Why Stanford Researchers Tried to Create a ‘Gaydar’ Machine
But Socrates does not always speak ironically, and similarly Plato's dialogues do not always aim at creating a sense of bafflement about what we are to think about the subject under discussion. This document clarifies the University's expectations and approach related to the use of alcohol by students. No individual, recognized student organization, club, team, or any other Stanford-affiliated student group is permitted to plan, engage in, or condone hazing, on or off the Stanford campus. The SOAP Office will continue to test Stanford Websites for accessibility and report accessibility issues to the webmaster for that website.
What Causes Behavior Change?
Policy It is the policy of Stanford University to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of and its regulations, which prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of age. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: The Director of the Sexual Harassment Policy Office is responsible for the implementation of this policy. Hazing might occur during initiation or pre-initiation into a student organization, but is not limited to these time frames. When one compares Plato with some of the other philosophers who are often ranked with him—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Kant, for example—he can be recognized to be far more exploratory, incompletely systematic, elusive, and playful than they. A related problem is that some of the dialogues appear to develop positions familiar from other philosophical traditions e. Violations may be referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs for individual students and the Organization Conduct Board for student groups.
When the army finally returned to Athens in May of , nearly three years had elapsed since its deployment. Soon after his return, Socrates was accused by a comic playwright of helping Euripides to write his tragedies, a claim that was to be repeated at least twice more, by other comedy writers, on the Athenian stage. This was another defeat for the Athenian army which, while already under attack from Boeotian footsoldiers, was surprised by a troop of cavalry.
Any anonymity Socrates may have enjoyed came to an abrupt end at the annual Dionysian festival in the spring of In the comedy category, at least two of the plays involved Socrates: Plato sets a dialogue about the etymologies of words [ Cratylus ] upon his return.
Socrates, so far as we know, did not return to war again. Athens and Sparta entered into a treaty named for Nicias that—while never completely effective—allowed Attica to remain free of Spartan invasion and crop-burnings for several years. Again education is a central theme, but so are the democracy and Eleusinian Mystery religion.
From the fact that they named their first son Lamprocles, it has been assumed both that her father was named Lamprocles and that her dowry was enough to provide for her needs.
Meanwhile, Alcibiades persuaded the Assembly, over prescient objections from Nicias Thucydides 6. Both Nicias and Alcibiades, along with Lamachus, were elected to command. Since Hermes was the god of travel, the city feared a conspiracy against the democracy. A commission was formed to investigate not only the herm-smashing, but all crimes of irreverence asebeia that could be discovered, offering rewards for information.
In a climate of near-hysteria over three months, accusations led to executions including summary executions , exile, torture, and imprisonment affecting hundreds of people, some of whom were close to Socrates Alcibiades, Phaedrus, Charmides, Critias, Eryximachus, and others.
He was not relieved, but reinforcements were sent—too few, too late. The war in Sicily ended in complete and humiliating defeat. Spring brought a new attack on Socrates by Aristophanes Birds , lines —3, —5. Plato sets a dialogue between Socrates and a rhapsode before the news of the defeat reached Athens [ Ion ] , while the city—short of military leaders—was trying to attract foreign generals to help with the war.
The treasury was spent, and the citizenry demoralized. Under his leadership, Athens began scoring victories, and morale improved. Democracy was restored, peace offers from Sparta were again rebuffed, and Athens established a commission to rewrite all the existing laws. One of the Lysis characters, Ctesippus, was present again two years later for a display by two sophists former generals [ Euthydemus ].
Athens won the sea battle of Arginusae, but at such cost that the city never recovered: With thousands dead, and damage to the fleet, two captains were sent to collect the casualties; a storm prevented their doing so, while the generals hastened to give relief at Mytilene. When news of the battle hit Athens, there was outrage at the failure to save the wounded and collect the corpses for burial.
The board of ten generals was charged, but two fled and two were still in Mytilene , so six returned to Athens for trial in October of Lang By luck of the lottery, Socrates was serving on the Prytanes, the presiding committee of Council Plato, Apology 32b; Xenophon, Hellenica 1.
Some in the Assembly opposed the illegality, but the opposition so incensed the majority that it overwhelmingly approved a motion to subject the opposition to the same vote as would decide the fate of the generals.
