was wrong, which meant that everyone else was ignorant, and needed to follow other people like him blindly, because anyone who thought different than him was stuck in an imaginary hole, waiting to be rescued, and didn't understand anything, and lived lives of naught, and couldn't say a single word of value. Socrates was a special guy. He made up a philosophy, and then made up a story telling why anyone who disagrees with it is an idiot, and any counterarguments should be ignored without …show more content…
In Republic II, on page 174, he asks Adeimantos, "Shall we just carelessly allow the children to hear any chance fables moulded by chance persons, and to receive in their souls opinions which are generally contrary to those which we believe they ought to have when they grow up?" The alternative must be considered. The second option is to choose everything a child is exposed to. Doing so requires the assumption that you know best. You don't. It should be up to the child, not the custodian. Even if the parent knows the best way to accomplish his objectives, the child's objectives may be different. If he is propagandized, he won't be able to decide what they are. Bon Scott, in his ballad, Rock n Roll Singer, says, "By the time I was half alive, they knew what I was gonna be. But I left school and grew my hair. They didn't understand. They wanted me to be respected as a doctor or a lawyer man, but I had other plans." A parent should not be intentional in his child's