Brandon Owens. Socratic. Mar. 1, 2007
The Athens Game is a fantastic idea, which was a delight to partake in. A terrifyingly fun concept, it forces the student to become even more immersed in the material. Each player must know not only their own role, but also that of their opponents, prompting a more in depth study to assure each player’s rhetorical victory over the other players and their factions. Anticipation and preparation were made to seem even more essential in this course as compared to the more traditionally organized courses. If a player were to come into class unprepared without having thoroughly thought through their argument and that of her opponents, it would be that much more obvious and that player would not only have let themselves down, but also their faction.
Being a Socratic was truly enjoyable. The opportunity to argue for philosophy, in its original sense, the chance to be persecuted for believing something other than that which the vast majority values and holds dear, and the attempt to pursue a completely anti-democratic agenda in an environment which strongly supports such ideas was difficult but rewarding. Supporting ideas, which altogether oppose those which are from a very early age instilled within the minds of most Americans, hopefully provided some of the players with some sort of perspective pertaining to the foundation and origin of their indoctrinated democracy and the philosophies that support and condemn her.
The problems with the game are few indeed but exist nonetheless. It seems that the time constraint on the game does not always properly allow the player to become fully accustomed to their role, until much later in the game. There is a lot of background information that should be covered in order to better understand each player’s character and the culture of the time that each player is unable to receive. However, little can be done about such restrictions.
Another critique of the game, which I found to be both amusing and frustrating, is the way in which the game is seemingly stacked against certain factions, from my own experience this appears to be the case with the Socratics, which I acknowledge is historically accurate. At first, I found this to be quite troublesome and often leaving me with a feeling of despair. However, later I found this to be quite enjoyable and to inspire that much more hope and determination to do more and do so better. This feeling of a stacked game results, in part, from the point system employed in the game. Each player will always attempt to do what will get her and her faction the most points. Should a well put together, persuasive, and logical argument be presented by any faction, it will fall on deaf ears. Its persuasiveness will be of little consequence. Appeals to reason are completely useless in such an environment, and this fact is damning to a Socratic argument, not that they had a very good chance in antiquity either.
I also disagree with the choice of Plato’s Republic as the core text used in the game to depict the role of each of the factions. I felt that the material was easily grasped, but difficult to implement. The Republic seems to be more concerned with the making of the just individual. The example of the just polis Plato describes is secondary and is intended to serve as large scale model of the appropriate individual. Each separate form of government represents a further digression from the just balance of wisdom, courage, and temperance which should occupy this just individual. Whether any Greek polis could actually have lived by such a model seems unlikely due to the large quantity of people that would be necessary in such a polis in which each person performs only one task. Sparta comes the closest to accomplishing this task, as they field a standing military. However, Sparta must enslave other Greeks to serve as helots and farm in their stead in order to do so. Sparta’s form of government, tymocracy, is the first form of corruption from the ideal that Plato proposes. Plato’s just polis seems to be exactly what he states that it is: an illustration.
My performance in the game varied. I felt as though I had a good understanding of the material and the culture, but was sometimes hesitant to speak as often as a Socratic should. A Socratic’s duty is often to interrupt and attempt to bring about a sense of clarity and to remind the assembly of the necessity of just decisions based on wisdom. I often failed to do so. Fortunately my partner never failed her faction in this respect and made up for my silence. Although, at times speaking felt rather irrelevant, as each time a faction spoke it only served to prove a point made prior by the Socratics.
I feel that we, as the Socratic faction, did well during the game. We attempted to always stay within the perimeter set up by Plato’s Socrates and to resemble him and his way of thinking and acting as closely as possible. The faction knew its goals and, despite the realization that winning was highly improbable, went for them. We always attempted to portray a manner of intellectual, and therefore moral, superiority and were rarely hesitant to point that out, especially during the last three quarters of the game when this fact became increasingly more evident.
Upon seeing the assembly in action, it is easy to imagine that Plato’s Socrates may, indeed, have had a point.
