Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Oedipus the King; Fate in the telling.

Well we just read Oedipus The King last night in Seminar. Pretty much all we talked about was Fate, free will, and Divine Ruling.

Does Oedipus have any choice in his matters? Does it matter what he does? He tries so hard to avoid his impious fate but it doesn't work and he is condemned to kill his father and sleep with his mother.

That brought us to another question; did Jocasta know all along? Her character is vastly different from that of Oedipus, and seems to accept her fate rather than fight against it. Fate takes advantage of this by making her fulfill her fate (sleeping with her son) if she doesn't fight against it. Her passivity and Oedipus's combative nature both accomplish the same goal: fulfillment of Fate.

What a messy question, Fate is. Do our choices make any difference? Is there a personified Fate up in the heavens dictating our lives? Is there a god who plans out our lives and we fulfill that plan regardless of our choices? I don't really have answers to these questions yet. Well, that's not really a surprise. I almost never have answers to seminar questions. Questions raised in seminar are ones with which to be wrestled for the rest of our lives. I am still pondering over forms, the Republic, death, the philosophic life, and the summum bonum. I don't have any answers yet. Perhaps at some point I will gain a few.

Why do we admire Oedipus and feel nothing but pity and even contempt for Jocasta? Is it because Oedipus tries so hard to do the right thing even if he ends up fulfiling fate? That is what I think. Oedipus is a noble man. He tries desperately to avoid injustice and evil. It's not his fault that Apollo has dealt him this wretched hand. Even when he discovers the awful truth, he does not merely commit suicide alongside his dead wife/mother. He stays alive, blind, to learn lessons from his fate.

One last question: did Apollo do all this for a reason? Is there a reason behind Oedipus's torture, a reason that we may discover reading Oedipus at Colonus? I don't know, but I would really like to read that play on Thursday, not in April! Grr...

Well, it can't be helped. Onwards to Theaetetus!

Monday, December 3, 2007

Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Socrates, Justice, and Death.

In the Apology, Socrates is convicted of crimes worthy of death. In the Crito, he explains to his friend Crito why he cannot and will not flee Athens to live life elsewhere. He argues that by remaining in Athens despite its unjust laws subjects himself to them.

How just do laws have to be before we will obey them? When are they so unjust that we not only break them, but it is our moral duty to do so? The American War of Independance comes to mind, as does the Civil War. It seems like Socrates thinks that the laws of Athens, though unjust, are just enough for him to obey them. That goes against almost everything I have ever known but it makes sense in a strange sort of way.

Another thing that is interesting is how Socrates defends himself in court. He does not appeal to pity, he does not sob for mercy; he logically defends his position and refutes his opponents with incredible brilliance. It does not succeed, nor did he even expect it to - Socrates has stung Athens with his philosophizing and they want to kill him even if it is irrational.

The conclusion of Crito is one of acceptance and contemplation. Socrates will accept the hemlock and die a philosopher, a true witness of philosophy.

The Phaedo is the dialogue in which Socrates' last hours are recorded. It is all about death, the afterlife, and what Socrates thinks is the goal of a philosopher.

I have never thought deeply about death until last year, at which point I decided I did not fear it. After all, St. Paul says, "Death, where is thy victory? O Death, where is thy sting?" I read those texts and believed them. Death was conquered a few thousand years ago by a crucified carpenter from Nazareth. But never have I seen such a detailed and convincing case for the fearlessness in which we should approach death.

Death is an unknown; we cannot empirically know what death is like and therefore we believe we cannot know. I hold empirical knowledge to be inferior to that of inductive and dialectical knowledge, but even these cannot tell us what death is like. We can do little better than speculate or accept certain principles by means of faith. But the fact that death is an unknown means that we can already not fear it. Why should we fear the unknown? Is it a rational fear or a childish, immature fear that needs "incantations sung to charm it"? I hold that is it irrational to fear death because it is an unknown. We either are not after death or we are. It is that simple. We either "experience" (we cannot really because there is no 'we' to experience anything) a dreamless sleep, or some part of us exists after death. Socrates presents convincing arguments that our soul continues after death. Therefore we have no cause for fear, especially not something as trivial as death!