Socrates alone among the Prytanes was left standing for the law and the generals; his refusal to allow the vote had the effect of allowing one last, eloquent speech from the floor that proposed a preliminary vote to decide between sentencing the group and permitting separate trials Xenophon, Hellenica 1.
The Assembly approved separate trials, but a parliamentary maneuver invalidated the vote. When the Assembly voted again, it was to decide the lives of the generals up or down. The Athenians were soon to regret having executed their remaining military leaders. The Athenians, recalling their own treatment of the Melians, expected to be slaughtered when the siege inevitably ended, but nothing of the sort occurred. None of the contemporaneous sources, no matter how hostile to the rule of the Thirty—Isocrates, Lysias, Plato, and Xenophon—denies the legitimacy of their election.
That they formed a government that abused and exceeded its authority no one could reasonably deny, but it is against just such governments that acts of civil disobedience must sometimes be directed. Undermining a corrupt government by refusing to harm a good man might be unlawful, but not unjust. Critias and Charicles, two leaders of the Thirty, sought to intimidate Socrates by forbidding him, unsuccessfully, to speak to men under thirty Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.
Socrates, and two young men with him, were said to have attempted to intervene unarmed against the Scythian guards, stopped only when Theramenes himself implored them to desist Diodorus Siculus The Thirty, now increasingly viewed as tyrannical, were also making contingency plans: Socrates remained in the city. The Thirty attempted to implicate him in their executions by ordering him to join others in going to Salamis to fetch the former democratic general, Leon.
Luckily for Socrates, before the Thirty could exact revenge, the democrats from Phyle entered the city through the Piraeus and met the forces of the Thirty in a battle where both Critias and Charmides were killed.
Remnants of the Thirty returned to the city to consider their options. The Three Thousand, increasingly suspicious of one another, deposed the Thirty and replaced them with a Board of Ten that was elected one per tribe Xenophon, Hellenica 2.
The Thirty began abandoning the city for Eleusis as the board called for Spartan help. The Spartans arrived, led by Lysander and by one of their two kings, Pausanias.
Pausanias especially attempted to effect reconciliation among all the Athenian factions, allowing the exiles to return and the oligarchs to rule themselves in Eleusis. One such exile was Anytus, a man hostile to Socrates and who would later support charges of irreverence against him. Imitate Jesus and Socrates. Equally contemporary, but contemptuous of Socrates, is the introduction of the Al Qaeda Training Manual Department of Justice translation, ellipses in original: Philosophers and students of philosophy with a desire to see how Socrates is viewed outside the discipline might wish to consult the following supplementary document: The Reception of Socrates.
Bussanich, John, and Nicholas D. Complete Works , Indianapolis: Nails, Debra, , The People of Plato: Rudebusch, George, , Socrates , Oxford: Taylor, A[lfred] E[dward], , Socrates , Boston: Thesleff, Holger, , Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies , Las Vegas: Analytic philosophy of Socrates Benson, Hugh H. Beversluis, John, , Cross-Examining Socrates: Smith, , Socrates on Trial , Princeton: Nehamas, Alexander, , Virtues of Authenticity , Princeton: Santas, Gerasimos, , Socrates: University of Notre Dame Press.
Ironist and Moral Philosopher , Cambridge: Gadamer, Hans-Georg, , Dialogue and Dialectic: Eight Hermeneutical Studies on Plato , tr. Christopher Smith, New Haven: Continental Interpretations of Plato , Albany: State University of New York Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich, , The Birth of Tragedy , tr. University Press of Virginia.
University of Chicago Press. The Coherence of the Dialogues , Chicago: Penn State University Press. Specialized studies Allen, R[eginald] E. Did Plato Tell the Truth? Harris, William, , Athenian Literacy , Cambridge: Henderson, Jeffrey, , Aristophanes II: Pennsylvania State University Press.
The Shelley Translation , South Bend: Reshotko, Naomi, , Socratic Virtue: Weiss, Roslyn, , Socrates Dissatisfied: Academic Tools How to cite this entry. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database. Many other people have proposed ways to understand persuasion and behavior change, dating back to Aristotle in ancient Greece. What makes my Behavior Model different from previous work? First, the FBM shows how behavior is the result of three specific elements coming together at one moment.
