Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Monday, September 16, 2019
Aristotle's Metaphysics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Morality in C.S. Lewis
There are two ways in which a human being can go wrong
1) Either drifting apart or colliding with another human being to cause damage
2) Either drifting away from or having one's own desires come into conflict with one another
If both of these are avoided however, there still needs to be a destination in mind. There must needs be a final end to human life.
Morality is a three pronged thing:
1) Living in peace with other individuals
2) Fixing the inside (virtues or vices) of each individual
3) "The general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for" (Lewis, 70)
1) Either drifting apart or colliding with another human being to cause damage
2) Either drifting away from or having one's own desires come into conflict with one another
If both of these are avoided however, there still needs to be a destination in mind. There must needs be a final end to human life.
Morality is a three pronged thing:
1) Living in peace with other individuals
2) Fixing the inside (virtues or vices) of each individual
3) "The general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for" (Lewis, 70)
Lewis - Objective Right and Wrong
There is a real right and a real wrong. Lewis calls this the Law of Nature. He states that every man and every nation believes this - even if they are mistaken about what the real right or real wrong actually is. His evidence is the fact that while many men or nations may state that there is no objective right and wrong, the moment which they feel wronged they undercut their arguments against a real right and wrong. Likewise, he states that the very fact that we make excuses for when we have acted wrongly (or we have acted in a way that other's perceive as wronging them) proves that everyone believes in a real right and wrong. If they didn't have such a belief they would not feel the need to excuse away behavior.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Plato's Ethics and Politics
(Originally written November 6, 2016 in Book 26)
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
365 Day Bible Catch Up (Proverbs 1-4)
Catching up in Proverbs now...
1:29-33
-Because they did not accept rebuke or advice, because they hated knowledge and chose not to fear the Lord they will eat the fruit of their ways.
1:32 "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them" - What a terrifying verse. I know I have been guilty of complacency on more than one occasion. Lord, help me to cease to be complacent.
But, luckily, 32 is counterbalanced with 33: "but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm".
Proverbs 2
1-5: If you look for it, if you search for it like its valuable (like silver or a hidden treasure) then you will find it. You will find the fear of the Lord and the knowledge of God.
10 - Wisdom will enter your heart
11 - Discretion will protect you
2:19 is somewhat distressing considering my history. "None who go to her return or attain the paths of life". Her being the wayward wife with her seductive words.
Proverbs 3
3:3-4 "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man". I need to really bind these things and write them on the tablet of my heart. Let this soak in Lord.
3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight". Let this soak in as well. I need to really not lean on my own understanding (a thing I am consistently guilty of).
Here in Proverbs 3 we see a little literal? allegorical? metaphorical? account of creation:
3:19-20 "By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew". Genesis doesn't use any of this wordage and yet it makes sense on both a literal and allegorical/metaphorical account.
In light of rereading and typing my notes on Rand and her views on altruism, I can say that it is truly opposite to the Biblical approach to ethics. Proverbs 3:27-28 "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow' - when you have it with you". Rand talks about altruistic ethics being hypothetical, asking, 'Should I act if a man is hanging on by his fingernails off a ledge' or 'Should I pull the person from a moving car'. If it is in you power, then act. That is the ethics we are to practice.
God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. Another point against the prideful ethics of Rand. (Proverbs 3:34).
Proverbs 4
How important is wisdom? 4:7 "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding" or "Whatever else you get, get understanding".
Proverbs 4:14-17 warns against walking in the wicked's ways -
"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence".
It's like wickedness is an addiction. You get hooked and pulled in further and further until you cannot sleep without doing evil. It gets so bad that they get trapped in it. 4:19 "But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble". Why did you do that? I don't know it just happened. Nothing in particular triggered it. It just happened. How many times has that (paraphrase) happened to me? Break my chains Lord.
1:29-33
-Because they did not accept rebuke or advice, because they hated knowledge and chose not to fear the Lord they will eat the fruit of their ways.
1:32 "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them" - What a terrifying verse. I know I have been guilty of complacency on more than one occasion. Lord, help me to cease to be complacent.
But, luckily, 32 is counterbalanced with 33: "but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm".
Proverbs 2
1-5: If you look for it, if you search for it like its valuable (like silver or a hidden treasure) then you will find it. You will find the fear of the Lord and the knowledge of God.
10 - Wisdom will enter your heart
11 - Discretion will protect you
2:19 is somewhat distressing considering my history. "None who go to her return or attain the paths of life". Her being the wayward wife with her seductive words.
Proverbs 3
3:3-4 "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man". I need to really bind these things and write them on the tablet of my heart. Let this soak in Lord.
3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight". Let this soak in as well. I need to really not lean on my own understanding (a thing I am consistently guilty of).
Here in Proverbs 3 we see a little literal? allegorical? metaphorical? account of creation:
3:19-20 "By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew". Genesis doesn't use any of this wordage and yet it makes sense on both a literal and allegorical/metaphorical account.
In light of rereading and typing my notes on Rand and her views on altruism, I can say that it is truly opposite to the Biblical approach to ethics. Proverbs 3:27-28 "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow' - when you have it with you". Rand talks about altruistic ethics being hypothetical, asking, 'Should I act if a man is hanging on by his fingernails off a ledge' or 'Should I pull the person from a moving car'. If it is in you power, then act. That is the ethics we are to practice.
God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. Another point against the prideful ethics of Rand. (Proverbs 3:34).
Proverbs 4
How important is wisdom? 4:7 "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding" or "Whatever else you get, get understanding".
Proverbs 4:14-17 warns against walking in the wicked's ways -
"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence".
It's like wickedness is an addiction. You get hooked and pulled in further and further until you cannot sleep without doing evil. It gets so bad that they get trapped in it. 4:19 "But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble". Why did you do that? I don't know it just happened. Nothing in particular triggered it. It just happened. How many times has that (paraphrase) happened to me? Break my chains Lord.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Assessment of my notes on Rand
In June - July 2006 I was reading Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I was also big on my "Quest for Knowledge" which was my personal maxim of looking at everything (I shudder to use the word in light of Rand's usage) objectively and gleaning truth from it. I most certainly didn't look at Rand from an objective standpoint. I probably should go back and read more of her work. But, In the past nine and a half years I think I have at least read some of her works again (we'll find out if I took any notes or if they survive). At the time I was throwing around the big boy words I was learning in my philosophy classes and practicing my own little word games to trap Rand in her words. Thankfully, I didn't use the phrase 'existentially repugnant', which was a personal favorite of mine for a mercifully short time. But that essence was there.
That said, I find much of the ethical framework of Rand's to be morally backwards. I do think that she praised what ought not to be praised and despised that which should not be despised. It lends itself nicely to a depraved form of (using a word that I seemed particularly fond of at the time of my notes) megalomania. But, I have to ask for forgiveness because at the time I was still learning politics and hadn't yet matured into my own brand of political thought. I was massively addicted to the 24-hour news cycle at the time and a particular fan of Hannity & Colmes. I cheered Hannity and jeered Colmes. In essence I was whipped up by the rhetoric and fell right into the trap they laid for me. I didn't realize until later how much of a farce this fair & balanced show was. But, it was in this educational indoctrination that I found myself after having yelled at a book suddenly nodding along when it came to Rand's political philosophy of unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. In light of maturity, I no longer watch Hannity (or really any of the 24-hour news cycle, realizing now that it is all entertainment based on the Jerry Springer model of debasing humanity for our pleasure, without the almost redemptive bit of Springer's little morale at the end of each show).
While my political leanings put me much more squarely in the center, I haven't abandoned my conservative roots. I find that I need to say that I doubt I would nod along with Rand's political theories any longer. Her arguments against Collectivism were one thing I think that I nodded along with as they were an attack on racism (something which needs to be attacked). Then I provided my little wit and word play (like the Sophist I am working to grow out of) to attack her 'racism', which was unfair (it would more rightly have been called a classism). But, I think coming from a more experienced standpoint I could read the book and glean a bit more now. I still think I might yell at it though.
However, Nathaniel Branden's essay The Psychology of Pleasure stood out for me about his assessment of of looking at work. My notes said:
"Work which can be looked upon in various ways:
1) one can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoy a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek to destroy others as pleasure. They are parasites who live off the work of others"
At 22, I really didn't know what productive work was. I was young, enthusiastic and full of energy. Even when I did dead-end jobs it didn't matter because everything was new. Now at 32 I understand a bit more. Thankfully, I have never experienced 4. But the other three I have known at various stages in my career. Unfortunately I have fallen prey to the trap of 3 now twice.
Ostensibly, the purpose of this blog is to gather all of my notes together so I can write books and draw on my past knowledge and experiences. What I'm learning in doing this is that it's simply a continuation of the aforementioned 'quest for knowledge'. I'm not as bright-eyed as I once was. I'm not as innocent and have lived a bit more than I would have liked at this point in my life. There is a creeping cynicism that crops up now and then, sometimes more viciously than others. I'm not calling it such a lofty thing as the 'quest for knowledge' although I tamely called the last bit of information in my notebook 3 something like 'my little theory of everything'. It was somewhat sarcastic, but I might still have those flashes of grandeur underneath my cynicism that crop up as well from time to time. So, I guess in my assessing my notes on Rand I've come to the conclusions that I've forgotten some of what I've learned, I probably should read the book again and that I need to do productive work in a way that I find pleasure in it, ceaselessly learning, thinking and as humbly as I can put it, achieving. I need to write those books that are plaguing my mind. I need to get out of the mindset of taking on pleasures that shut off consciousness. These are too short-lived and have far too great of consequences to continue to pursue with such verve.