In the Gorgias, Socrates presents an impressive proof that the Just Life is the most advantageous in regards to the soul of a man regardless of whether or not we are immortal. If we therefore lead a just life, serve the god, and act with morality and piety, we have nothing to fear. That, in essence, is Socrates' conclusion. And a remarkable conclusion it is.

My position on death has changed little since last year. It has been deepened, that is all. I will serve God to the best of my ability, act with justice, and live out the Great Commandment as well as I am able. I can do no more, and when my time comes to die, it will be a wonderful event. There may be pain, excruciating, terrible pain, but pain is temporary for the Christian and life is forever.

To die will be an awfully great adventure.
~Peter Pan.

To Oedipus Rex! It's good to read Sophocles again.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Aristophanes' Clouds

So, Clouds. It turns out that Aristophanes' play is the most lewd and vulgar play I have ever read - potty humor, penis/fart/poop jokes left and right. It is hilarious, but what is astounding is how much there is beneath the crudities and masturbation humors.

Mostly I took away from Clouds was a picture of Justice as caricatured by the play's Socrates. In the argument, Injust Speech defeats Just Speech by means of numbers. That's right, numbers. Not only does this contradict Socrates' actual teaching, but it indirectly states that Justice is impossible in a materialist society. I jumped too quick there, let me explain.

Because the former defeats the latter by numbers, in what context could that be true? Not in Socrates' world, certainly. Not in ours either. (not yet, at least - we're very close) I may be wrong here, but in what context could Injustice defeat Justice by numbers? Materialism, that's what. If there is another system that allows for this, I would be glad to hear it.

But if Justice is whatever we think it is, the logical conclusion is that is good to cheat, swindle, and deceive your fellow man in society as long as you can get away from it. A materialist society would still value comfort and everything 21st Century society offers, but to enforce that without a concept of Justice or Virtue (both of these are renamed "pragmatism"), all it can do is use the truncheon, the mace, the blackjack. We end up in Stalinist Russia. Without Justice and Virtue, we wind up in a police state if we try and control people to act the way they would in a virtuous and just state. I find that to be a horrifying idea and it makes me cling to Justice and Virtue all the higher.

This is a very badly written post so please forgive me. I would write more, but I must get to Plato's Apology and Crito next. Toodles!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

The Republic Part II - Immortality of the soul.

We finished Plato's Republic (or Platonos Politeia as I should say in Greek) and quite honestly, I was blown away. Through the linking of democracy to tyranny, to the discussion of the afterlife, to Mr. Carey and Ms. Ames blowing my mind, The Republic rocked. It was easily as good as, if not better than, the seminars we had on my favorite book, The Iliad. I think The Iliad might still be my favorite, but The Republic takes a close second.

We talked mostly about the afterlife on Thursday. "Does Socrates make a convincing case for the afterlife?", Mr. Carey asked. We talked about forms and justice, and Socrates' motivation for these dialogues. We came to the conclusion that Plato wanted people of all abilities to becomes better persons - thus the unexplained myths, the logically wrought arguments, and the impassioned rhetoric. There's something for everyone.

I really like the idea of forms. The material world is not reality. That might sound really Buddhist so let me explain. The material world is only in the process of becoming so can it really be said to be? I am not sure. Mr. Carey presents this better than I do, but I think I believe in forms. There is the material object, and then there is the form of the object - the object-ness. We can know things about the form of a dinosaur though we have never seen one. We know things about a white rhinocerous though they could become extinct at any moment. They all have something in common. That "something in common" is what we call forms.

To fully explain the idea of forms I need to re-read The Republic. I think I will do so, in fact. There is so much there... it is an amaazing dialogue.

I have to admit my opinion of The Republic has been changed by 180 degrees. I have learned my lesson. Ben sort of made me dread it by calling my attention to the ridiculousl left-wing assertions, but I found few of those and didn't think they were the most important aspect of Socrates' dialogue. Far more important is Justice and how best to serve Her.

These are at best the tangles thoughts of a guy who just had his mind thoroughly blown. Gibbon was surely right when he said "The only education comes from what is contrary to oneself". I also know what Mr. Carey (God bless him) meant when he said "I've been reading The Republic for 50 years and there is more to it." I too will make it a point to read The Republic for the rest of my life. It is a monumental, life-changing book.

The biggest question I have for Socrates is: "What argument do you show us that we have a soul?" I will ask Ms. Ames or Mr. Carey that question.