The Athens Game is a fantastic idea, which was a delight to partake in. A terrifyingly fun concept, it forces the student to become even more immersed in the material. Each player must know not only their own role, but also that of their opponents, prompting a more in depth study to assure each player’s rhetorical victory over the other players and their factions. Anticipation and preparation were made to seem even more essential in this course as compared to the more traditionally organized courses. If a player were to come into class unprepared without having thoroughly thought through their argument and that of her opponents, it would be that much more obvious and that player would not only have let themselves down, but also their faction.
Being a Socratic was truly enjoyable. The opportunity to argue for philosophy, in its original sense, the chance to be persecuted for believing something other than that which the vast majority values and holds dear, and the attempt to pursue a completely anti-democratic agenda in an environment which strongly supports such ideas was difficult but rewarding. Supporting ideas, which altogether oppose those which are from a very early age instilled within the minds of most Americans, hopefully provided some of the players with some sort of perspective pertaining to the foundation and origin of their indoctrinated democracy and the philosophies that support and condemn her.
The problems with the game are few indeed but exist nonetheless. It seems that the time constraint on the game does not always properly allow the player to become fully accustomed to their role, until much later in the game. There is a lot of background information that should be covered in order to better understand each player’s character and the culture of the time that each player is unable to receive. However, little can be done about such restrictions.
Another critique of the game, which I found to be both amusing and frustrating, is the way in which the game is seemingly stacked against certain factions, from my own experience this appears to be the case with the Socratics, which I acknowledge is historically accurate. At first, I found this to be quite troublesome and often leaving me with a feeling of despair. However, later I found this to be quite enjoyable and to inspire that much more hope and determination to do more and do so better. This feeling of a stacked game results, in part, from the point system employed in the game. Each player will always attempt to do what will get her and her faction the most points. Should a well put together, persuasive, and logical argument be presented by any faction, it will fall on deaf ears. Its persuasiveness will be of little consequence. Appeals to reason are completely useless in such an environment, and this fact is damning to a Socratic argument, not that they had a very good chance in antiquity either.
I also disagree with the choice of Plato’s Republic as the core text used in the game to depict the role of each of the factions. I felt that the material was easily grasped, but difficult to implement. The Republic seems to be more concerned with the making of the just individual. The example of the just polis Plato describes is secondary and is intended to serve as large scale model of the appropriate individual. Each separate form of government represents a further digression from the just balance of wisdom, courage, and temperance which should occupy this just individual. Whether any Greek polis could actually have lived by such a model seems unlikely due to the large quantity of people that would be necessary in such a polis in which each person performs only one task. Sparta comes the closest to accomplishing this task, as they field a standing military. However, Sparta must enslave other Greeks to serve as helots and farm in their stead in order to do so. Sparta’s form of government, tymocracy, is the first form of corruption from the ideal that Plato proposes. Plato’s just polis seems to be exactly what he states that it is: an illustration.
My performance in the game varied. I felt as though I had a good understanding of the material and the culture, but was sometimes hesitant to speak as often as a Socratic should. A Socratic’s duty is often to interrupt and attempt to bring about a sense of clarity and to remind the assembly of the necessity of just decisions based on wisdom. I often failed to do so. Fortunately my partner never failed her faction in this respect and made up for my silence. Although, at times speaking felt rather irrelevant, as each time a faction spoke it only served to prove a point made prior by the Socratics.
I feel that we, as the Socratic faction, did well during the game. We attempted to always stay within the perimeter set up by Plato’s Socrates and to resemble him and his way of thinking and acting as closely as possible. The faction knew its goals and, despite the realization that winning was highly improbable, went for them. We always attempted to portray a manner of intellectual, and therefore moral, superiority and were rarely hesitant to point that out, especially during the last three quarters of the game when this fact became increasingly more evident.
Upon seeing the assembly in action, it is easy to imagine that Plato’s Socrates may, indeed, have had a point.
posted by brandon | 5:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home