Should Intelligent Design be taught in Public Schools?

The topic of religion tends to bring about many strong feelings in most people, whether they put a large emphasis on their belief systems or not, the question of faith is a very touchy subject for most. I guess that may be partly due to the fact many people base their lives on their faith or lack thereof, so anything that questions or threatens that, essentially threatens the lives of those affected. In this light it seems only natural that this topic would be of great concern to many.  That being said I feel that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools at least not in the suggested context, alongside scientific theories such as evolution. I feel it can’t hurt for students to learn about this concept to shed light on historical and informational aspects, but to suggest it as a science would be in my opinion straying away from the main direction and design of the educational system.

It’s understandable that many would want a science to fight against the idea of evolution which has grown in acceptance rapidly over the more recent years.  Just as the religious zealots attempted to conjure up any propaganda they could spew when Galileo asserted that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Fortunately we have later widely accepted as the truth.  Unfortunately, this along with most other new and revolutionary ideas doesn’t come without cost, as Galileo was ultimately quieted due to the threat of torture by the church. Just as Galileo faced resistance the idea of evolution will as well, and in this instance that is all this is, resistance, an attempt at denying the truth out of fear of the unknown.

Although it may be clear why we should not implement this idea into any sort of science curriculum, I can understand some of the leanings towards this even beyond a purely religious stand point. From a utilitarian philosophy people are generally more orderly and generally behave better when practicing a religion, not that I am for it, but I could understand how some would encourage that in a traditional education environment. But this isn’t really about what is convenient, it’s about what’s right. To encourage the teachings of information not based on science will go against everything which the modern education system is based on, so leave the discussion of intelligent design to those who wish to study it.

Is God really Dead?

Friedrich Nietzsche was arguably one of the first people to write “God is dead”, or at least the first one to fully expand on that idea. This is one of the most profound ideas, in my opinion, ever to be cast upon human existence; the unfortunate fact is that most are not able to conceive it. Nietzsche uses many tactics to help people think outside of this cookie cutter life that limits us. This seems to be a philosophy that has been emerging rapidly over the past several years with books like The Secret, The Power of Now, New Earth, and many other spiritual books that question the many religious teachings that have guided our world for centuries.
Nietzsche is very admirable, in that he speaks the unspeakable, and devoted his whole life to the expansion, and expression of his ideas, which continued until his death in 1900. His works were however not very well received, as most deliberately contradicted the belief systems of most of the world; particularly the Judeo-Christian World. His way of thinking freely, without restrictions or concern of repercussion, made him in my eyes very noble.

Read More»

Socrates’ good friend Plato

Plato is to most, the best source of information about Socrates, as he seemed to understand him best, for Plato was a philosopher himself. He was forty years younger than Socrates, and much of his beliefs, and theories where discovered due to Socrates help. He was one of many of Socrates students, but he was probably the most devoted. He seemed to grasp the way that Socrates mind worked; I don’t feel that this is something that the average Joe could accomplish. His believes often coincided with Socrates’ although many of them seemed to evolve later in Plato’s life. Plato became the conduit in which Socrates ideas lived on.

Plato’s dialogues were divided into three categories, the early dialogues, the middle, and late. These were separated by the time in Plato’s life when he wrote them, it seems the early dialogues would render the clearest picture of Socrates, as some of the later dialogues seemed to be infused with his own thoughts and ideas, and Socrates became a mouthpiece for them in his writings.

Among the early dialogues is Euthyphyro, in which Socrates and Euthyphyro are conversing on the porch of King Archon. During this they are speaking of piety, and what it means to be pious, and why someone would want to be pious. These dialogues, as well as many other early ones, such as Loches, Charmides, and Lysis seem to show the way that Socrates used a form of questioning to search for knowledge, or some sort of understanding. It seems like he instinctively understood what was right, but he knew he could not tell anyone what to do, they had to discover it on their own. These dialogues showed how to look at the world from another perspective; we can uncover much truth that we did not already know.

The influnce of the Delphic Oracle on Socrates as Plato describes

The Delphic oracle was understood in ancient Greece to be able to transmit the voice of God, and she became very influential in Socrates life when she told his friend Chaerephon that no one is wiser than Socrates. Some people could take this lightly, but Socrates certainly did not, he made it his life duty to expand his wisdom, and even more so his truth. He believed that what the oracle was stating was that he was the wisest because he was aware of his own ignorance, or lack of knowledge. All those that claimed to have knowledge, were in fact ignorant of their ignorance.

Socrates believed, and so stated that Apollo chose him to be an investigator, and to teach virtue. He told the jurors that everything he does is in accordance with what Apollo asked of him, and his death would be offense against Apollo. He stated that he was not an atheist, since he believed Apollo himself called him wise, through the mouth of the oracle. Many of these statements seemed to win much of the Juries praise as there was little difference between those for the vote of guilty. It seemed many people had faith in Socrates statements, although they may have disliked the uncomfortable thoughts, and feelings his questioning brought about.