Onward, then, to Aristophanes' The Clouds!


Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Republic Part I - A Critique of Democracy.

I am loving The Republic. There, I said it. What's more, I meant it. Plato was a genius and so was Socrates. The Republic is a masterpiece; possibly the best book I have read this year (maybe even -gasp- replacing The Iliad as my favorite!)

What hit me pretty hard was how intensely Socrates attacked democracy. That is a dangerous, dangerous thing to do nowadays. Don't we all praise and glorify democracy every chance we get? It is a huge (if not the) reason the United States is occupying Iraq as of this writing. The President holds democracy on a pedestal and represents the people when he does so. No doubt the future President will do the same.

Before I continue it is necessary to compare Greek (Athenian) democracy with American democracy. I find that they are very similar. The Greek democracy was in a more pure form than ours because they did not elect representative officials - every citizen voted on every issue. Granted, they did exclude women from voting but that is not different from the American system - what difference does it make if half of the population does not vote by choice or by coercion? I see little difference. Aside from that fact (which riles feminists to this day), Greek democracy in Athens was very close to the idealized form of American democracy.

That said, Socrates attacks it ruthlessly. He calls it "rule of the appetite" because people are ruled by their appetites and democracy is rule of the people. True justice and moderation are not to be found in a democracy, and wow, that looks horrible but I said it anyway. Socrates believes that the philosophers must rule as kings and gives very concise yet very elaborate reasons why this is the case. And indeed, if you share his premise (human beings all desire what is good - evil is but a matter of ignorance), everything else follows. Everything, even censorship and the abolition of the family.

Naturally I disagree with Socrates there - I believe human beings knowingly and willingly choose the ugly and the evil over the beautiful and the good - we are both deceived and will to commit evil. I can still see the validity of Socrates' position however - it makes perfect sense to me.

I do think he is right about democracy. I agree with him in the Meno that not all men (in fact few) desire the True, the Beautiful, and the Good - that is, desire philosophy. Certainly we see that with Callicles and Meno. I agree with Socrates that most men are indeed ruled by their appetites - pleasure, sex, food, drugs, etc. That can certainly be seen in popular American culture - go to Chicago, New York, Los Angelos, San Fransisco, and Las Vegas. Most Americans, I think, live for pleasure, especially the young.

Man there is so much to write about in The Republic - there is the idea that justice in a city merely arises from out of what is inside man - harmony. When a man's soul is harmoniously sound, when his intellect rules his passion by means of courage, then he is just. Because he is inwardly just, he is truly externally just. Therefore a city, which is constructed upon the individual, is both inwardly and outwardly just. I find that idea very intriguing.

It is a good thing we still have three seminars left on The Republic, is it not? Thursday we read the cave and the divided line. I am so exited!

Friday, October 26, 2007

Antigone

Man's relationship to the State: that was the big question that affected Antigone. Sophocles is a genius. He was a genius. Whatever. What I meant to say is that Antigone is every bit as relevant today as it was 2,500 years ago. The questions of family, religion/vs. politics, and the virtuous life still apply today.

Antigone refuses to obey the law that Creon has erected shaming the body of Polyneices. This is contrary to divine law, which Antigone argues is superior to that of civil law. That naturally struck a deep chord with me, for I also believe that there is a Higher Law than any of our civil laws can reach. There are laws that govern human action that are superior to the laws that humans erect themselves. We have seen this in 1850's America, Nazi Germany, and in every socialist country that has been created. All of these countries erected laws that were contrary to natural or divine law - the recognition of slavery, genocide, and tyranny. These laws ultimately lost out against Higher Law.

Now, as then, we have laws that contradict higher law. While I do not care for Socrates at times, I do agree that true virtue (he was an example of the virtuous pagan) comes only from God. That is the dogma of the Church in particular and Christianity in general. Without Christ we are barbarians. Philosophy does much if we bend our wills, but ultimately to lead the best life we need the power of Christ.

That is one reason I loved Antigone. She knew what was right and she did it without fear of Creon or his army or his unlawful laws. She was willing to defy her doomed family line and continue the seed of Oedipus. "If we do not risk anything great we will not achieve anything great", she says at one point. (Either that or it was the Chorus) Either way they are correct. Life is either a great drama, a great adventure, or else nothing at all.