That said, I find much of the ethical framework of Rand's to be morally backwards. I do think that she praised what ought not to be praised and despised that which should not be despised. It lends itself nicely to a depraved form of (using a word that I seemed particularly fond of at the time of my notes) megalomania. But, I have to ask for forgiveness because at the time I was still learning politics and hadn't yet matured into my own brand of political thought. I was massively addicted to the 24-hour news cycle at the time and a particular fan of Hannity & Colmes. I cheered Hannity and jeered Colmes. In essence I was whipped up by the rhetoric and fell right into the trap they laid for me. I didn't realize until later how much of a farce this fair & balanced show was. But, it was in this educational indoctrination that I found myself after having yelled at a book suddenly nodding along when it came to Rand's political philosophy of unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. In light of maturity, I no longer watch Hannity (or really any of the 24-hour news cycle, realizing now that it is all entertainment based on the Jerry Springer model of debasing humanity for our pleasure, without the almost redemptive bit of Springer's little morale at the end of each show).
While my political leanings put me much more squarely in the center, I haven't abandoned my conservative roots. I find that I need to say that I doubt I would nod along with Rand's political theories any longer. Her arguments against Collectivism were one thing I think that I nodded along with as they were an attack on racism (something which needs to be attacked). Then I provided my little wit and word play (like the Sophist I am working to grow out of) to attack her 'racism', which was unfair (it would more rightly have been called a classism). But, I think coming from a more experienced standpoint I could read the book and glean a bit more now. I still think I might yell at it though.
However, Nathaniel Branden's essay The Psychology of Pleasure stood out for me about his assessment of of looking at work. My notes said:
"Work which can be looked upon in various ways:
1) one can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoy a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek to destroy others as pleasure. They are parasites who live off the work of others"
At 22, I really didn't know what productive work was. I was young, enthusiastic and full of energy. Even when I did dead-end jobs it didn't matter because everything was new. Now at 32 I understand a bit more. Thankfully, I have never experienced 4. But the other three I have known at various stages in my career. Unfortunately I have fallen prey to the trap of 3 now twice.
Ostensibly, the purpose of this blog is to gather all of my notes together so I can write books and draw on my past knowledge and experiences. What I'm learning in doing this is that it's simply a continuation of the aforementioned 'quest for knowledge'. I'm not as bright-eyed as I once was. I'm not as innocent and have lived a bit more than I would have liked at this point in my life. There is a creeping cynicism that crops up now and then, sometimes more viciously than others. I'm not calling it such a lofty thing as the 'quest for knowledge' although I tamely called the last bit of information in my notebook 3 something like 'my little theory of everything'. It was somewhat sarcastic, but I might still have those flashes of grandeur underneath my cynicism that crop up as well from time to time. So, I guess in my assessing my notes on Rand I've come to the conclusions that I've forgotten some of what I've learned, I probably should read the book again and that I need to do productive work in a way that I find pleasure in it, ceaselessly learning, thinking and as humbly as I can put it, achieving. I need to write those books that are plaguing my mind. I need to get out of the mindset of taking on pleasures that shut off consciousness. These are too short-lived and have far too great of consequences to continue to pursue with such verve.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Fifth Century Pythagoreanism
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 13 - Fifth-Century Pythagoreanism
The followers of Pythagoras organized themselves as a communal living group. It was also a political group centered around the cult of Pythagoras.
FMAG - Pythagoras' cult
At some point Magna Graecia erupted in political turmoil and many of the Pythagoreans dispersed and went into exile in Mainland Greece. They were divided into two groups the acusmatici (aphorists) and the mathematici (scientists). The Acusmatici did not consider the Mathematici to be true followers of Pythagoras. The Acusmatici treated Pythagoras as a god and that everything he said was a divine decree.
The Acusmatici had three types of Aphorisms:
1) What a thing is
2) What is the best thing
-What is the most wise thing in the world? Medicine
-What is most noble? Harmony
-What is most good? Happiness
-What is most truly said? That men are wretched
3) What you should and shouldn't do
-Have children (one must leave servants of God for later)
-Always put the right shoe on first
-"Do not help anyone to put down a burden (for one must not become a cause of idleness)" (Barnes, 163).
-Do not speak in the dark
-Labor is good, pleasure is bad
-"Human souls enter all animals except those which it is right to sacrifice; that is why one must eat only sacrificial animals" (Barnes, 164).
Cicero, on commenting about the Pythagorean notion of not eating beans, mentions that it was probably abstained from because of the flatulence it produces and flatulence does not let a mind be at ease during sleep. But, some took the Pythagorean notion, especially from Empedocles' line 'Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hand from beans' as allegorical. In this understanding of the Pythagoreans staying away from beans, the commentaries equate beans with testicles and say that abstaining from beans was abstaining from sexual indulgence. It is possible that it was meant allegorical, but contemporaries mocked the Pythagorean notion of abstaining from beans.
Antiphanes, an comic poet mocked their dietary patterns numerous times: "First, like a Pythagorizer, he eats no meat but takes and chews a blackened piece of cheap bread". Alexis, another poet says, "The Pythagorizers, as we hear, eat no fish nor anything else alive; and they're the only ones who don't drink wine. - But Epicharides eats dogs, and he's a Pythagorean. - Ah, but he kills them first and then they're no longer alive." Alexis also calls the Pythagorean diet a prison diet. These satirical lines are especially for the Acusmatici, not the Mathematici.
The Mathematici were obsessed with numbers. They assigned numbers and ratios to everything. "Everything in numbers and harmonies which cohered with the properties and parts of the heaven and with the universe as a whole, they collected and fitted together; and if there was anything missing anywhere they eargerly made additions so that the whole of their theory should hang together" (Barnes, 169).
Ten was the perfect number for them and since there were only 9 observable celestial bodies they theorized that there was a 10th, a sort of counter-earth.
They believed the heavenly bodies created sounds and that the sounds created a sort of musical quality of immense proportions.
They believed the universe to be infinite.
They believed the soul to be a harmony of blended contraries.
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 13 - Fifth-Century Pythagoreanism
The followers of Pythagoras organized themselves as a communal living group. It was also a political group centered around the cult of Pythagoras.
FMAG - Pythagoras' cult
At some point Magna Graecia erupted in political turmoil and many of the Pythagoreans dispersed and went into exile in Mainland Greece. They were divided into two groups the acusmatici (aphorists) and the mathematici (scientists). The Acusmatici did not consider the Mathematici to be true followers of Pythagoras. The Acusmatici treated Pythagoras as a god and that everything he said was a divine decree.
The Acusmatici had three types of Aphorisms:
1) What a thing is
2) What is the best thing
-What is the most wise thing in the world? Medicine
-What is most noble? Harmony
-What is most good? Happiness
-What is most truly said? That men are wretched
3) What you should and shouldn't do
-Have children (one must leave servants of God for later)
-Always put the right shoe on first
-"Do not help anyone to put down a burden (for one must not become a cause of idleness)" (Barnes, 163).
-Do not speak in the dark
-Labor is good, pleasure is bad
-"Human souls enter all animals except those which it is right to sacrifice; that is why one must eat only sacrificial animals" (Barnes, 164).
Cicero, on commenting about the Pythagorean notion of not eating beans, mentions that it was probably abstained from because of the flatulence it produces and flatulence does not let a mind be at ease during sleep. But, some took the Pythagorean notion, especially from Empedocles' line 'Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hand from beans' as allegorical. In this understanding of the Pythagoreans staying away from beans, the commentaries equate beans with testicles and say that abstaining from beans was abstaining from sexual indulgence. It is possible that it was meant allegorical, but contemporaries mocked the Pythagorean notion of abstaining from beans.
Antiphanes, an comic poet mocked their dietary patterns numerous times: "First, like a Pythagorizer, he eats no meat but takes and chews a blackened piece of cheap bread". Alexis, another poet says, "The Pythagorizers, as we hear, eat no fish nor anything else alive; and they're the only ones who don't drink wine. - But Epicharides eats dogs, and he's a Pythagorean. - Ah, but he kills them first and then they're no longer alive." Alexis also calls the Pythagorean diet a prison diet. These satirical lines are especially for the Acusmatici, not the Mathematici.
The Mathematici were obsessed with numbers. They assigned numbers and ratios to everything. "Everything in numbers and harmonies which cohered with the properties and parts of the heaven and with the universe as a whole, they collected and fitted together; and if there was anything missing anywhere they eargerly made additions so that the whole of their theory should hang together" (Barnes, 169).
Ten was the perfect number for them and since there were only 9 observable celestial bodies they theorized that there was a 10th, a sort of counter-earth.
They believed the heavenly bodies created sounds and that the sounds created a sort of musical quality of immense proportions.
They believed the universe to be infinite.
They believed the soul to be a harmony of blended contraries.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Pythagoras
Pythagoras
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
"About the life of Pythagoras we know almost nothing; we know even less about his views, as distinguished from those of his followers" (Jones, 31).
-Probably born in Samos off the coast of Asia Minor and emigrated to Southern Italy around 530 BC
-Founded a society, primarily a religious society in Croton. The society conducted some scientific research and dominated the politics of Croton for a time. The science they practiced seemed to be a part of their worship of god.
-Pythagoras was both scientific and religious
-The religious temperament of Greece was changing around the time of Pythagoras. The Olympic gods were being given lip service and the old Greek notion of religion with it. The quest for immortality was gaining sway as a new worship of Dionysus began to sweep through Greece.
-The worship of Dionysus was scandalous to the conservative Greeks. "The ceremonies took place, often at night, in remote places, and women - the scandal of conservative males - took a prominent part in them. In a frenzy of intoxication the worshipers tore living animals apart, drank their blood, and danced to the point of exhaustion. They felt the spirit of the god pass into their bodies; the union so passionately desired was consummated, and the worshipers exulted in a supreme happiness and utter freedom from any sort of restraint" (Jones, 32). This was a far cry between the business like transactions made between the earlier Greeks and the gods of Olympus.
The Pythagoreans took the Bacchic rites of worship and elevated it to an intellectual level. Rather than using wine to achieve intoxication, the Pythagoreans used music to purify their soul.
