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