Antigone as a character was inspirational and admirable. Antigone as a play is a masterpiece worthy of rereading for the rest of my life. Man's law vs. God's law and the conflict between the two ... Wow.

I am exited to start The Republic. Even though Socrates says some really stupid nonsense I am ready to read it. Let's just get it over with; six seminars on one book!

Pogoni Dios!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Meno, Gorgias, And Subsequent Disillusionment With Politics

Meno and Gorgias are both fine dialogues. It was a relief to talk about direct philosophy, but when the time was ready to begin Antigone I was ready to delve back into poetry; but that is skipping ahead.

We first discussed Meno. Twice. Can we all be virtuous? What is knowledge?

We discussed those questions a lot. Ms. Ames was worried that we all could not be virtuous and naturally we wrestled with that awhile. Meno seems only to desire power and use virtue to attain power over other men; is this good? Can he be good if he desires only this? We came to the conclusion that Socrates eventually gave up on him and fed him the divine dispensation argument merely to keep him out of politics, but hinting that Meno discover what virtue was rather than asking if it can be taught.

Gorgias was tougher for it attacked something I always liked - or thought I liked - rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, right? At least that is what I thought. But apparently rhetoric (according to Socrates) is the method of persuading someone without their best interest necessarily in mind. He likened it in a ratio to Justice as Cookery was to Medicine; flattering the pleasures. I suppose it could be taken that way; I mean, we have all heard of good rhetoricians who flatter the people to follow their appetites. With this in mind, I can see why Socrates was wary of rhetoric. "Rhetoric must only be used for justice", he says emphatically.

Big question: do we perhaps need rhetoric in our politicians? We don't have the time or energy to dialogue with each other on the political level (though I think perhaps we should) and most people wouldn't understand it anyway. A politician has to be able to emotionally persuade his audience and wow that sounds horrible but it is true. We need, perhaps, someone to say, "I have a dream". Perhaps we need to someone to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". More beautiful moments of rhetoric have seldom been produced.

Even though I still love rhetoric (I find I use it in the Socratic method - persuading people through logical argument) I have become thoroughly disillusioned with politics. I see little greatness in our society; great men like Achilles or Odysseus would be out of place; democracy has neither the patience with nor time for great souled men. 
I am thinking now about my seminar paper.
I met Mr. Pagano this morning to discuss my paper and came away very exited for the possibilities of rewriting it. I need to consolidate my paragraphs, clarify my main points, and trim narrative from the ten pages, emphasizing my analysis. I think it will be in pretty good shape for the 5th of November.

Next up, Plato's Republic

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Herodotus: I love the Spartans

I do love the Spartans; sacrificing all for the sake of the Motherland, repelling the barbarian.....ooga boogah.

Herodotus is a masterpiece. It is unsurpassed in all history; and is, in my opinion, better history than modern history. It is fundamentally no different; Herodotus traveled around Asia Minor asking questions about the Persian War and modern historians do the same. They, however, present only one view. Herodotus presents many, even if/when they differ from his own presented view.

Are some customs worse than others? What is freedom? What is liberty? What is tyranny?

Questions like this arose constantly during the three seminars we had on Herodotus. I could not detail everything that happened; my discussion of natural rights with Mr. Carey, the discussions regarding the Athenians and Spartans, and much more. The Histories is such a rich work and is in such a broad scope that one reading is not sufficient; I will need to read it again over Break.

The main difference with Herodotus as opposed to modern historians is his use of tangents in his History. But they always illustrate his point (well, most of the time) and underscore customs, peoples, and nations. We get the story behind the war, not just the facts. And that, I firmly think, is what history is all about. Granted, we do feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland at times, but Herodotus always brings us home. And that makes him a great historian.

To Meno!

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Thoughts on Aeschylus, Seminar Paper

Aeschylus' Oresteia is a trilogy of plays concerning Agamemnon and his children. They are, in order, Agamemnon, Libation Bearers, and the Eumenides. I had read them before last week; Junior year in highschool. Naturally I got almost nothing out of them. But last week....Man it was something else.

What is justice? How does justice differ from vengeance? How does society deal with crime? How does murder affect you? How does it affect others around you?