-The Pythagoreans believed in an immortal soul that passed through a cycle of births, coming back as different things determined by the kind of life led by the soul in the preceding existence.
-The goal of the Pythagoreans was to be released from the cycle of birth and death. It was accomplished through attaining wisdom.
There were three types of men in the Pythagorean system (stated in allegorical form based on the Olympic games)
1) The lovers of gain - those who sold souvenirs
2) The lovers of honor - the competitors
3) The lovers of knowledge - the spectators
The idea was that the Pythagoreans, by contemplating on the eternal truths to which their science afforded them access to would eventually lead to their escape from the cycle of birth and death.
For the Milesian three the use of science was to satisfy human curiosity and had some practical application. For the Pythagoreans the use of science was the method to spiritual redemption.
Mathematics was the principle science of the religion of the Pythagoreans. The tetraktys played an important part in their cosmology. (Tetraktys are triangle numbers in sequence, 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, etc.)
They also developed the arithmetic mean and the harmonic mean. They used this in their metaphysics and cosmology to show that the conflict of opposites, a key component in early Greek philosophy, could be solved by means of harmonizing. They also used the idea of the mean in medicine and ethics. In medicine, health was the mean of a harmony of opposites, neither too hot nor too cold. The use of the mean in ethics led to the idea of moderation that persists in later Greek thought.
Unlike the Milesian three and their disciples, the Pythagoreans were not monists. They were dualists. Their two principles were the Limit and the Unlimited. The Unlimited was a mass of indeterminacy and indefinities. The Limit was fire.
The Pythagoreans saw the cosmic order as having a unity that is in nature mathematical. "The Pythagoreans' most notable achievement, certainly, was the concept of the 'cosmos' - the notion that the universe is not a chaotic hodgepodge but a thoroughly ordered system in which every element is harmoniously related to every other" (Jones, 38). While this was already nascent in Greek thought, but the Pythagoreans made it explicit. This meant that the universe was completely knowable.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Pythagoras was one of the most intellectually important men of all time
-Demonstrative deductive mathematics began with Pythagoras
-Native of Samos, flourishing around 532 B.C.
-"Some say he was the son of a substantial citizen named Mnesarchos, others that he was the son of the god Apollo; I leave the reader to take his choice between these alternatives" (Russell, 29). This particular sentence might have been the one that truly made me enjoy reading Russell initially ten years ago.
-Samos, like Miletus, was a commercial city
-Samos was ruled by Polycrates, a tyrant not known for his moral scruples. He killed his two brothers and used his considerable navy as a nationalized piracy ring
-Samos grew in stature after Miletus was subdued by Persia
-Polycrates tried to play both sides against the middle in the Persian and Egyptian wars, and used his political enemies to do so. Eventually, this caught up with him and led to his crucifixion by the Persians.
-Despite being treacherous, Polycrates was a patron of the arts. Pythagoras however, did not like Polycrates and left Samos on account of him.
-After leaving Pythagoras may have visited Egypt and learned from that visit. Regardless if this is true or not, he ended up settling down at Croton, in Southern Italy.
- Like Miletus and Samos, the cities of southern Italy were commercial hubs.
- At Croton, Pythagoras founded a society with various disciples and school for mathematics
- Unfortunately Pythagoras wore out his welcome at Croton and left for another southern Italian city, Metapontion
-Pythagoras was both a mathematical thinker and a mystic. He founded a religion based on transmigration of souls. His religion was a sort of reformation of Orphism, which itself was a reformation of the religion of Bacchus or Dionysus
-Much of Pythagoras' religion was otherworldly, placed value in the unity of God and condemned the visible world as illusionary and bemoaned that it obscured the view of the real things.
Religious beliefs:
-believed the soul to be immortal
-the soul is transformed into other kinds of living things
-everything in existence is born again and so nothing is absolutely new
-everything that has life should be treated as family
-the rebirth cycle is the wheel of birth, to escape most effectively is to be a philosopher
"In the society that he founded, men and women were admitted on equal terms; property was held in common, and there was a common way of life. Even scientific and mathematical discoveries were deemed collective, and in a mystical sense due to Pythagoras even after his death" (Russell, 33).
Believed there to be three types of men:
1) lowest - those who buy and sell
2) middle - those who act and do things (the competitors)
3) highest - those who observe (the philosopher)
For Pythagoras the chief good was the contemplative life. Hence, the spectators/philosophers who contemplate are better than those that do/competitors. This is somewhat backwards to today's thoughts where those that do are considered more valuable than those that watch.
Pythagoras was a religious philosopher and a mathematical one. The contemplation that he achieved brought about mathematics for the sake of mathematics, it didn't need utility.
"Personal religion derived from ecstasy, theology from mathematics; and both are to be found in Pythagoras" (Russell, 37).
The combination of mathematics and theology began with Pythagoras.
Pythagoras is influential in numerous fields. What he began found its way into numerous thoughts/worldviews. "But for him, Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought logical proofs of God and immortality" (Russell, 37).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-"We hear more about Pythagoras than about any other Presocratic philosopher. For the school of thought to which he gave his name lasted for a millennium, and several works by later Pythagoreans have survived. Yet in many ways Pythagoras is the most obscure and perplexing of all the early thinkers" (Barnes, 28).
-The legend of Pythagoras rapidly built up around him.
-Isocrates mentions an interesting thing about Pythagoras: "He was the first to bring philosophy to Greece, and in particular he was concerned, more conspicuously than anyone else, with matters to do with sacrifices and temple purifications, thinking that even if this would gain him no advantage from the gods it would at least bring him high repute among men" (Barnes, 31).
Aristotle, in a lost work, attributes many miracles to Pythagoras. First, Pythagoras bit a poisonous snake that bit him and it killed the snake. Second, Pythagoras showed his thigh was made of gold. Third, he appeared in two cities simultaneously.
The teachings of Pythagoras can be divided into two categories: mathematico-metaphysical and moral.
Porphyry wrote that Pythagoras said that the soul was immortal, that it changed into other kinds of animals. He also stated that Pythagoras taught the history repeated itself from time to time and thus, nothing was ever truly new.
Diodorus wrote that Pythagoras was vegetarian because eating meat was horrible on account of the soul of the animal. He also wrote that Pythagoras claimed to remember his past life as Euphorbus who was killed by Menelaus in the Trojan war.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Have Pythagoras be a charlatan. He sets up a community to do 'communal work for the good of the community' but it really just puffs up his own image.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
"About the life of Pythagoras we know almost nothing; we know even less about his views, as distinguished from those of his followers" (Jones, 31).
-Probably born in Samos off the coast of Asia Minor and emigrated to Southern Italy around 530 BC
-Founded a society, primarily a religious society in Croton. The society conducted some scientific research and dominated the politics of Croton for a time. The science they practiced seemed to be a part of their worship of god.
-Pythagoras was both scientific and religious
-The religious temperament of Greece was changing around the time of Pythagoras. The Olympic gods were being given lip service and the old Greek notion of religion with it. The quest for immortality was gaining sway as a new worship of Dionysus began to sweep through Greece.
-The worship of Dionysus was scandalous to the conservative Greeks. "The ceremonies took place, often at night, in remote places, and women - the scandal of conservative males - took a prominent part in them. In a frenzy of intoxication the worshipers tore living animals apart, drank their blood, and danced to the point of exhaustion. They felt the spirit of the god pass into their bodies; the union so passionately desired was consummated, and the worshipers exulted in a supreme happiness and utter freedom from any sort of restraint" (Jones, 32). This was a far cry between the business like transactions made between the earlier Greeks and the gods of Olympus.
The Pythagoreans took the Bacchic rites of worship and elevated it to an intellectual level. Rather than using wine to achieve intoxication, the Pythagoreans used music to purify their soul.
-The Pythagoreans believed in an immortal soul that passed through a cycle of births, coming back as different things determined by the kind of life led by the soul in the preceding existence.
-The goal of the Pythagoreans was to be released from the cycle of birth and death. It was accomplished through attaining wisdom.
There were three types of men in the Pythagorean system (stated in allegorical form based on the Olympic games)
1) The lovers of gain - those who sold souvenirs
2) The lovers of honor - the competitors
3) The lovers of knowledge - the spectators
The idea was that the Pythagoreans, by contemplating on the eternal truths to which their science afforded them access to would eventually lead to their escape from the cycle of birth and death.
For the Milesian three the use of science was to satisfy human curiosity and had some practical application. For the Pythagoreans the use of science was the method to spiritual redemption.
Mathematics was the principle science of the religion of the Pythagoreans. The tetraktys played an important part in their cosmology. (Tetraktys are triangle numbers in sequence, 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, etc.)
They also developed the arithmetic mean and the harmonic mean. They used this in their metaphysics and cosmology to show that the conflict of opposites, a key component in early Greek philosophy, could be solved by means of harmonizing. They also used the idea of the mean in medicine and ethics. In medicine, health was the mean of a harmony of opposites, neither too hot nor too cold. The use of the mean in ethics led to the idea of moderation that persists in later Greek thought.
Unlike the Milesian three and their disciples, the Pythagoreans were not monists. They were dualists. Their two principles were the Limit and the Unlimited. The Unlimited was a mass of indeterminacy and indefinities. The Limit was fire.
The Pythagoreans saw the cosmic order as having a unity that is in nature mathematical. "The Pythagoreans' most notable achievement, certainly, was the concept of the 'cosmos' - the notion that the universe is not a chaotic hodgepodge but a thoroughly ordered system in which every element is harmoniously related to every other" (Jones, 38). While this was already nascent in Greek thought, but the Pythagoreans made it explicit. This meant that the universe was completely knowable.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Pythagoras was one of the most intellectually important men of all time
-Demonstrative deductive mathematics began with Pythagoras
-Native of Samos, flourishing around 532 B.C.
