The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXV The Hellenistic World
History of the Greek speaking world can be divided into three periods:
1) The free City States (freedom and disorder)
2) The Macedonian domination (Hellenistic Age)
3) Under the Roman Empire
Alexander tried to meld Greek and barbarian customs into one. But the Greeks were not very impressed with Alexander whom they considered semi-Greek to begin with and not fans of barbarians at all.
After the death of Alexander the Hellenistic world was split into three separate dynasties between some of Alexander's generals: Antigonus controlled the European part, Ptolemy the African, and Seleucus controlled the Asiatic parts.
Ptolemies and the Seleucids ruled as military tyrannies. Ptolemy held sway in Egypt for a time, but it took only two centuries for the Seleucids to fall apart at the seams being gobbled up by Rome and Persia.
India even received a bit of Hellenization, but Asoka (264-28 BC) tried to proselytize the Greeks with Buddhism.
Babylonian and Syria (minus Judea) were completely Hellenized in the urban populations. Only in Judea where the Greeks and the Jews faced off did Hellenization meet stiff resistance.
While Hellenization brought wealth and some stability, it didn't guarantee any individual security. Small dynastic squabbles could up end a populace and its local gentry and leaders instantly. It is no wonder that the religious life of the age found the cult of the goddess Fortune or Luck to be very popular.
"There was widespread social discontent and fear of revolution. The wages of free labour fell,
presumably owing to the competition of eastern slave labour; and meantime the prices of
necessaries rose. One finds Alexander, at the outset of his enterprise, having time to make
treaties designed to keep the poor in their place" (Russell, 225). This was all done to discourage any revolution at a time when civil unrest was ready to burst because of the inequities.
While Hellenization dramatically impacted everywhere the Greeks conquered, the Greeks were themselves conquered in a way by the superstitions of the east. Astrology coming from Babylon took a preeminent role in Greek thought at the time to detriment of Greek thought.
The instability of the age led to a lack of virtue in men. When wealth is only acquired through adventurers despoiling others and that wealth can disappear just as quickly by a stronger adventurer then it becomes almost expected for men to turn bad. Menander notes, "So many cases I have known of men who, though not naturally rogues, became so, through misfortune, by constraint" (Russell, 228).
Monday, September 23, 2019
The Spine of Medieval History
I think I'd like to do a really big book or podcast or something on the Medieval History of Europe. I keep dancing around the topic without knowing where to wade into the waters. I'm going to finish The History of Western Philosophy and the other Jones philosophy book. That will give me some of the framework for the intellectual structure on which the Middle Ages was built, but my primary focus to start I think will be the papacy. I figure that's the spine of Europe in the Middle Ages and everything gets back to Rome anyway. I think there's a figure of speech about Rome and roads that might be fitting here, but I'll leave the cliches for the final product.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Goodreads: Lysistrata
Lysistrata
Aristophanes
The play is like a good American Pie movie. It's entertaining, raucous and racy and an absurdist take on nonviolent protest. But it's still an American Pie movie so it can't get more than three stars.
Aristophanes
The play is like a good American Pie movie. It's entertaining, raucous and racy and an absurdist take on nonviolent protest. But it's still an American Pie movie so it can't get more than three stars.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Goodreads: Catch-22
Catch-22
Joseph Heller
I'm not sure why this book seems to garner such profound adoration or abject hatred. The majority of the reviews on here either praise it to the hilt or look to denounce it as garbage. Most of the negative reviews seem to be written by people who didn't finish the book claiming they couldn't finish the book. The thing is though that you'd have to be crazy not to finish this book once you started this book. Those people claiming that it was something that they didn't or couldn't finish the book are either crazy or lying. Obviously you can't trust a madman or a liar so we can throw their opinions our the window like the poor, defenestrated Michaela. The other side of the coin is those who seem to be overly effusive in their praise of the book. I'm pretty sure most of them are just trying to sound smart and impress all their followers on Goodreads. (I prefer to impress my followers on instagram).
There's a lot of similarities between Heller and Vonnegut. The major difference is that Vonnegut usually gets to the punchline a bit quicker and Heller has to circle back again and hits the targe on the second run. Both end up with the results they're after but Heller leaves himself exposed a little bit to some calamity. I enjoyed Catch-22. I'm convinced though that it is a bit longer than he originally intended because as he was writing it he forgot where he was from time to time and just started telling the story again from the place he thought he left off. The book could have been a bit shorter, but it worked well the way it was written and realistically, who am I to critique it? It reminds me of a part in a funny movie where the joke goes on long enough for you to stop laughing and to begin again.
