Othello's Skeptical Problem

How is Iago able to drive Othello mad? Explain your answer it terms of the skeptical problem of knowing another person. If Othello had read (and understood) Cavell, would he still fall prey to the deceiving Iago? How would Othello view the problem of knowing another person (Desdemona) differently after reading Cavell?

This post should be at least 3 paragraphs in length.

Required Blog Post - 15 pts.

Write a response which answers all of the questions below. Cite the text in support of your response.

• What does it mean for knowledge to be set over ‘what is’?
• What does it mean for ignorance to be set of ‘what is not’?
• How does opinion lie between knowledge and ignorance?
• Philosophers are people who love knowledge. What does this mean and how do they love it? (Give examples, of what they love and those things with which they are not concerned.)

The Good Life (Required) - 15 pts.

Throughout Euthyphro, the Apology, and Crito, Socrates has been teaching us about what philosophy is and how philosophers live. In the Appology, he claimed that, "the unexamined life is not worth living for men." (38a) In Crito, he says that, "the most important thing is not life, but the good life." (48b)

It is somewhat interesting that Socrates makes two claims (different) about the life of the philosopher. Are these two claims the same or different? What actions (physical, mental, or otherwise) make up the "examined" or "unexamined" life and how is this related to (or different from) those that make up the "good life?" And furthermore, does any of this make any sense whatsoever?

Your response should have three parts as follows:

1. Define your terms. What does Socrates say the "unexamined" life is? What does Socrates mean by saying that this life is "not worth living?" What is the "good life."
2. How are the two claims ("the unexamined life is not worth living" and "the most important thing is not life, but the good life") related or unrelated? Are the actions which make up both fundamentally similar or dissumilar?
3. What do you think? Are these statements true? Is one true but not the other? This section requires an honest response about how you react to these statments. Even though this is a personal response, you must be able to give reasons for how and why you think this way and you must support your statement.

The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living (required)

At 38a in the Apology, Socrates says that he cannot stop doing philosophy because "the unexamined life is not worth living for man." What does he mean by this? Make sure to avoid paraphrasing this claim; answer the question. Your response should be one paragraph in length.

Some things you might consider in making your response:

• Socrates has talked about "worth" before. (He said that he does not know anything worthwhile.) Is this "worth" the same or different?
• What is the "examined life." How do we examine our lives?
• What would we need to know in order to answer this question?

Human Wisdom

At 23a in the Apology, Socrates says:

What is probable, gentlemen, is that in fact the god is wise and that his oracular response meant that human wisdom is worth little or nothing, and that when he says this man, Socrates, he is using my name as an example, as if he said: "This man among you, mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates, understands that his wisdom is worthless."

• What leads Socrates to say this?
• What does Socrates mean when he says "human wisdom is worth little or nothing"?

What is worth knowing?

Near the beginning of the Apology, Socrates say (21d ):

I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.

• What type of knowledge would Socrates consider "worthwhile"?
• If Socrates does not know anything worthwhile, in what way could he be more wise than others?

Writing Assignment 1 --Euthyphro

Prompts: Choose one of the prompts posted below

Length: 200-300 words

How to write a philosophical paper

• Try to be as clear as possible. Remember that philosophy is about trying to better understand a subject. Make sure that your writing supports this endeavor.
• Don’t try to sound important. It is better to write simply and accurately.
• Cite parts of the text to support what you are saying. (For this paper, DO NOT cite outside sources.)
• Use examples from the text to support your writing. (This bullet point is in case you missed the previous one!)
• Try to write TO someone. Imagine that you are writing the paper for a member of this class to read. Make sure that they would understand it and make sure that you explain what you are thinking to them.

Is the a right and wrong answer in philosophy? Maybe not, but there are certainly some answers which are better than others. Make sure that you say what you mean to say, and that you say it clearly. Also, ANSWER THE PROMPT. For example, if the prompt says "How does Socrates..." I want to know just that. I don't want to know what you happen to think about a certain topic that Socrates happens to mention in the diaglogue!

Extra Credit: You get extra credit by posting your assignment on this blog (under the appropriate prompt) by the beginning of class on Wednesday. Make sure, however, that you remember to bring a hard copy with you to class on Wednesday.