To be brief, Agamemnon comes home after his campaign in Troy and is murdered, along with Cassandra, by his wife Clytemnestra with the aid of her lover Aegisthos. Orestes, Electra, Agamemnon's son and daughter, avenge their father's death by killing their mother and her lover.

Orestes is haunted by the Eumenides, three Furies who avenge blood. He flees Argos and travels to Athens where he supplicates Athena to help him. Athena holds a trial that finds Orestes not guilty of murder, and sets things right in a near Deus ex machina. It is almost, but not quite.

The questions we raised in our reading of The Oresteia were every bit as powerful as the questions we raised in The Iliad. In fact, I would say that The Oresteia is my second favorite work. We have finished The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Oresteia, and now we will be tackling Herodotus. But to date, my favorite is the first Homeric epic. In fact, I will (I think) be composing my Seminar paper on The Iliad in general and Achilleus in particular - his character.

I want to focus on first an extensive sketch of Achilles, and then describe his downfall of grief and wrath, and finally his redemption in his meeting with Priam. So I would start by trying to ascertain what Achilles was like before his quarrel with Agamemnon by leafing through the text, and then study his rage at Agamemnon, and then his grief at Patroclus's death, his new, fiercer wrath at the Trojans in general, and Hektor (maybe himself?) in particular. Then I would study Hektor's death and Achilles' continuing wrath, finally culminating in its resolution with Priam.

I hope this works. O Lord, help me write this paper.

Join me then, in my study of Herodotus and my journey back to The Iliad.
~Alyosha

Friday, September 21, 2007

The Odyssey

The Odyssey is the powerful sequel to The Iliad. Much debate is over the topic of whether or not the same Homer wrote both books. This is in many respects completely irrelevant, but I side with Richmond Lattimore and David Grene and Miss Ames (My heroes) in that there was One Homer. The works seem too similar to be otherwise. Perhaps the author of the Odyssey was merely extremely well versed in the Iliad but as I said, futile to debate. It is like unto debating whether or not Achilleus and Patroklos were lovers. Not important.

In many ways, The Odyssey deals with the same question as The Iliad - What does it mean to be human? But in another way, it is vastly different. For The Iliad also asks, "How do we deal with death?" but The Odyssey asks, "How do we deal with death?". The two main characters, Achilleus and Odysseus, are also vastly different.

The Odyssey opens with men from Achaia and Ithaka living in Odysseus's house and eating his goods, violating the sacrosanct host-guest relationship, disrespecting his heir and his wife and lording it over his servants. Odysseus meanwhile is trying to get back to Ithaka. The poem details his journey from Troy to Kalypso's island and then to the Phaiakians and finally to Ithaka, where he at last avenges himself on the suitors.

The most important part of The Odyssey for me was Odysseus's reaction to Kalypso's offer of immortality. She loves Odysseus and wants him to stay on Oneigya forever with her. But by that time, Odysseus knows what immortality is like and refuses, prefering the short and vibrant life of the mortal to that of the god, or immortal.

But remember in The Iliad when no one wanted anything less than immortality? Everyone wants eternal, everlasting glory, and wants to "be like a god". Very different now, with a mortal actually refusing immortality.

Odysseus travels the world in The Odyssey and sees many peoples, cultures, and ways of life. He meets the Lotus Eaters, the Cyclopes, the Phaiakians, and even his own homecoming on Ithaka. He even changes during the poem - after blinding Cyclops, he bursts out and tells the injured beast who it was that hurt him, thus incurring Poseidon's wrath. He wants everyone to know what Odysseus did - he still wants glory.

Through the epic, however, this opinion is tempered. Seeing his disaster at the Cyclops, and the destruction of his men at Zeus' hands, he tempers and controls himself, restraining his servants from glorying in the 108 bodies he has slain. "For it is impeity to glory so over the slain". Has he learned something in his journey? I would like to think so.

There is so much to learn from this poem, almost as much as The Iliad. To be honest, I preferred the former, but there is no mistaking Homer's genius in this later work. Odysseus's journey and development, the cunning of Penelope and her faithfulness to her long lost husband, and especially the maturation of Telemachos, together with the spectacular rejection of immortality made by Odysseus make this book (translated preferably Lattimore) a must-read.

Onwards, then, to Aeschylus and the Orestia.