Next, the FBM explains the subcomponents of each element. In addition, the FBM shows that motivation and ability can be traded off e. If you know of work related to the FBM, please share it on the page for references and connections. This will be an ongoing resource for people designing for and studying behavior change. This way you will received new insights about FBM, as well as new ways to use these insights in industry and academic work.
And if so, what led him to change his mind? Answers to these questions can be justified only by careful attention to what he has his interlocutors say.
But it would be utterly implausible to suppose that these developmental questions need not be raised, on the grounds that Republic and Laws each has its own cast of characters, and that the two works therefore cannot come into contradiction with each other. According to this hypothesis one that must be rejected , because it is Socrates not Plato who is critical of democracy in Republic , and because it is the Athenian visitor not Plato who recognizes the merits of rule by the many in Laws , there is no possibility that the two dialogues are in tension with each other.
Against this hypothesis, we should say: Since both Republic and Laws are works in which Plato is trying to move his readers towards certain conclusions, by having them reflect on certain arguments—these dialogues are not barred from having this feature by their use of interlocutors—it would be an evasion of our responsibility as readers and students of Plato not to ask whether what one of them advocates is compatible with what the other advocates.
If we answer that question negatively, we have some explaining to do: Alternatively, if we conclude that the two works are compatible, we must say why the appearance of conflict is illusory. Many contemporary scholars find it plausible that when Plato embarked on his career as a philosophical writer, he composed, in addition to his Apology of Socrates, a number of short ethical dialogues that contain little or nothing in the way of positive philosophical doctrine, but are mainly devoted to portraying the way in which Socrates punctured the pretensions of his interlocutors and forced them to realize that they are unable to offer satisfactory definitions of the ethical terms they used, or satisfactory arguments for their moral beliefs.
According to this way of placing the dialogues into a rough chronological order—associated especially with Gregory Vlastos's name see especially his Socrates Ironist and Moral Philosopher , chapters 2 and 3 —Plato, at this point of his career, was content to use his writings primarily for the purpose of preserving the memory of Socrates and making plain the superiority of his hero, in intellectual skill and moral seriousness, to all of his contemporaries—particularly those among them who claimed to be experts on religious, political, or moral matters.
For example, it is sometimes said that Protagoras and Gorgias are later, because of their greater length and philosophical complexity. Other dialogues—for example, Charmides and Lysis —are thought not to be among Plato's earliest within this early group, because in them Socrates appears to be playing a more active role in shaping the progress of the dialogue: Aristotle describes Socrates as someone whose interests were restricted to only one branch of philosophy—the realm of the ethical; and he also says that he was in the habit of asking definitional questions to which he himself lacked answers Metaphysics b1, Sophistical Refutations b7.
That testimony gives added weight to the widely accepted hypothesis that there is a group of dialogues—the ones mentioned above as his early works, whether or not they were all written early in Plato's writing career—in which Plato used the dialogue form as a way of portraying the philosophical activities of the historical Socrates although, of course, he might also have used them in other ways as well—for example to suggest and begin to explore philosophical difficulties raised by them.
By contrast, in Apology Socrates says that no one knows what becomes of us after we die. Phaedo is often said to be the dialogue in which Plato first comes into his own as a philosopher who is moving far beyond the ideas of his teacher though it is also commonly said that we see a new methodological sophistication and a greater interest in mathematical knowledge in Meno.
Having completed all of the dialogues that, according to this hypothesis, we characterize as early, Plato widened the range of topics to be explored in his writings no longer confining himself to ethics , and placed the theory of forms and related ideas about language, knowledge, and love at the center of his thinking.
The focus is no longer on ridding ourselves of false ideas and self-deceit; rather, we are asked to accept however tentatively a radical new conception of ourselves now divided into three parts , our world—or rather, our two worlds—and our need to negotiate between them. Definitions of the most important virtue terms are finally proposed in Republic the search for them in some of the early dialogues having been unsuccessful: Book I of this dialogue is a portrait of how the historical Socrates might have handled the search for a definition of justice, and the rest of the dialogue shows how the new ideas and tools discovered by Plato can complete the project that his teacher was unable to finish.
