Reading is ever so much fun when there's no schedule to follow - I can spend as long as I wish on one book and that is just fine. Most recently I have finished Chesterton's The Everlasting Man; a treatise on natural history and Christ's place and transforming thereof. You already know how much I love Chesterton's prose - it may well be the finest prose I have yet read in an original tongue. His rich imagery and ruthless logic coupled with his dry sarcastic wit (not to mention his Classical education) exalt him far above writers such as J.K. Rowling, Christopher Paolini, and even better writers such as Weis, Hickman, and Gamel, who are fine storytellers (except maybe for Paolini, for reading his work is like perusing a Warcraft game on paper) but not so fine writers. I read all the DragonLance books when I was younger and still enjoy most of what Weis & Hickman wrote themselves, but I can easily recognize that their writing as writing do not match up to the fantastics of Tolkien, Lewis, Heinlein, Herbert Verne, Wells, or Bradbury. They also are wonderful storytellers, especially Bradbury, but they are great writers as well; it is a pleasure to read their words in addition to admiring their story.
Good prose exalts the mind and benefits the soul. Reading Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is good for you in every sense of the word. Reading classical literature is good for the soul in addition to stimulating the mind and exposing it to high quality reading. Once you get into classical prose you will find works by authors such as those in the first list fun to read (Mom would call it chocolate for the brain but not good chocolate) but lacking the solidity and feel of good thick prose. When all is said and done, would you rather have DragonLance on your shelf or The Lord of the Rings? Harry Potter or Dune? I would of course prefer to read them all, for modern literature is easy. You can breeze right through it and read hundreds of pages in one sitting, whereas even The Hobbit is mildly dense though it is a children's book, and Chesterton and Lewis (especially their adult fiction) is thick and rich, preventing you from swallowing it whole.
The written word is capable of such beautiful, terrible power it is a shame to see us as a culture debasing it. Children do not read Tolkien - they read dumbed down version of Weis & Hickman, Harry Potter (whose volcabulary is roughly that of an eight year old), or Paolini. We need to read! We must read the great books of children's literature to prepare us for adult classics! It's terrible that adults do not read Plato, Aristotle, and Homer! It's terrible that teenagers go through adolescance without reading Austen, Tolkien, Lewis, or Bradbury! It's terrible that boys who watch Star Wars don't read Dune! We need to read!
Friday, July 4, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On Reading Aristotle
Currently I am reading his Metaphysics. To put it bluntly, it's a bitch. It's every bit as hard as the Physics and then some. But we only have two seminars on it and I want both of them to count. This means I want to understand the readings as well as possible. They are rather short, which makes this possible, but very difficult, doubly so because I have not been doing this all along. But that is in the past and learning to read is what freshman year is all about at St. John's.
It basically means spending five or ten minutes on each page, going over the arguments again and again. Aristotle writes very elliptically and never minces words or repeats himself. If he says it once (women are inferior, Politics) he expects you to remember and rarely elaborates. Sometimes his work seems almost fragmentary in the sense of my wanting him to pursue the dialectic further. Since he doesn't do this, we are left with nothing but our wits to follow the Philosopher. I, the Philosoraptor, try to run down his road. But my problem is compounded by the arrangment of the readings. Because there is a severe lack of time in which to read everything we skip about 85% of the Metaphysics and read very small selections. But everything Aristotle says builds upon what he has said previously and without a foundation I personally am left with little recourse other than to a) puzzle out his arguments myself, b) take his word for it, c) read the Metaphysics in its entirety later, though when exactly I don't know.
Grumping aside, Metaphysics is a great read and will be an instrumental step in my learning to read all over again. I will add it to the (alarmingly growing) list of books I need to read ASAP: Gorgias, Peloponnesian War, Histories, Nicomachean Ethics, On the Soul, and Physics.
Ah me. Ever ambitious.