Friday, September 14, 2007

The Iliad Part III - Conclusion

Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilleus, son of Peleus, the fierce anger that caused the death of countless Achaians...

And so the epic poem begins. It constantly surprises and shocks you. Homer is always one step ahead of us.

Many more questions are raised by the last six books of The Iliad. Is Homer pro-war? Does Achilleus ever change? Does he ever control his wrath?

Even questions regarding humankind: Do we desire immortality? Can we find glory on the battlefield? What is important in life?

The last books really plunge into deeper waters. Patroklos is dead, and Achilleus regrets feuding with Agammenon. He realizes now what awful consequences his wrath has had on the Achaians in general and himself in particular. He chooses a short glorious life and plunges back into battle clad in immortal armor forged by Hephaistos himself.

One hopes that his rage will have been tempered by his loss of Patroklos; indeed, in Book Eighteen, he mournfully cries, "O how I wish that wrath would vanish from the hearts of gods and men! For it is a poisonous food that turns sweeter than honey in a man's stomach...." We are led to hope, and believe that he will control his wrath.

Our hopes are dashed. Far from controling his anger, Achilleus unleashes it farther than he has ever done; not even with his bitter feud over Briseis was he this wrathful. He goes on a rampage and butchers countless Trojans like a lion among sheep, according to Homer. He mauls Hektor and disgraces his corpse. He executes twelve Trojan youths in cold blood over the funeral pyre of Patroklos and mourns obsessively. He continues to release his anger against the body of Hektor, raging against the gods, Hektor, the Trojans, and perhaps most important of all, himself.

But - there is hope. For Priam, king of Ilion, comes to beg for the body of Hektor. He weeps before Achilleus and reminds him of his own father. And something new (or is it something old?) stirs in Achilleus: pity. He pities the old man who has lost his sons in war. He weeps for his own father, Peleus, who will never see him again. Priam's mourning cancels out Achilleus' rage. He becomes a gentlemen again, like he was before The Iliad began. In a way, he has been saved from himself.

With the return of Hektor, Achilleus is at peace with himself once again. The story of Troy is not over; the epic closes before the Wooden Horse, before the fall of Achilleus, before the brutal sack of Ilion. But it seem complete somehow. "Thus they buried Hektor, breaker of horses".

This might be a stretch, but horses are wild, strong, passionate creatures. Rage has similar qualities. Rage begins the book, a Horse-Tamer closes it. Is it possible we must all tame our inward rage, like unto a wild horse? Rage is, I think, the most powerful passion man has. Eros comes in close second but rage is the most transformative and destructive. We must tame our own rage, tame our own horse.

And so The Iliad closes. What an amazing poem. What a wonderful story.

Next up, The Odyssey.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Iliad Part II

I was correct in my suspicion: The Iliad is a masterpiece. Why do we fight? What is honor? How important is honor? Can it be taken away from us? Do we have free will? Is everything predetermined? Do our choices matter?

Questions like these are posed by the Iliad ever since Book I. The lack of respect Achilles has for Agamemnon and the insecurity of the latter lead to the longstanding feud between them causing the deaths of countless Achaians.

I thought this poem, this epic, was a story about Troy. I thought the general purpose of the narrative was to relate the tale of Ilion. But no, it is much more....personal than that. In fact, the Iliad is a tragedy; the tragedy of Achilles and the tragedy of Hector. These two heroes, one Achaian and one Trojan, are both in the prime of life. They both lose everything on the battlefields of Troy. Achilles loses his honor, his friend, and his life. Hector loses his dignity, his pride, and his entire home. It is among the most tragic works ever written.

More than that, it is intensely personal. I can sympathize with Achilles and Hector throughout the poem. Through their struggles and battles I am right there beside them. I can see how important honor was to the ancient Greeks - honor kept them fighting at Troy for ten years. Honor kept the Trojans from returning Helen. For honor Zeus granted Thetis's request for Trojan victory and slaughtered the Achaians. For honor Achilles takes up the sword again. Everything about the poem revolves around honor.

However, I am at a loss to explain it. What is honor? How can we understand it? How does it relate to my faith? I have no idea what honor is. I can describe honorable people, but I don't know anything about it. Can it be taken away? Does it depend on what people think of us? How does it differ from fame? From integrity? From pride?

