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!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
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!
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!
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!
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
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!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)