In doing so, he acknowledges his intellectual debt to his teacher and appropriates for his own purposes the extraordinary prestige of the man who was the wisest of his time. This hypothesis about the chronology of Plato's writings has a third component: That is because, following ancient testimony, it has become a widely accepted assumption that Laws is one of Plato's last works, and further that this dialogue shares a great many stylistic affinities with a small group of others: Sophist , Statesman , Timaeus , Critias , and Philebus.
These five dialogues together with Laws are generally agreed to be his late works, because they have much more in common with each other, when one counts certain stylistic features apparent only to readers of Plato's Greek, than with any of Plato's other works.
Computer counts have aided these stylometric studies, but the isolation of a group of six dialogues by means of their stylistic commonalities was recognized in the nineteenth century. It is not at all clear whether there are one or more philosophical affinities among this group of six dialogues—that is, whether the philosophy they contain is sharply different from that of all of the other dialogues. Plato does nothing to encourage the reader to view these works as a distinctive and separate component of his thinking.
On the contrary, he links Sophist with Theaetetus the conversations they present have a largely overlapping cast of characters, and take place on successive days no less than Sophist and Statesman. Sophist contains, in its opening pages, a reference to the conversation of Parmenides —and perhaps Plato is thus signaling to his readers that they should bring to bear on Sophist the lessons that are to be drawn from Parmenides.
Similarly, Timaeus opens with a reminder of some of the principal ethical and political doctrines of Republic. It could be argued, of course, that when one looks beyond these stage-setting devices, one finds significant philosophical changes in the six late dialogues, setting this group off from all that preceded them. But there is no consensus that they should be read in this way. Resolving this issue requires intensive study of the content of Plato's works.
So, although it is widely accepted that the six dialogues mentioned above belong to Plato's latest period, there is, as yet, no agreement among students of Plato that these six form a distinctive stage in his philosophical development. In fact, it remains a matter of dispute whether the division of Plato's works into three periods—early, middle, late—does correctly indicate the order of composition, and whether it is a useful tool for the understanding of his thought See Cooper , vii—xxvii.
Of course, it would be wildly implausible to suppose that Plato's writing career began with such complex works as Laws , Parmenides , Phaedrus , or Republic. In light of widely accepted assumptions about how most philosophical minds develop, it is likely that when Plato started writing philosophical works some of the shorter and simpler dialogues were the ones he composed: Laches , or Crito , or Ion for example.
Similarly, Apology does not advance a complex philosophical agenda or presuppose an earlier body of work; so that too is likely to have been composed near the beginning of Plato's writing career. Even so, there is no good reason to eliminate the hypothesis that throughout much of his life Plato devoted himself to writing two sorts of dialogues at the same time, moving back and forth between them as he aged: Plato makes it clear that both of these processes, one preceding the other, must be part of one's philosophical education.
One of his deepest methodological convictions affirmed in Meno , Theaetetus , and Sophist is that in order to make intellectual progress we must recognize that knowledge cannot be acquired by passively receiving it from others: Accordingly, some of his dialogues are primarily devices for breaking down the reader's complacency, and that is why it is essential that they come to no positive conclusions; others are contributions to theory-construction, and are therefore best absorbed by those who have already passed through the first stage of philosophical development.
We should not assume that Plato could have written the preparatory dialogues only at the earliest stage of his career. For example although both Euthydemus and Charmides are widely assumed to be early dialogues, they might have been written around the same time as Symposium and Republic , which are generally assumed to be compositions of his middle period—or even later. No doubt, some of the works widely considered to be early really are such. But it is an open question which and how many of them are.
Plato uses this educational device—provoking the reader through the presentation of opposed arguments, and leaving the contradiction unresolved—in Protagoras often considered an early dialogue as well.
So it is clear that even after he was well beyond the earliest stages of his thinking, he continued to assign himself the project of writing works whose principal aim is the presentation of unresolved difficulties. And, just as we should recognize that puzzling the reader continues to be his aim even in later works, so too we should not overlook the fact that there is some substantive theory-construction in the ethical works that are simple enough to have been early compositions: Ion , for example, affirms a theory of poetic inspiration; and Crito sets out the conditions under which a citizen acquires an obligation to obey civic commands.