However, from a Christian perspective, the poem is lacking. True Heroism is never described. The selfless giving of oneself is not present, for the simple reason that the Achaian world was a pagan, dark world. Christ had not yet arrived. For this reason, the 'heroes' think only of themselves, only how to better themselves and bring themselves personal glory on the field. Moreover, there is no virtue exibited by either side. Not even the gods are a source of virtue; oftentimes they conduct themselves worse than their mortal subjects. Virtue was a long time in coming yet; not for another thousand years would Virtue truly be understood.


The one possible exception could be the occaisional behavior of Achilleus and Hektor. Both are quite gentlemen, respecting the old, being courteous to guests, and coming the closest of any characters in the Iliad to exhibiting the quality we call 'honor'. If they lack the "chivalry" of Roland, Lancelot, or Beowulf, it must be remembered that the courtesy these latter heroes exhibited was one heavily influenced by Catholic Christian morality and humility. Homer was ignorant of all this for obvious reasons, so it therefore should not come as a surprise that these heroes act in the selfish way in which they do.

Never have I thought this deeply about a poem. Epic poetry takes on a whole new meaning for me now. I am eager, very eager, to finish the Iliad, read the Odyssey, and move on with the progam. Reading these books in seminar has been the most revealing and the most intellectually stimulating experience I have ever had. I am exited for Thursday.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

I John

I John is the longest encyclical letter that St. John the Apostle wrote to the early Church. Collected, St. John wrote five works in the New Testement, three of which were for a time considered to be the work of another author, now ascribed to him. St. John wrote the Gospel according to John, the First, Second, and Third Letters of John, and the Revelation to John.

I read I John last week and was struck by his literary style. He does not use the educated, impassioned rhetoric of St. Paul, the careful analytic writing of the author of Hebrews, nor yet the confident tone of St. Peter. Rather, St. John focuses on simple truth. Simple, profound truth, the most important of which is love - God's love for us, and therefore our love for one another.

I John is a New Testement Masterpiece for this reason. It tells us how to love. If you are unsure how to love, read this book. If you are not sure what Christian love is, read this book. If you want to know how crucial love is to the plan of God, read this book.

I John tends to repeat itself a bit, but it does not detract from the message at all. Rather, it enhances and emphasizes it.

What struck me the most were chapters 4 and 5. They focused exclusively on Christ and love - whoever confesses Christ is born of God, loves his brother, and so on. Those two chapters are very powerful passages. More and more I believe that people need to hear the message of St. John in his epistle.

It is an amazing epistle.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

The Illiad, Part I

I am reading Homer's Illiad. It is very very different. I have only read the first few books, but it is incredible. I can see why it is considered one of the greatest works of all time. I don't fully understand its significance as a classic yet, but I am prepared to accept its status on authority.

One thing that shocked me was the lack of morals. Granted, this is a pre-Christian era; men behaved like savage brutes - rape his wife before he rapes yours. Still, I expected more.....'chivalrous' behavior. But Agamemnon and Achilles instantly fight over slave women - women whose sole purpose is to provide pleasure for their 'masters'. Nevermind that Agamemnon is married...

But perhaps I am overreacting. After all, I am a Roman Catholic.

Don't get me wrong - it is a great book. But I still feel dirtied after reading the fight between the two Greeks. They put the Achaians to shame.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Summer Hiatus

I will be gone for about seven to ten weeks. Hopefully I will still have Internet access at St. John's so I can continue to post. As you will find out, should it be successful, I have a lot to say.

Goodbye for now.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Introduction

I decided to create this blog to document my reading habits. I read lots of books, and I try to read mostly the Great Books - the ancient Greeks, the ancient Jews, the Classics. You know, the The Illiad, De Anima, The Bible, Urbs Deo, Summa Theologica, and the later Classics by authors like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Kierkegaard, Nietsche, Freud, Jung, etc. My taste in books is almost as wide, if not wider, than my taste in music.

The last book I read was Dante's Divine Comedy, translated from the Old Italian into English by Dorothy Sayers. I'll write about that and selected works from the school year shortly. This post is mainly for me to get the feel of my site and see how it works.

With this blog, I will have my e-trinity. I have my Common Blog, which doesn't have a lot of interesting stuff, and then there's the other two, music and now books. So welcome and we'll have a great time discussing great books, great authors, and great ideas.

Excipio!