-"Some say he was the son of a substantial citizen named Mnesarchos, others that he was the son of the god Apollo; I leave the reader to take his choice between these alternatives" (Russell, 29). This particular sentence might have been the one that truly made me enjoy reading Russell initially ten years ago.
-Samos, like Miletus, was a commercial city
-Samos was ruled by Polycrates, a tyrant not known for his moral scruples. He killed his two brothers and used his considerable navy as a nationalized piracy ring
-Samos grew in stature after Miletus was subdued by Persia
-Polycrates tried to play both sides against the middle in the Persian and Egyptian wars, and used his political enemies to do so. Eventually, this caught up with him and led to his crucifixion by the Persians.
-Despite being treacherous, Polycrates was a patron of the arts. Pythagoras however, did not like Polycrates and left Samos on account of him.
-After leaving Pythagoras may have visited Egypt and learned from that visit. Regardless if this is true or not, he ended up settling down at Croton, in Southern Italy.
- Like Miletus and Samos, the cities of southern Italy were commercial hubs.
- At Croton, Pythagoras founded a society with various disciples and school for mathematics
- Unfortunately Pythagoras wore out his welcome at Croton and left for another southern Italian city, Metapontion
-Pythagoras was both a mathematical thinker and a mystic. He founded a religion based on transmigration of souls. His religion was a sort of reformation of Orphism, which itself was a reformation of the religion of Bacchus or Dionysus
-Much of Pythagoras' religion was otherworldly, placed value in the unity of God and condemned the visible world as illusionary and bemoaned that it obscured the view of the real things.
Religious beliefs:
-believed the soul to be immortal
-the soul is transformed into other kinds of living things
-everything in existence is born again and so nothing is absolutely new
-everything that has life should be treated as family
-the rebirth cycle is the wheel of birth, to escape most effectively is to be a philosopher
"In the society that he founded, men and women were admitted on equal terms; property was held in common, and there was a common way of life. Even scientific and mathematical discoveries were deemed collective, and in a mystical sense due to Pythagoras even after his death" (Russell, 33).
Believed there to be three types of men:
1) lowest - those who buy and sell
2) middle - those who act and do things (the competitors)
3) highest - those who observe (the philosopher)
For Pythagoras the chief good was the contemplative life. Hence, the spectators/philosophers who contemplate are better than those that do/competitors. This is somewhat backwards to today's thoughts where those that do are considered more valuable than those that watch.
Pythagoras was a religious philosopher and a mathematical one. The contemplation that he achieved brought about mathematics for the sake of mathematics, it didn't need utility.
"Personal religion derived from ecstasy, theology from mathematics; and both are to be found in Pythagoras" (Russell, 37).
The combination of mathematics and theology began with Pythagoras.
Pythagoras is influential in numerous fields. What he began found its way into numerous thoughts/worldviews. "But for him, Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought logical proofs of God and immortality" (Russell, 37).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-"We hear more about Pythagoras than about any other Presocratic philosopher. For the school of thought to which he gave his name lasted for a millennium, and several works by later Pythagoreans have survived. Yet in many ways Pythagoras is the most obscure and perplexing of all the early thinkers" (Barnes, 28).
-The legend of Pythagoras rapidly built up around him.
-Isocrates mentions an interesting thing about Pythagoras: "He was the first to bring philosophy to Greece, and in particular he was concerned, more conspicuously than anyone else, with matters to do with sacrifices and temple purifications, thinking that even if this would gain him no advantage from the gods it would at least bring him high repute among men" (Barnes, 31).
Aristotle, in a lost work, attributes many miracles to Pythagoras. First, Pythagoras bit a poisonous snake that bit him and it killed the snake. Second, Pythagoras showed his thigh was made of gold. Third, he appeared in two cities simultaneously.
The teachings of Pythagoras can be divided into two categories: mathematico-metaphysical and moral.
Porphyry wrote that Pythagoras said that the soul was immortal, that it changed into other kinds of animals. He also stated that Pythagoras taught the history repeated itself from time to time and thus, nothing was ever truly new.
Diodorus wrote that Pythagoras was vegetarian because eating meat was horrible on account of the soul of the animal. He also wrote that Pythagoras claimed to remember his past life as Euphorbus who was killed by Menelaus in the Trojan war.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Have Pythagoras be a charlatan. He sets up a community to do 'communal work for the good of the community' but it really just puffs up his own image.
Heraclitus
Heraclitus
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-For Heraclitus, the original stuff is fire. "This world...was ever, is now, and ever shall be an everlasting fire" (Jones, 14).
-Heraclitus was influenced by the Milesian three, but was more subtle and refined
-Heraclitus' notion to resolve the problem of how one thing becomes every thing and is still one was to make the 'one thing' a non-material thing. For Heraclitus, the one thing then was the process itself.
-For Heraclitus, who like most men have difficulty in truly thinking abstractly, let alone communicating abstract thoughts, he called this process 'fire', which is always changing and yet still fire.
-The problem for the Milesian three was they held a belief in unity and still needed to reconcile the fact that things changed. Heraclitus however in proclaiming process as the one thing went to the extreme and created the problem of permanence. Because everything was fire and process, everything was always changing. This is the state of flux.
-Flux accounts for the change. Permanence is accounted for by accepting that the thing that is changing appears permanent because the rate of change is always the same.
-In addition to the Milesian three's problem of one and the many, Heraclitus has the problem of the world as it appears and the world as it really is.
-Heraclitus did not stop at describing the physical world as the Milesian three did. He dabbled into more areas.
-He used the eternal flux in describing how politics works as well. The political system is a constant tension of opposites. For example, without strife peace could not exist.
-Heraclitus' political theory was representative of his time. There was constant strife between the various city states and peace only existed when neither of the warring city states had enough power to overcome the other. Likewise, in the individual city states the nobles and the commoners only achieved a balance of peace when neither party was powerful enough to impose their will on the other. Heraclitus was on the side of the nobility.
-Heraclitus was contemptuous of the masses.
-In addition to social theory, Heraclitus showed an interest in religion. For Heraclitus, his aristocratic contempt for the masses extended to his religious sentiments. Accepting the scientific nature of the Milesian three, he rejected the contemporary religion of the masses.
-Heraclitus is quoted as saying 'the wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man'
-Heraclitus sometimes identifies his god as the process of flux
-Heraclitus' god was not personal. It was indifferent to human conceptions of right and wrong, justice and was immune to men's prayer.
-Heraclitus equated the flux/process sometimes with 'logos'.
-Some passages indicate that Heraclitus' ethics held that the chief good of man is to listen to the logos and even become absorbed by the logos
-Heraclitus was both a scientific and religious philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
[The Greeks] "discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible" (Russell, 39). The limitation to this Greek way of thinking though is that it is reasoned deductively from self-evident facts rather than inductively from empirical observations.
-Heraclitus was an aristocratic person from Ephesus.
-famous for his theory that everything is in a state of flux
-He was mystical in thought
-Fire was the fundamental substance
-everything is born by the death of something else
-there was a unity in the world, but that unity came out of the combination of opposites
-believed that mankind was so inherently bad that only force would compel them to act for their own good
-believed that War was necessary and good
-believed that strife was justice and that all things come into being and pass away through strife
-"His ethic is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche's" (Russell, 42).
-The soul was a mix of fire and water, the fire being the noble part.
-Claimed the 'dry' soul was the best, but that it is pleasurable to the soul to get 'wet'. Hence, the asceticism
-He was hostile to the Bacchic religion, for example he wrote "They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing this, would deem him mad" (Russell, 43).
-Perpetual change was the state of the world.
-The unity in the world was a result from diversity.
-His god did not care about mankind - "To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right" (Russell, 44).
-Like Hegel, Heraclitus seems to believe that a synthesis of opposites creates the world as it is.
-Heraclitus has a sense of cosmic justice in his system as no single thing can ever prevent one thing from totally taking over its opposite
-For Heraclitus, his God is distinct from the gods. His God is the embodiment of cosmic justice.
-Both Plato and Aristotle agreed that Heraclitus taught that nothing ever is, everything is always becoming.
-"The doctrine of perpetual flux, as taught by Heraclitus, is painful, and science, as we have seen, can do nothing to refute it. One of the main ambitions of philosophers has been to revive hopes that science seemed to have killed. Philosophers, accordingly, have sought, with great persistence, for something not subject to the empire of Time. This search begins with Parmenides" (Russell, 47).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Heraclitus came from Ephesus in Asia Minor, circa 500 BC
-He was nicknamed 'The Obscure' and 'The Riddler'
-Even Socrates, when given a book of Heraclitus by Euripides states what he understood was splendid and was sure that what he didn't understand was splendid as well.
-Heraclitus rebuked and condemned a lot of people for their ignorance in his writings
-He claims all things are one, 'day and dusk - for they are one', 'the path of the carding-comb is straight and crooked', 'the path up and down is one and the same', etc.
-He was very critical of everyone he disagreed with, which was basically everyone. "Much learning does not teach thought - or it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus" (Barnes, 53).
-He defines wisdom as the ability to grasp the knowledge of how all things are steered through all.
-He was regarded by some of the ancients as arrogant and purposefully obscure
-He claimed that all things were made of fire and perished back into the fire
-Everything that exists is harmonized by the transformation of opposites
-Everything is full of souls and spirits
-He distrusted sensory perception
John Stobaeus quotes a couple of interesting Heraclitus sayings:
-It is better to hide folly than to make it public
-It is not good for men to get what they want
-To be self-controlled is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature.
-All men can know themselves and control themselves
Again, he is not very complimentary of the common man: "For what thought or sense, he says, do they have? They follow the popular singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad and few good" (Barnes, 58).
He claims that most men satisfy themselves like beasts. The best men seek fame from mortals.
He is especially critical of Pythagoras. "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he made a wisdom of his own - much learning, mere fraudulence" (Barnes, 59).