The possible role of Aristophanes’ comedy on the execution of Socrates.

There are several different Socratic testimonies that have survived from primary sources, two of which are Aristophanes, and Xenophon. Both of these sources paint a very different picture of who Socrates was, and what he was like.

Xenophon was a friend, disciple, and admirer of Socrates, so much of his testimony reflects these facts; beyond that he was a very simple minded person so he may not have grasped many of the concepts Socrates presented. Xenophon described Socrates as a virtuous and moral citizen that preached morality in everyday life, he believed him to be a very religious man. He also described Socrates as an advocate for self control, respecter for law, and a very good parent, and friend. Many believe that although his testimonies are truthful, they are very limited in their philosophical nature, as Xenophon was not a philosopher; he was very simple in his thoughts, and actions. He was in the military, and performed well in that sense, since he was very compliant.

Another major source of information about Socrates is Aristophanes, primarily from his comedies. Aristophanes was a comic play writer, and his depiction of Socrates was very different than what many others would describe of him, he seemed to mold Socrates to the needs of his play, rather than using the true Socrates. Socrates is one of the main characters in his play Clouds, and in this play he was depicted as a sophist who charged to teach. He was also shown as someone that did not believe in the God’s, and one who corrupts the youth of Athens. All of these allegations seem to be false as stated by Socrates in the Plato’s recollection of him. His play showed Socrates teaching a young man that the weather was not controlled by the gods, but was controlled by a chorus of clouds. Consequently the boy’s father burned down Socrates school, this act seemed to symbolize the death of Socrates, without the physical death, as that would make it a tragedy. This play seemed to be a major factor in the trial of Socrates, which ended in death. The way that Socrates proved the boy to be ignorant about the clouds, was taking place with many other people throughout Athens in different fashions, and it seemed the only way to stop this battle between light, and darkness would be to kill the light, or get rid of it. Socrates being the light of course and people seem to prefer to be in the dark, as it is usually more comfortable there. Fortunately Socrates is still alive and well, thousands of years later.

Plato’s allegory of the cave and the idea that what we often assume to be reality is often an illusion

Plato’s work The Republic presents the allegory of the cave, which is a dialogue between Socrates, and Plato’s brother Glaucon. This dialogue has great significance, especially in today’s world. Socrates explains that if someone is locked up in a cave, and only was to see a rock wall, with occasional shadows, and hear occasional echoes that would become their reality. They would know nothing else, and become accustom to that life, and any attempts to remove them from what we would perceive as imprisonment would be difficult. Even if removed, they would eventually acclimate themselves to most of the world, but would still not be comfortable unless back in the environment they are accustomed to.

This seems to symbolize the struggle many people go through between truth, and confusion. Although it may not be virtuous, ignorance is bliss. So many people choose to remain ignorant, as they feel that this is where they be most happy, and it is often most comfortable. So many people choose to live in a sort of fabricated reality, living like puppets on a string, this may be easy, but that does not make it right.

The darkness seems to symbolize ignorance, and the cave seems to symbolize the limited life that many of us live, confined by laws, religions, and customs. In contrast the light seems to symbolize truth, and the rest of the world seems to symbolize the limitlessness of possibilities, and experiences in comparison to the confinement we are raised in. The majority of us are born into a cave, and most never realize that we are in it, because any glimpse of light is more difficult than most are willing to bear.

Socrates’ views about death as these are outlined in Plato’s Apology and in the Phaedo.

Socrates had very unorthodox views about death, especially for his time. Much of these were depicted in Plato’s Apology, and the Phaedo. Plato’s Apology showed Socrates views on death at the time of his trial one month before his actual death, and the Phaedo was a dialogue one hour before his death, and his views were consequently different.

Socrates almost welcomed death, as outlined in the Apology, he definitely did not attempt to escape it. As reflected in the Apology Socrates refused to pay a fine, be imprisoned, to move, or change his ways, basically in stating this he was saying the only way to stop him would be to kill him. After the vote of death by the jury Socrates maintained his composure, and courage, he addressed the jury, and stated that at the age of 70 he did not fear death; he believed that it was either an end, and thus good, or a immortality, and thus even better in his eyes. He also welcomed the idea of being able to further his search, and continue on his work. He maintained that he would not beg, or plea out of principle and righteousness.

Socrates mind set seemed to change slightly in the month after to his trial, as reflected in a Phaedo. His ideas, and beliefs about death seem to have been further developed, as he no longer question what would happen when he died; he believed that death is merely a separation of the body and the soul. He also stated that he has been preparing for this day, as he stated philosophy is a preparation and practice for death. He was said to have stated that philosophy prepares the soul for a separation of the body, that which is death. These ideas did not seem to be present at his trial, although there were some actions that hinted towards that.

© Copyright chris nolte