It basically means spending five or ten minutes on each page, going over the arguments again and again. Aristotle writes very elliptically and never minces words or repeats himself. If he says it once (women are inferior, Politics) he expects you to remember and rarely elaborates. Sometimes his work seems almost fragmentary in the sense of my wanting him to pursue the dialectic further. Since he doesn't do this, we are left with nothing but our wits to follow the Philosopher. I, the Philosoraptor, try to run down his road. But my problem is compounded by the arrangment of the readings. Because there is a severe lack of time in which to read everything we skip about 85% of the Metaphysics and read very small selections. But everything Aristotle says builds upon what he has said previously and without a foundation I personally am left with little recourse other than to a) puzzle out his arguments myself, b) take his word for it, c) read the Metaphysics in its entirety later, though when exactly I don't know.
Grumping aside, Metaphysics is a great read and will be an instrumental step in my learning to read all over again. I will add it to the (alarmingly growing) list of books I need to read ASAP: Gorgias, Peloponnesian War, Histories, Nicomachean Ethics, On the Soul, and Physics.
Ah me. Ever ambitious.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Breaking the Chain with Bad News
So I have broken my month-odd silence. For a while, I considered taking this blog down because it really wasn't performing any useful function and the questions I pose here tend to border on the absurd. Granted, what do you expect from a freshman Johnnie? Even so, I would prefer something more intelligent. And so I will begin posting again, but the posts may be different, they may not mark every book I read, and they may be few and far between. That's okay.
To begin, Annapolis doesn't read De Anima (the inspiration for all my side-blogs) sophmore year and this is driving me insane. How could the two programs of study be so different in that respect? They read Solon and Lycurgus and we don't. Big deal. But this is Aristotle we're talking about, and it's high-quality Aristotle! How could they not align the years better?
I'm not picky. I'd be cool reading De Anima this year. I'd also be down with reading it next year, but I want to read it in seminar sometime!
I will do what I can; I'll read it multiple times over the summer and very carefully too (this brings the number of books to read to four) in addition to Thucydides, Gorgias, and Nicomachean Ethics.
I have the Sachs translation which is very good, so I'm all set.
K. Time for some Physics reading. Toodles.
To begin, Annapolis doesn't read De Anima (the inspiration for all my side-blogs) sophmore year and this is driving me insane. How could the two programs of study be so different in that respect? They read Solon and Lycurgus and we don't. Big deal. But this is Aristotle we're talking about, and it's high-quality Aristotle! How could they not align the years better?
I'm not picky. I'd be cool reading De Anima this year. I'd also be down with reading it next year, but I want to read it in seminar sometime!
I will do what I can; I'll read it multiple times over the summer and very carefully too (this brings the number of books to read to four) in addition to Thucydides, Gorgias, and Nicomachean Ethics.
I have the Sachs translation which is very good, so I'm all set.
K. Time for some Physics reading. Toodles.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Mind Burst By Aristotle
I just read his Nicomachean Ethics in seminar and it blew my mind. It had the effect of exciting me because it's different (I was etting a little tired of Plato) but it also made me appreciate Plato so much more. I love the Platonic questioning. But Aristotle is not concerend with abstract absolutes - he wants to know how we can be made better people RIGHT NOW. That is what his Ethics is all about - he even gives us definitions of virtue and justice! Amazing.
The part where he analyzes what happens when humans act wrongly is what really burst my mind. I don't know what to think anymore except think that Socrates is wrong. Dead wrong.
Sorry this is so truncated - I have a lot on my mind and the Anime Club meets in five minutes. But before I leave I'll jot down some thought on my second semester seminar paper:
My choices are :
Human Nature in Thucydides
Justice in the Crito
Ethical Human Action: An Analysis of Aristotle's Praxeology.
I am pretty excited about either one of these, but choosing will be a bear. I will choose a topic and write a goodly amount over spring break, however. You can be sure about that.
Okay, time for some Haruhi. I'll write later. (I mean it this time)
The part where he analyzes what happens when humans act wrongly is what really burst my mind. I don't know what to think anymore except think that Socrates is wrong. Dead wrong.
Sorry this is so truncated - I have a lot on my mind and the Anime Club meets in five minutes. But before I leave I'll jot down some thought on my second semester seminar paper:
My choices are :
Human Nature in Thucydides
Justice in the Crito
Ethical Human Action: An Analysis of Aristotle's Praxeology.