Neither ends in failure. If we are justified in taking Socrates' speech in Plato's Apology to constitute reliable evidence about what the historical Socrates was like, then whatever we find in Plato's other works that is of a piece with that speech can also be safely attributed to Socrates. So understood, Socrates was a moralist but unlike Plato not a metaphysician or epistemologist or cosmologist. That fits with Aristotle's testimony, and Plato's way of choosing the dominant speaker of his dialogues gives further support to this way of distinguishing between him and Socrates.
The number of dialogues that are dominated by a Socrates who is spinning out elaborate philosophical doctrines is remarkably small: Phaedo , Republic , Phaedrus , and Philebus.
All of them are dominated by ethical issues: Evidently, Plato thinks that it is appropriate to make Socrates the major speaker in a dialogue that is filled with positive content only when the topics explored in that work primarily have to do with the ethical life of the individual. The political aspects of Republic are explicitly said to serve the larger question whether any individual, no matter what his circumstances, should be just.
When the doctrines he wishes to present systematically become primarily metaphysical, he turns to a visitor from Elea Sophist , Statesman ; when they become cosmological, he turns to Timaeus; when they become constitutional, he turns, in Laws , to a visitor from Athens and he then eliminates Socrates entirely.
In effect, Plato is showing us: This may be part of the explanation why he has Socrates put into the mouth of the personified Laws of Athens the theory advanced in Crito , which reaches the conclusion that it would be unjust for him to escape from prison. Perhaps Plato is indicating, at the point where these speakers enter the dialogue, that none of what is said here is in any way derived from or inspired by the conversation of Socrates. Just as we should reject the idea that Plato must have made a decision, at a fairly early point in his career, no longer to write one kind of dialogue negative, destructive, preparatory and to write only works of elaborate theory-construction; so we should also question whether he went through an early stage during which he refrained from introducing into his works any of his own ideas if he had any , but was content to play the role of a faithful portraitist, representing to his readers the life and thought of Socrates.
It is unrealistic to suppose that someone as original and creative as Plato, who probably began to write dialogues somewhere in his thirties he was around 28 when Socrates was killed , would have started his compositions with no ideas of his own, or, having such ideas, would have decided to suppress them, for some period of time, allowing himself to think for himself only later. What would have led to such a decision? We should instead treat the moves made in the dialogues, even those that are likely to be early, as Platonic inventions—derived, no doubt, by Plato's reflections on and transformations of the key themes of Socrates that he attributes to Socrates in Apology.
That speech indicates, for example, that the kind of religiosity exhibited by Socrates was unorthodox and likely to give offense or lead to misunderstanding. It would be implausible to suppose that Plato simply concocted the idea that Socrates followed a divine sign, especially because Xenophon too attributes this to his Socrates. But what of the various philosophical moves rehearsed in Euthyphro —the dialogue in which Socrates searches, unsuccessfully, for an understanding of what piety is?
We have no good reason to think that in writing this work Plato adopted the role of a mere recording device, or something close to it changing a word here and there, but for the most part simply recalling what he heard Socrates say, as he made his way to court.
It is more likely that Plato, having been inspired by the unorthodoxy of Socrates' conception of piety, developed, on his own, a series of questions and answers designed to show his readers how difficult it is to reach an understanding of the central concept that Socrates' fellow citizens relied upon when they condemned him to death.
The idea that it is important to search for definitions may have been Socratic in origin. After all, Aristotle attributes this much to Socrates. But the twists and turns of the arguments in Euthyphro and other dialogues that search for definitions are more likely to be the products of Plato's mind than the content of any conversations that really took place.
It is equally unrealistic to suppose that when Plato embarked on his career as a writer, he made a conscious decision to put all of the compositions that he would henceforth compose for a general reading public with the exception of Apology in the form of a dialogue.
It makes better sense to break that question apart into many little ones: Protagoras , or Republic , or Symposium , or Laws in the form of a dialogue—and that one Timaeus , say mostly in the form of a long and rhetorically elaborate single speech? The best way to form a reasonable conjecture about why Plato wrote any given work in the form of a dialogue is to ask: This is often a question that will be easy to answer, but the answer might vary greatly from one dialogue to another.