-He held that the world was uncreated
Stobaeus says "Heraclitus said that a man's character is his fate" (Barnes, 62).
On God Plutarch remarks that Heraclitus believed "In all respects superior to us, [god] is especially unlike and different from us in his acts; but of divine acts, the majority, according to Heraclitus, escape our knowledge through lack of trust" (Barnes, 66).
He claimed that philosophical men must be versed in many things
He distrusted the senses - bad witnesses for men are eyes and ears of those who have foreign souls (the mark of a foreign soul is to trust in non-rational perceptions)
War is to be praised in Heraclitus because it brings about strife, which is justice.
Aristotle describes his cosmology as the harmony achieved through the blending of the most contrary principles.
Again, he's not real complimentary of the masses, claiming that donkeys would prefer rubbish to gold.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-For Heraclitus, the original stuff is fire. "This world...was ever, is now, and ever shall be an everlasting fire" (Jones, 14).
-Heraclitus was influenced by the Milesian three, but was more subtle and refined
-Heraclitus' notion to resolve the problem of how one thing becomes every thing and is still one was to make the 'one thing' a non-material thing. For Heraclitus, the one thing then was the process itself.
-For Heraclitus, who like most men have difficulty in truly thinking abstractly, let alone communicating abstract thoughts, he called this process 'fire', which is always changing and yet still fire.
-The problem for the Milesian three was they held a belief in unity and still needed to reconcile the fact that things changed. Heraclitus however in proclaiming process as the one thing went to the extreme and created the problem of permanence. Because everything was fire and process, everything was always changing. This is the state of flux.
-Flux accounts for the change. Permanence is accounted for by accepting that the thing that is changing appears permanent because the rate of change is always the same.
-In addition to the Milesian three's problem of one and the many, Heraclitus has the problem of the world as it appears and the world as it really is.
-Heraclitus did not stop at describing the physical world as the Milesian three did. He dabbled into more areas.
-He used the eternal flux in describing how politics works as well. The political system is a constant tension of opposites. For example, without strife peace could not exist.
-Heraclitus' political theory was representative of his time. There was constant strife between the various city states and peace only existed when neither of the warring city states had enough power to overcome the other. Likewise, in the individual city states the nobles and the commoners only achieved a balance of peace when neither party was powerful enough to impose their will on the other. Heraclitus was on the side of the nobility.
-Heraclitus was contemptuous of the masses.
-In addition to social theory, Heraclitus showed an interest in religion. For Heraclitus, his aristocratic contempt for the masses extended to his religious sentiments. Accepting the scientific nature of the Milesian three, he rejected the contemporary religion of the masses.
-Heraclitus is quoted as saying 'the wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man'
-Heraclitus sometimes identifies his god as the process of flux
-Heraclitus' god was not personal. It was indifferent to human conceptions of right and wrong, justice and was immune to men's prayer.
-Heraclitus equated the flux/process sometimes with 'logos'.
-Some passages indicate that Heraclitus' ethics held that the chief good of man is to listen to the logos and even become absorbed by the logos
-Heraclitus was both a scientific and religious philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
[The Greeks] "discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible" (Russell, 39). The limitation to this Greek way of thinking though is that it is reasoned deductively from self-evident facts rather than inductively from empirical observations.
-Heraclitus was an aristocratic person from Ephesus.
-famous for his theory that everything is in a state of flux
-He was mystical in thought
-Fire was the fundamental substance
-everything is born by the death of something else
-there was a unity in the world, but that unity came out of the combination of opposites
-believed that mankind was so inherently bad that only force would compel them to act for their own good
-believed that War was necessary and good
-believed that strife was justice and that all things come into being and pass away through strife
-"His ethic is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche's" (Russell, 42).
-The soul was a mix of fire and water, the fire being the noble part.
-Claimed the 'dry' soul was the best, but that it is pleasurable to the soul to get 'wet'. Hence, the asceticism
-He was hostile to the Bacchic religion, for example he wrote "They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing this, would deem him mad" (Russell, 43).
-Perpetual change was the state of the world.
-The unity in the world was a result from diversity.
-His god did not care about mankind - "To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right" (Russell, 44).
-Like Hegel, Heraclitus seems to believe that a synthesis of opposites creates the world as it is.
-Heraclitus has a sense of cosmic justice in his system as no single thing can ever prevent one thing from totally taking over its opposite
-For Heraclitus, his God is distinct from the gods. His God is the embodiment of cosmic justice.
-Both Plato and Aristotle agreed that Heraclitus taught that nothing ever is, everything is always becoming.
-"The doctrine of perpetual flux, as taught by Heraclitus, is painful, and science, as we have seen, can do nothing to refute it. One of the main ambitions of philosophers has been to revive hopes that science seemed to have killed. Philosophers, accordingly, have sought, with great persistence, for something not subject to the empire of Time. This search begins with Parmenides" (Russell, 47).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Heraclitus came from Ephesus in Asia Minor, circa 500 BC
-He was nicknamed 'The Obscure' and 'The Riddler'
-Even Socrates, when given a book of Heraclitus by Euripides states what he understood was splendid and was sure that what he didn't understand was splendid as well.
-Heraclitus rebuked and condemned a lot of people for their ignorance in his writings
-He claims all things are one, 'day and dusk - for they are one', 'the path of the carding-comb is straight and crooked', 'the path up and down is one and the same', etc.
-He was very critical of everyone he disagreed with, which was basically everyone. "Much learning does not teach thought - or it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus" (Barnes, 53).
-He defines wisdom as the ability to grasp the knowledge of how all things are steered through all.
-He was regarded by some of the ancients as arrogant and purposefully obscure
-He claimed that all things were made of fire and perished back into the fire
-Everything that exists is harmonized by the transformation of opposites
-Everything is full of souls and spirits
-He distrusted sensory perception
John Stobaeus quotes a couple of interesting Heraclitus sayings:
-It is better to hide folly than to make it public
-It is not good for men to get what they want
-To be self-controlled is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature.
-All men can know themselves and control themselves
Again, he is not very complimentary of the common man: "For what thought or sense, he says, do they have? They follow the popular singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad and few good" (Barnes, 58).
He claims that most men satisfy themselves like beasts. The best men seek fame from mortals.
He is especially critical of Pythagoras. "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he made a wisdom of his own - much learning, mere fraudulence" (Barnes, 59).
-He held that the world was uncreated
Stobaeus says "Heraclitus said that a man's character is his fate" (Barnes, 62).
On God Plutarch remarks that Heraclitus believed "In all respects superior to us, [god] is especially unlike and different from us in his acts; but of divine acts, the majority, according to Heraclitus, escape our knowledge through lack of trust" (Barnes, 66).
He claimed that philosophical men must be versed in many things
He distrusted the senses - bad witnesses for men are eyes and ears of those who have foreign souls (the mark of a foreign soul is to trust in non-rational perceptions)
War is to be praised in Heraclitus because it brings about strife, which is justice.
Aristotle describes his cosmology as the harmony achieved through the blending of the most contrary principles.
Again, he's not real complimentary of the masses, claiming that donkeys would prefer rubbish to gold.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge Revisited
It's been ten years since I've read the book Secular Humanism: Threat and Challenge by Robert E. Webber. It's been thirty-two years since Robert E. Webber has written the book. Some of its tone seems to be as current as ever. Its rhetoric is definitely current. But, in typing the notes I've noticed a few things about my own thoughts on these topics in my current mindset. I've matured; become less naïve and developed a more nuanced view of the world. I'm not sure if that's always the best thing in the world, but it is the brute fact. But, I've become a little bit more open-minded to things as well. I think I'd be less apt to label secular humanism as hypocritical in the margins of my notes today. I might not; I once yelled at an Ayn Rand book and scared some poor Starbucks sipping soccer moms to death.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Notes on Dreadful Freedom
(Originally Written October 22, 2009 in The Journal)
OK Ashley, you've heard my sob stories about loneliness and depression and this new unrequited love. You've heard of the destruction of my body, the breaking of my heart and the crushing of my soul. But now let's witness my glory - my mind. How about some philosophy.
Dreadful Freedom
Marjorie Grene
Chapter 1 - Why existentialism
Existentialists insist on their essential optimism that man makes himself.
Existentialism in a sense is a reaction against the speculative idealism of Hegel.
Existentialism comes from Kierkegaard's phrase "existential dialectic".
In existentialism, existence is prior to essence. This means that the consciousness of one's own soul comes before anything else becomes clear.
Existentialism revolts against system building and focuses on more pressing human concerns.
The relation of cause to effect is measured by the efficacy of an act.
The relation of cause and effect is indistinguishable from means and end.
Sartre and Dewey (pragmatists) criticize philosophies of the past for stabilizing the norms that kept ruling parties in power.
Pragmatism and existentialism are similar in aim at first glance.
Sartre resets values from past to future. The past value is an emphasis on the bourgeois privilege whereas if values are set with the future in mind it leads to revolution.
Pragmatism fails though because fact cannot produce value. Science cannot distinguish between good and evil.
Value for Sartre lies between the way things are and the way things ought to be. The success of man (and failure) lies between the thing as it is and the thing as it should be.
The perception between the way things are and the way they should be is the fundamental insight of existential philosophy.
Values are created solely by the acts of man. What they take as good or bad, beautiful or ugly in their quest to give meaning to a meaningless world.
Positivistic ethics aims at being descriptive not normative.
As in Kantian ethics, existentialists claim there is no good or evil apart from will and there is no will without freedom.
Existentialism does not derive values from mere facts.
Some existentialists demand a return to faith in the Christian God as a necessary way out of our present moral chaos (Marcel & Kierkegaard).
Atheistic existentialists however claim that the return to the Christian God is removing the freedom of man and basing values once again on facts, though these facts are not sense-data but cosmic in origin.