I am pretty excited about either one of these, but choosing will be a bear. I will choose a topic and write a goodly amount over spring break, however. You can be sure about that.
Okay, time for some Haruhi. I'll write later. (I mean it this time)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Self-Justification, Temper, and Socratic Method in the Laches
Timothy Davis
Freshman Greek – Pagano
02.23.08
In the Laches, we are presented with a very clear demonstration of Socratic Method and instruction. Indeed, this is the major focus of the dialogue, for no answers are produced by its conclusion and the dialogue ends in more bafflement than it began. The only gain from the conversation directed by Socrates is that the characters and the reader will have discovered and become familiar with Socrates’ methods in pursuing an argument.
This, though, is only the first understanding of the dialogue. Beneath the arguments and definitions of courage, there is tension between two of the characters, Nicias and Laches, which shapes the inquiry of the dialogue and is the reason for the squabbling that occurs instead of joint effort into the argument.
The question posed by Socrates in the Laches is, “What is virtue?” and quickly becomes, at Socrates’ recommendation, “What is courage?” because “the inquiry will likely be easier for us.” (190c, Allen) This retreat towards courage from the larger issue of virtue is in direct opposition to the Meno, where Socrates rejects Meno’s examples of virtues and forces him to consider virtue as a whole, and gives evidence that Socrates is engaged in a demonstration of the proper method by which to answer a universal question rather than a single-minded focus on answering the question.
Lysimachus and Melisias wish to properly educate their sons and inquire whether training them to fight in armor will benefit them. Socrates points out that outward training is only done for the purpose of benefiting the soul and acquiring their agreement, directs the conversation towards how to benefit the soul, and therefore towards virtue. At his request, two respected Athenian generals, Laches and Nicias, engage in dialogue with Socrates about the definition of courage. This dialogue provides Socrates with the chance to illustrate his methods, for both Laches and Nicias engage in the attempt to answer Socrates’ question with opposite errors.
Outline:
Analyze Socrates’ method in the Laches.
Analyze the ‘drama’ – the squabbling between Nicias and Laches
Discuss how the drama affects the dialogue, conclude.
Timothy Davis
Freshman Greek – Pagano
02.23.08
In the Laches, we are presented with a very clear demonstration of Socratic Method and instruction. Indeed, this is the major focus of the dialogue, for no answers are produced by its conclusion and the dialogue ends in more bafflement than it began. The only gain from the conversation directed by Socrates is that the characters and the reader will have discovered and become familiar with Socrates’ methods in pursuing an argument.
This, though, is only the first understanding of the dialogue. Beneath the arguments and definitions of courage, there is tension between two of the characters, Nicias and Laches, which shapes the inquiry of the dialogue and is the reason for the squabbling that occurs instead of joint effort into the argument.
The question posed by Socrates in the Laches is, “What is virtue?” and quickly becomes, at Socrates’ recommendation, “What is courage?” because “the inquiry will likely be easier for us.” (190c, Allen) This retreat towards courage from the larger issue of virtue is in direct opposition to the Meno, where Socrates rejects Meno’s examples of virtues and forces him to consider virtue as a whole, and gives evidence that Socrates is engaged in a demonstration of the proper method by which to answer a universal question rather than a single-minded focus on answering the question.
Lysimachus and Melisias wish to properly educate their sons and inquire whether training them to fight in armor will benefit them. Socrates points out that outward training is only done for the purpose of benefiting the soul and acquiring their agreement, directs the conversation towards how to benefit the soul, and therefore towards virtue. At his request, two respected Athenian generals, Laches and Nicias, engage in dialogue with Socrates about the definition of courage. This dialogue provides Socrates with the chance to illustrate his methods, for both Laches and Nicias engage in the attempt to answer Socrates’ question with opposite errors.
Outline:
Analyze Socrates’ method in the Laches.
Analyze the ‘drama’ – the squabbling between Nicias and Laches
Discuss how the drama affects the dialogue, conclude.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)