In pursuing this strategy, we must not rule out the possibility that some of Plato's reasons for writing this or that work in the form of a dialogue will also be his reason for doing so in other cases—perhaps some of his reasons, so far as we can guess at them, will be present in all other cases. For example, the use of character and conversation allows an author to enliven his work, to awaken the interest of his readership, and therefore to reach a wider audience. The enormous appeal of Plato's writings is in part a result of their dramatic composition.
Even treatise-like compositions— Timaeus and Laws , for example—improve in readability because of their conversational frame. Furthermore, the dialogue form allows Plato's evident interest in pedagogical questions how is it possible to learn? Even in Laws such questions are not far from Plato's mind, as he demonstrates, through the dialogue form, how it is possible for the citizens of Athens, Sparta, and Crete to learn from each other by adapting and improving upon each other's social and political institutions.
In some of his works, it is evident that one of Plato's goals is to create a sense of puzzlement among his readers, and that the dialogue form is being used for this purpose.
The Parmenides is perhaps the clearest example of such a work, because here Plato relentlessly rubs his readers' faces in a baffling series of unresolved puzzles and apparent contradictions. But several of his other works also have this character, though to a smaller degree: Just as someone who encounters Socrates in conversation should sometimes be puzzled about whether he means what he says or whether he is instead speaking ironically , so Plato sometimes uses the dialogue form to create in his readers a similar sense of discomfort about what he means and what we ought to infer from the arguments that have been presented to us.
But Socrates does not always speak ironically, and similarly Plato's dialogues do not always aim at creating a sense of bafflement about what we are to think about the subject under discussion. There is no mechanical rule for discovering how best to read a dialogue, no interpretive strategy that applies equally well to all of his works. We will best understand Plato's works and profit most from our reading of them if we recognize their great diversity of styles and adapt our way of reading accordingly.
Rather than impose on our reading of Plato a uniform expectation of what he must be doing because he has done such a thing elsewhere , we should bring to each dialogue a receptivity to what is unique to it. That would be the most fitting reaction to the artistry in his philosophy.
The bibliography below is meant as a highly selective and limited guide for readers who want to learn more about the issues covered above. Plato's central doctrines 2. Dialogue, setting, character 4. Can we know Plato's mind? Socrates as the dominant speaker 8. Links between the dialogues 9.
Does Plato change his mind about forms? Does Plato change his mind about politics? Plato's central doctrines Many people associate Plato with a few central doctrines that are advocated in his writings: Plato's puzzles Although these propositions are often identified by Plato's readers as forming a large part of the core of his philosophy, many of his greatest admirers and most careful students point out that few, if any, of his writings can accurately be described as mere advocacy of a cut-and-dried group of propositions.
Dialogue, setting, character There is another feature of Plato's writings that makes him distinctive among the great philosophers and colors our experience of him as an author.
Images: stanford dating site
Again, the best explanation for this continuity is that Plato is using both characters—Socrates and the Eleatic visitor—as devices for the presentation and defense of a doctrine that he embraces and wants his readers to embrace as well.
Political Activities For the complete text of the currently applicable version of this policy, see Administrative Guide Memo 1. The President must approve more restrictive policies not required by law.
Rather, he embraced poverty and, although youths of the city kept company with him and imitated him, Socrates adamantly insisted he was not a teacher Plato, Apology 33a—b and refused all his life to take money stanfotd what he did. Real dating games reports are long delayed, the Stanford dating site will try to act to the extent it is reasonable stanford dating site do so, but it may be impossible to achieve a satisfactory result after much time has passed. Stanford dating site, John, and Nicholas D. Like the Olympics, the Panathenaea was celebrated with special splendor at four-year intervals. While it is not the responsibility of most Stanford officials to enforce state law, it is the responsibility of the University's Department of Public Safety, and accordingly they enforce all state alcohol laws when they encounter violations.
- Hook up above ground pool vacuum
- I hate the girl my best friend is dating
- Dating independent woman
- Speed dating mexico df
- Dating first impression tips
- Best free dating sites miami
- Japanese dating and marriage traditions
- Job dating vdi
- Should scorpio dating another scorpio
- Questions to ask a girl on dating site
- Online dating cell phone number