Chapter 2: Soren Kierkegaard: The self against the system
The aim of Kierkegaard, his one problem was: to find out where the misunderstanding lies between speculation and Christianity.
Kierkegaard believed that the misunderstanding had its roots in the nature of personal existence.
Kierkegaard's work has a slight anti-scientific tone but it is really a revolt against Hegelian speculation.
Camus had a very strong anti-scientific tone.
Kierkegaard worries that by focusing on physiology and explaining the whole man in its scope will cause man to lose sight of the important field of ethics.
Kierkegaard argues that the system in never capable of explaining existence until it is complete and thus becoming timeless. Existence as it is happening is never complete and thus, the system is incapable of explaining existence.
Kierkegaard criticizes the systematizers by claiming that they build a palace to live next door in the barn.
The system builders acquire far flung knowledge and ignore the simple understanding of one's self, which is the only important understand.
The system, in its grandeur is deceiving. It uses wordy logical fallacies to appear logical.
Kierkegaard does not propound an orthodox form of Christianity. He denies any "objective truth of Christianity", instead stating the whole problem for every serious Christian is their own path to faith.
Kierkegaard focuses on the inwardness of the subjective journey of the one real entity (the individual) to the infinite being, known by faith.
Kierkegaard turns from the impersonal and trivial truths (though consistent) to the passionate truth realized only subjectively and meaningful. This truth is meaningful because it is contradictory.
By embracing total subjectivity, Kierkegaard renounced all abstraction and left only contradiction and paradox. Since abstraction is gone one cannot transfer through words one's experience to another. paradox is the only way and this is indirect communication.
Philosophy for Kierkegaard, like Kant is focused on the question, what is man? It deals with human problems, not the essence of cosmic reality.
Kierkegaard relies heavily on Plato, not Neo-Platonism, but the Dialogues themselves.
Kierkegaard states we live, or ought to live, in the awareness that here and now may be our last moment.
Existentialism focuses on the contingency of life.
Existentialism pays close attention to the meaninglessness that continually underlies the significance in human life.
OK Ashley, you've heard my sob stories about loneliness and depression and this new unrequited love. You've heard of the destruction of my body, the breaking of my heart and the crushing of my soul. But now let's witness my glory - my mind. How about some philosophy.
Dreadful Freedom
Marjorie Grene
Chapter 1 - Why existentialism
Existentialists insist on their essential optimism that man makes himself.
Existentialism in a sense is a reaction against the speculative idealism of Hegel.
Existentialism comes from Kierkegaard's phrase "existential dialectic".
In existentialism, existence is prior to essence. This means that the consciousness of one's own soul comes before anything else becomes clear.
Existentialism revolts against system building and focuses on more pressing human concerns.
The relation of cause to effect is measured by the efficacy of an act.
The relation of cause and effect is indistinguishable from means and end.
Sartre and Dewey (pragmatists) criticize philosophies of the past for stabilizing the norms that kept ruling parties in power.
Pragmatism and existentialism are similar in aim at first glance.
Sartre resets values from past to future. The past value is an emphasis on the bourgeois privilege whereas if values are set with the future in mind it leads to revolution.
Pragmatism fails though because fact cannot produce value. Science cannot distinguish between good and evil.
Value for Sartre lies between the way things are and the way things ought to be. The success of man (and failure) lies between the thing as it is and the thing as it should be.
The perception between the way things are and the way they should be is the fundamental insight of existential philosophy.
Values are created solely by the acts of man. What they take as good or bad, beautiful or ugly in their quest to give meaning to a meaningless world.
Positivistic ethics aims at being descriptive not normative.
As in Kantian ethics, existentialists claim there is no good or evil apart from will and there is no will without freedom.
Existentialism does not derive values from mere facts.
Some existentialists demand a return to faith in the Christian God as a necessary way out of our present moral chaos (Marcel & Kierkegaard).
Atheistic existentialists however claim that the return to the Christian God is removing the freedom of man and basing values once again on facts, though these facts are not sense-data but cosmic in origin.
Chapter 2: Soren Kierkegaard: The self against the system
The aim of Kierkegaard, his one problem was: to find out where the misunderstanding lies between speculation and Christianity.
Kierkegaard believed that the misunderstanding had its roots in the nature of personal existence.
Kierkegaard's work has a slight anti-scientific tone but it is really a revolt against Hegelian speculation.
Camus had a very strong anti-scientific tone.
Kierkegaard worries that by focusing on physiology and explaining the whole man in its scope will cause man to lose sight of the important field of ethics.
Kierkegaard argues that the system in never capable of explaining existence until it is complete and thus becoming timeless. Existence as it is happening is never complete and thus, the system is incapable of explaining existence.
Kierkegaard criticizes the systematizers by claiming that they build a palace to live next door in the barn.
The system builders acquire far flung knowledge and ignore the simple understanding of one's self, which is the only important understand.
The system, in its grandeur is deceiving. It uses wordy logical fallacies to appear logical.
Kierkegaard does not propound an orthodox form of Christianity. He denies any "objective truth of Christianity", instead stating the whole problem for every serious Christian is their own path to faith.
Kierkegaard focuses on the inwardness of the subjective journey of the one real entity (the individual) to the infinite being, known by faith.
Kierkegaard turns from the impersonal and trivial truths (though consistent) to the passionate truth realized only subjectively and meaningful. This truth is meaningful because it is contradictory.
By embracing total subjectivity, Kierkegaard renounced all abstraction and left only contradiction and paradox. Since abstraction is gone one cannot transfer through words one's experience to another. paradox is the only way and this is indirect communication.
Philosophy for Kierkegaard, like Kant is focused on the question, what is man? It deals with human problems, not the essence of cosmic reality.
Kierkegaard relies heavily on Plato, not Neo-Platonism, but the Dialogues themselves.
Kierkegaard states we live, or ought to live, in the awareness that here and now may be our last moment.
Existentialism focuses on the contingency of life.
Existentialism pays close attention to the meaninglessness that continually underlies the significance in human life.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Kingdom Triangle - JP Moreland
(Originally Written August 15, 2009 in the Journal)
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Return to Tipasa (1952)
(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)
"To be sure, it is sheer madness, almost always punished, to return to the sites of one's youth" (Camus)
One must recapture the strength to accept what is, when once one has admitted that one cannot change it.
"And in this muddy Tipasa the memory itself was becoming dim" (Camus)
There is no love without a little innocence.
In innocence we do not know of the existence of morality. In knowledge we are guilty of not being able to live up to the standards of morality.
Noting is true that forces one to exclude.
It is bad luck to be unloved, it is a misfortune to be unloving. We are dying of this misfortune today.
Equally welcome what delights and what crushes.
The highest virtue of Camus: a will to live without rejecting anything of life.
"To be sure, it is sheer madness, almost always punished, to return to the sites of one's youth" (Camus)
One must recapture the strength to accept what is, when once one has admitted that one cannot change it.
"And in this muddy Tipasa the memory itself was becoming dim" (Camus)
There is no love without a little innocence.
In innocence we do not know of the existence of morality. In knowledge we are guilty of not being able to live up to the standards of morality.
Noting is true that forces one to exclude.
It is bad luck to be unloved, it is a misfortune to be unloving. We are dying of this misfortune today.
Equally welcome what delights and what crushes.
The highest virtue of Camus: a will to live without rejecting anything of life.
Summer in Algiers (1936)
(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)
Summer in Algiers (1936)
The openness and abundance of Algiers gives pleasure without remedy and joy without hope. It gives man his splendor and his misery.
Truth carries with it a bitterness.
It is ridiculous not to live by the body. To deny its impulses is to deny it life. Rather, drink when you are thirsty, bed a woman you desire, marry a woman you love and afterwards (as Camus' friend Vincent) say I feel better.
Algiers offers two contrasting pleasures; the abundance of the beach and the silence of the city. The key here is experiencing it, of living it.
Life, as joys, in Algiers are merciless and sudden. Life is not to be built up, but to be burned up.
Virtue is meaningless, but that does not mean that men lack principles.
There is nothing sacred in death; it is abhorred.
"The contrary of a civilized nation is a creative nation" (Camus)
The greatness of man as culture is one cast fully in the present (no past/future) and without myth or solace.
Relative truths are the only truths that stir individual men.
Spirituality is solely confined to this lifetime. Eternity is solely what survives us.
What exalts life increases the absurdity of life.
To sin is to sin against life, which is to elude life in the hope of another one.
Hope is resignation, to live is not to resign oneself.
Summer in Algiers (1936)
The openness and abundance of Algiers gives pleasure without remedy and joy without hope. It gives man his splendor and his misery.
Truth carries with it a bitterness.
It is ridiculous not to live by the body. To deny its impulses is to deny it life. Rather, drink when you are thirsty, bed a woman you desire, marry a woman you love and afterwards (as Camus' friend Vincent) say I feel better.
Algiers offers two contrasting pleasures; the abundance of the beach and the silence of the city. The key here is experiencing it, of living it.
Life, as joys, in Algiers are merciless and sudden. Life is not to be built up, but to be burned up.
Virtue is meaningless, but that does not mean that men lack principles.
There is nothing sacred in death; it is abhorred.
"The contrary of a civilized nation is a creative nation" (Camus)
The greatness of man as culture is one cast fully in the present (no past/future) and without myth or solace.
Relative truths are the only truths that stir individual men.
Spirituality is solely confined to this lifetime. Eternity is solely what survives us.
What exalts life increases the absurdity of life.
To sin is to sin against life, which is to elude life in the hope of another one.
Hope is resignation, to live is not to resign oneself.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Notes on the Absurd Creation (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally written October 13, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Notes on the Absurd Man (B) (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally Written October 12, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
The Absurd Man
The absurd man is assured of temporally limited freedom.
The absurd man lives his existence in his lifetime.
The absurd man does nothing for the eternal.
The absurd man lives by courage and reasoning.
He is assured of his temporally limited freedom. (Contrast with the Christian who is assured of his absolute freedom in Christ).
"The absurd does not liberate, it binds" (Camus)
"In the absurd world the value of a notion or a life is measured by its sterility" (Camus)
Don Juanism
Genius is intelligence that knows its frontiers.
Those who live on hope are called either a weakling, an idealist or a saint - each insulting.
Ethic is quantitative for the absurd man, the saint sees ethic qualitatively.
Regret is another form of hope.
Love, like that of a passionate wife or a mother necessarily closes its heart to the world. Those who turn away from all personal life through a great love are certainly enriched, but the object of that great love becomes impoverished.
Love can only be defined subjectively based on our experiences. "I do not have the right to cover all those experiences with the same name" (Camus).
Love is noble when it recognizes its short-lived and exceptional nature.
Again, the absurd man quantifies his experiences of love and doesn't base it on any qualitative experience (This is what Camus calls Don Juanism). [This is a truly detestable notion]
A fate is not a punishment - a natural consequence of a consciously chosen act is not a punishment. The absurd man chooses his direction and accepts the reality of his choice.
It is the absurd way to knowledge without illusion.
Drama
The thoughtless man continues to hasten from hope to hope.
There is a profound nobility in indifference. Indifference directs us to the most important concern: the immediate.
"Preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each much play his part" (Camus). Obviously, the absurd man chooses oneself over losing oneself in any way - especially to something atemporal or eternal. (The absurd man lives in time, his adventure lasts from birth until death).
Conquest
The conqueror can thoroughly define what they believe. Beware of those who say 'I know this too well to express it' because they either do not know it or were too lazy to pursue it. (This is a condemnation of mysticism).
Given the choice between history or eternal Camus chooses history because it is certain and he likes certainties.
A proud heart cannot compromise. "There is God or time, that cross or this sword. This world has a higher meaning that transcends its worries, or nothing is true but those worries. One must live with time and die with it, or else elude it for a greater life. I know that one can compromise and live in this world while believing in the eternal. That is called accepting. But I loathe this term and want all or nothing" (Camus).
Flesh is struggle, but flesh is my only certainty.
Man is his own end; he is his only end.
Life is both the conquerors' destitution and wealth. It is in this tension that he thrives, exalting and crushing man, the individual.
True riches are riches because they are transitory.
Knowing the limits constitutes the freedom, the liberation.
"The truths that come within my scope can be touched with the hand" (Camus)
Pity is the only acceptable form of compassion for the absurd man.
"Being deprived of hope is not despairing" (Camus)
The absurd, godless world is full of thinking men without hope.
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
The Absurd Man
The absurd man is assured of temporally limited freedom.
The absurd man lives his existence in his lifetime.
The absurd man does nothing for the eternal.
The absurd man lives by courage and reasoning.
He is assured of his temporally limited freedom. (Contrast with the Christian who is assured of his absolute freedom in Christ).
"The absurd does not liberate, it binds" (Camus)
"In the absurd world the value of a notion or a life is measured by its sterility" (Camus)
Don Juanism
Genius is intelligence that knows its frontiers.
Those who live on hope are called either a weakling, an idealist or a saint - each insulting.
Ethic is quantitative for the absurd man, the saint sees ethic qualitatively.
Regret is another form of hope.
Love, like that of a passionate wife or a mother necessarily closes its heart to the world. Those who turn away from all personal life through a great love are certainly enriched, but the object of that great love becomes impoverished.
Love can only be defined subjectively based on our experiences. "I do not have the right to cover all those experiences with the same name" (Camus).
Love is noble when it recognizes its short-lived and exceptional nature.
Again, the absurd man quantifies his experiences of love and doesn't base it on any qualitative experience (This is what Camus calls Don Juanism). [This is a truly detestable notion]
A fate is not a punishment - a natural consequence of a consciously chosen act is not a punishment. The absurd man chooses his direction and accepts the reality of his choice.
It is the absurd way to knowledge without illusion.
Drama
The thoughtless man continues to hasten from hope to hope.
There is a profound nobility in indifference. Indifference directs us to the most important concern: the immediate.
"Preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each much play his part" (Camus). Obviously, the absurd man chooses oneself over losing oneself in any way - especially to something atemporal or eternal. (The absurd man lives in time, his adventure lasts from birth until death).
Conquest
The conqueror can thoroughly define what they believe. Beware of those who say 'I know this too well to express it' because they either do not know it or were too lazy to pursue it. (This is a condemnation of mysticism).
Given the choice between history or eternal Camus chooses history because it is certain and he likes certainties.
A proud heart cannot compromise. "There is God or time, that cross or this sword. This world has a higher meaning that transcends its worries, or nothing is true but those worries. One must live with time and die with it, or else elude it for a greater life. I know that one can compromise and live in this world while believing in the eternal. That is called accepting. But I loathe this term and want all or nothing" (Camus).
Flesh is struggle, but flesh is my only certainty.
Man is his own end; he is his only end.
Life is both the conquerors' destitution and wealth. It is in this tension that he thrives, exalting and crushing man, the individual.
True riches are riches because they are transitory.
Knowing the limits constitutes the freedom, the liberation.
"The truths that come within my scope can be touched with the hand" (Camus)
Pity is the only acceptable form of compassion for the absurd man.
"Being deprived of hope is not despairing" (Camus)
The absurd, godless world is full of thinking men without hope.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art, Chapter 1
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Chapter 1
Much is spent to pursue art, including the sacrifice of the lives of men.
People are turned into specialists by numbering them to every other important aspect of life.
Is art for art's sake worth all the cruelty and malice it takes?
Art has turned men against one another. Different schools disown other schools or all others. Each member of a school is so devoted to his own personal fancy that the very definition of art is muddled.
Can we allow a thing we cannot even define to swallow so many lives?
What is Art?
Chapter 1
Much is spent to pursue art, including the sacrifice of the lives of men.
People are turned into specialists by numbering them to every other important aspect of life.
Is art for art's sake worth all the cruelty and malice it takes?
Art has turned men against one another. Different schools disown other schools or all others. Each member of a school is so devoted to his own personal fancy that the very definition of art is muddled.
Can we allow a thing we cannot even define to swallow so many lives?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Beyond Good & Evil 227-229
(Originally written August 18, 2007 in Notebook 18)
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
227
Honesty will be a virtue of the free spirits, but not to the point that it becomes vanity, finery, pomp or stupidity.
"Every virtue inclines toward stupidity; every stupidity, toward virtue" (Nietzsche, 346).
228
We must not allow thinking about morality to become dangerous and exciting. We must continue to let it be boring.
229
Cruelty is what drives culture. The high culture is merely refined and spiritualized cruelty.
There is too much enjoyment in one's own suffering.
Whenever one is lured into any self-denial, contrition, de-sensualization, de-carnalization or shift, one is motivated by one's cruelty against himself.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
227
Honesty will be a virtue of the free spirits, but not to the point that it becomes vanity, finery, pomp or stupidity.
"Every virtue inclines toward stupidity; every stupidity, toward virtue" (Nietzsche, 346).
228
We must not allow thinking about morality to become dangerous and exciting. We must continue to let it be boring.
229
Cruelty is what drives culture. The high culture is merely refined and spiritualized cruelty.
There is too much enjoyment in one's own suffering.
Whenever one is lured into any self-denial, contrition, de-sensualization, de-carnalization or shift, one is motivated by one's cruelty against himself.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Beyond Good & Evil 200-223
(Originally written August 15, 2007 in Notebook 18)
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
200
[Idealogical foundation for Hitler's Super Race]
Today is an age of disintegration where races mix indiscriminately causing their offspring to be a constant war with themselves.
In their souls they have opposite drives and never achieve rest. It is for this reason that happiness has been distorted to mean rest: the rest of all rest, the sabbath of all sabbaths.
In strong men (i.e. Alcibiades, Caesar and Frederick II) they rise above this conflict and master waging war on oneself.
201
As long as morality is based on utility it will be done to preserve the herd.
Love of neighbor cannot exist as a part of herd morality. It is extra-moral. It is neither good nor bad. Only those things which are good for the whole society are moral and conversely only those things which are bad for the herd are immoral.
Fear of danger to the herd is the birth of morals: what is dangerous is immoral, what is safe (for the herd is moral)
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil" (Nietzsche, 304).
Whatever is mediocre in desires is rendered as good or moral.
Morality aims at the goal of having nothing to fear.
202
Morality in Europe today is herd morality. It is a type of morality that possibly and ought to give way to a new morality, a higher morality. But this possibility and ought to is resisted by thin morality.
This residence is aided by religion, by Christianity.
"The democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement" (Nietzsche, 306).
The anarchist and socialists, though opposed to Christianity and democracy, ni dieu ni maître (neither god nor master) is nonetheless an advocate of the herd.
Both Christians and democrats, both anarchists and socialists, all are one when it comes to the belief in the herd, a belief the community is the savior, the faith in themselves.
203
Democracy is a form of decay in the political organization and a form of decay of man himself.
Democracy lowers the value of man.
The new philosophers must envisage a strong, independent leader who is willing to create and exploit his society to achieve greatness.
Part 6 - We Scholars
204
There is no morality, only will.
We may talk of science only if we have experience of it, lest we be as blind men discussing colors.
205
A philosophical mind is in danger of never becoming a philosopher because of the mistrust of philosophy and the lure of becoming a "specialist" in one area.
Wisdom is seen as a kind of escape, a game, or a trick to the rabble. So the rabble deems the philosopher useless.
206
A scientific man is an ignoble man with ignoble virtues. He is not self-sufficient. He is a herd animal.
207
We must fight against the depersonalization of the spirit which is celebrated nowadays.
We must not bend to the notion of disinterested knowledge.
The scientist belongs in the hand of one who is more powerful. He belongs as an instrument to be wielded by the powerful.
The Scientist is suited for Germans, not an end.
When the scientist is mistaken for a philosopher one is giving him too much praise.
The objective man is an instrument, one that deserves praise, but he is not the goal, the conclusion or the the sunrise. He is not a bingeing.
208
The skeptic is frightened all too easily. He fears "no" Also he fears any decisiveness whether it be "yes" or "no".
Skepticism needs consolation from itself, assurances are given to the skeptic in form of slogans.
Skepticism is a spiritual sickliness, a nervous exhaustion.
Skepticism is doubt and doubt weakens the human. The worst par tis they doubt even the freedom of the will and the will becomes the sickliest, weakest part of the man.
Skepticism is a paralysis of the will.
Skepticism exists int he culture who are most refined. Those cultures who are barbarous see less skepticism.
"The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth - the compulsion to large-scale politics" (Nietzsche, 321).
[How prophetic]
209
The warlike age nations entered may see the development of a stronger type of skepticism.
This type of skepticism is an audacious manliness.
This type of skepticism is German skepticism and anti-romanticism.
210
The new philosophers will have traits of the German skepticism, but it will not be their all.
These free spirits will enjoy crusty in ripping apart "truth".
They will be un-humanitarian because they understand the truth cares not for the feelings or well-being of man.
They will mock those who find elevation in truth or beauty in delight.
211
The philosopher, the true philosopher may first have to be a critic, a skeptic, a dogmatist, a historian, a poet, a moralist and a scientist first. But each of these is only a precondition to becoming a philosopher.
The philosopher is above all other occupations and everything below a philosopher is a mean to the philosopher's end: the creation of values.
True philosophers are commanders and legislators; they say, "thus it shall be!"
"Their knowing is creating, their creating is legislation, their will to truth is will to power" (Nietzsche, 326).
212
The true philosopher is necessarily a man of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and must find himself the enemy of the ideals of today.
The philosopher's ideal is the strength of the will and must fight against all that weakness the will, even the virtues of the day.
The higher man demands more and deserves more. The lower man demands less than what is owed. Humility weakens the will.
Greatness: "being capable of being as manifold as whole, as ample as full" (Nietzsche, 329).
213
What a philosopher is cannot be taught; ti must be known.
A philosopher is born as such and then further cultivated. Those who are not born as such can never enter the realm of philosopher.
Part 7: Our Virtues
214
If we, the Europeans of the day after tomorrow, the first born of the 20th century, have virtues, they will not be simpleminded as the past
215
We men of the new age are colored by different moralities.
"Our actions shine alternately in different colors, they are rarely univocal" (Nietzsche, 336).
216
That false morality offends us is progress. Soon we rid ourselves of morality altogether.
217
Those who take pride in their moral tact are people you must beware of.
Those who are forceful are blessed because they get over their stupidity.
218
Instinct is by far the most intelligent intelligence discovered yet.
219
"Moral judgments and condemnations constitute the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited" (Nietzsche, 337).
These men fight for the equality of all men before God and almost need faith in God just for that.
220
The things that attract the higher man to it are completely uninteresting to the common man.
Whoever has sacrificed has done so wanting something in return and has received it, if only a feeling.
221
Any unegoistic morality that requires all to self0denial an modesty sins against taste and provokes great men to commit sins of omission.
All moralities must be forced to bow to the order of rank until they comply with the maxim "what is right for one is fair for the other" and agree this maxim is immoral.
Those who wish to have those who laugh on their side should never wish to bee too right. It is actually a sign of good taste to have a little bit of wrong in themselves.
222
Pity is the only religion preached today.
When pity is preached the hearers will hear a genuine sound of self-contempt.
223
The plebeian European needs costumes.
A costume is some foreign or ancient custom it can wear for a while and then store away after thoroughly studying it.
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
200
[Idealogical foundation for Hitler's Super Race]
Today is an age of disintegration where races mix indiscriminately causing their offspring to be a constant war with themselves.
In their souls they have opposite drives and never achieve rest. It is for this reason that happiness has been distorted to mean rest: the rest of all rest, the sabbath of all sabbaths.
In strong men (i.e. Alcibiades, Caesar and Frederick II) they rise above this conflict and master waging war on oneself.
201
As long as morality is based on utility it will be done to preserve the herd.
Love of neighbor cannot exist as a part of herd morality. It is extra-moral. It is neither good nor bad. Only those things which are good for the whole society are moral and conversely only those things which are bad for the herd are immoral.
Fear of danger to the herd is the birth of morals: what is dangerous is immoral, what is safe (for the herd is moral)
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil" (Nietzsche, 304).
Whatever is mediocre in desires is rendered as good or moral.
Morality aims at the goal of having nothing to fear.
202
Morality in Europe today is herd morality. It is a type of morality that possibly and ought to give way to a new morality, a higher morality. But this possibility and ought to is resisted by thin morality.
This residence is aided by religion, by Christianity.
"The democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement" (Nietzsche, 306).
The anarchist and socialists, though opposed to Christianity and democracy, ni dieu ni maître (neither god nor master) is nonetheless an advocate of the herd.
Both Christians and democrats, both anarchists and socialists, all are one when it comes to the belief in the herd, a belief the community is the savior, the faith in themselves.
203
Democracy is a form of decay in the political organization and a form of decay of man himself.
Democracy lowers the value of man.
The new philosophers must envisage a strong, independent leader who is willing to create and exploit his society to achieve greatness.
Part 6 - We Scholars
204
There is no morality, only will.
We may talk of science only if we have experience of it, lest we be as blind men discussing colors.
205
A philosophical mind is in danger of never becoming a philosopher because of the mistrust of philosophy and the lure of becoming a "specialist" in one area.
Wisdom is seen as a kind of escape, a game, or a trick to the rabble. So the rabble deems the philosopher useless.
206
A scientific man is an ignoble man with ignoble virtues. He is not self-sufficient. He is a herd animal.
207
We must fight against the depersonalization of the spirit which is celebrated nowadays.
We must not bend to the notion of disinterested knowledge.
The scientist belongs in the hand of one who is more powerful. He belongs as an instrument to be wielded by the powerful.
The Scientist is suited for Germans, not an end.
When the scientist is mistaken for a philosopher one is giving him too much praise.
The objective man is an instrument, one that deserves praise, but he is not the goal, the conclusion or the the sunrise. He is not a bingeing.
208
The skeptic is frightened all too easily. He fears "no" Also he fears any decisiveness whether it be "yes" or "no".
Skepticism needs consolation from itself, assurances are given to the skeptic in form of slogans.
Skepticism is a spiritual sickliness, a nervous exhaustion.
Skepticism is doubt and doubt weakens the human. The worst par tis they doubt even the freedom of the will and the will becomes the sickliest, weakest part of the man.
Skepticism is a paralysis of the will.
Skepticism exists int he culture who are most refined. Those cultures who are barbarous see less skepticism.
"The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth - the compulsion to large-scale politics" (Nietzsche, 321).
[How prophetic]
209
The warlike age nations entered may see the development of a stronger type of skepticism.
This type of skepticism is an audacious manliness.
This type of skepticism is German skepticism and anti-romanticism.
210
The new philosophers will have traits of the German skepticism, but it will not be their all.
These free spirits will enjoy crusty in ripping apart "truth".
They will be un-humanitarian because they understand the truth cares not for the feelings or well-being of man.
They will mock those who find elevation in truth or beauty in delight.
211
The philosopher, the true philosopher may first have to be a critic, a skeptic, a dogmatist, a historian, a poet, a moralist and a scientist first. But each of these is only a precondition to becoming a philosopher.
The philosopher is above all other occupations and everything below a philosopher is a mean to the philosopher's end: the creation of values.
True philosophers are commanders and legislators; they say, "thus it shall be!"
"Their knowing is creating, their creating is legislation, their will to truth is will to power" (Nietzsche, 326).
212
The true philosopher is necessarily a man of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and must find himself the enemy of the ideals of today.
The philosopher's ideal is the strength of the will and must fight against all that weakness the will, even the virtues of the day.
The higher man demands more and deserves more. The lower man demands less than what is owed. Humility weakens the will.
Greatness: "being capable of being as manifold as whole, as ample as full" (Nietzsche, 329).
213
What a philosopher is cannot be taught; ti must be known.
A philosopher is born as such and then further cultivated. Those who are not born as such can never enter the realm of philosopher.
Part 7: Our Virtues
214
If we, the Europeans of the day after tomorrow, the first born of the 20th century, have virtues, they will not be simpleminded as the past
215
We men of the new age are colored by different moralities.
"Our actions shine alternately in different colors, they are rarely univocal" (Nietzsche, 336).
216
That false morality offends us is progress. Soon we rid ourselves of morality altogether.
217
Those who take pride in their moral tact are people you must beware of.
Those who are forceful are blessed because they get over their stupidity.
218
Instinct is by far the most intelligent intelligence discovered yet.
219
"Moral judgments and condemnations constitute the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited" (Nietzsche, 337).
These men fight for the equality of all men before God and almost need faith in God just for that.
220
The things that attract the higher man to it are completely uninteresting to the common man.
Whoever has sacrificed has done so wanting something in return and has received it, if only a feeling.
221
Any unegoistic morality that requires all to self0denial an modesty sins against taste and provokes great men to commit sins of omission.
All moralities must be forced to bow to the order of rank until they comply with the maxim "what is right for one is fair for the other" and agree this maxim is immoral.
Those who wish to have those who laugh on their side should never wish to bee too right. It is actually a sign of good taste to have a little bit of wrong in themselves.
222
Pity is the only religion preached today.
When pity is preached the hearers will hear a genuine sound of self-contempt.
223
The plebeian European needs costumes.
A costume is some foreign or ancient custom it can wear for a while and then store away after thoroughly studying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)