The moaning scene during the briefing has to be one of the funniest bits I've ever read in a book. I had to pause for a moment to get through that part. I was crying I was laughing so hard. Heller took a risk in writing the book the way he did. But his aim was true and he nailed what he was going after. I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Joseph Heller
I'm not sure why this book seems to garner such profound adoration or abject hatred. The majority of the reviews on here either praise it to the hilt or look to denounce it as garbage. Most of the negative reviews seem to be written by people who didn't finish the book claiming they couldn't finish the book. The thing is though that you'd have to be crazy not to finish this book once you started this book. Those people claiming that it was something that they didn't or couldn't finish the book are either crazy or lying. Obviously you can't trust a madman or a liar so we can throw their opinions our the window like the poor, defenestrated Michaela. The other side of the coin is those who seem to be overly effusive in their praise of the book. I'm pretty sure most of them are just trying to sound smart and impress all their followers on Goodreads. (I prefer to impress my followers on instagram).
There's a lot of similarities between Heller and Vonnegut. The major difference is that Vonnegut usually gets to the punchline a bit quicker and Heller has to circle back again and hits the targe on the second run. Both end up with the results they're after but Heller leaves himself exposed a little bit to some calamity. I enjoyed Catch-22. I'm convinced though that it is a bit longer than he originally intended because as he was writing it he forgot where he was from time to time and just started telling the story again from the place he thought he left off. The book could have been a bit shorter, but it worked well the way it was written and realistically, who am I to critique it? It reminds me of a part in a funny movie where the joke goes on long enough for you to stop laughing and to begin again.
The moaning scene during the briefing has to be one of the funniest bits I've ever read in a book. I had to pause for a moment to get through that part. I was crying I was laughing so hard. Heller took a risk in writing the book the way he did. But his aim was true and he nailed what he was going after. I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Goodreads: Lost to the West
Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that rescued Western Civilization
Lars Brownworth
I grabbed this book years ago because I loved his podcasts. The book is just as fantastic. It's easy to read, digestible and Brownworth writes in a style that makes the history enjoyable to read. While this isn't an exhaustive study of the history of the thousand years of Byzantine history, its 300 pages are surprisingly chock full of information.
I read a few of the reviews on the book and found that most people generally seem to agree with me. The few negative reviews I read (why do I always read the negative reviews of books I like?) are silly in their criticism. They attack Brownworth for being not academic enough or for focusing too much on the Christian aspect of the Empire. These attacks stem from either an elitism that often insulates the people stuck in their ivory towers who have lost touch with people that exist outside of academia or those who are looking for any way to disagree with something Christian. I also am tired of hearing complaints about mentioning that Christopher Columbus discovered America. He did discover the new world and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that. Was what he discovered a barren wasteland? Of course not. But it was the Columbus voyages that forever changed the world. Do you want to argue over whether or not the pros outweigh the cons because of Columbus' voyages? There's something that you can have mixed feelings on. But, this book isn't about Columbus and I really shouldn't mention it; but, I'm growing tired of the constant wailing and whining about the whole Columbus thing. It happened. It changed the world as we know it. Yes, others came to the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but it was his voyages that ushered in a new age, not the Vikings and not the pre-Columbian peoples. Besides that, if it hadn't been Columbus, the people whining about him would be arguing the same nonsense to fit their personal feelings by decrying the other Western European who would have taken Columbus' spot. For those complaining that the book isn't scholarly enough I suggest you go grab a text book; or, better yet, spend a lifetime learning Latin, Greek and Arabic and pick up only primary sources and leave the rest of us uneducated schmucks to enjoy our pop history. I'll end my rant there and move back to the book.
Some of the Emperors are well known: Justinian, Alexius, Theodosius, Constantine the Great, etc. Those parts I enjoyed; but, it was the lesser well known ones I found the most fascinating. I really enjoyed the sections covering the Isaurian, Nicephorus and Macedonian sections of the book. I found the probably apocryphal account of Syrian emir Sayf escaping the Byzantines by scattering gold coins behind him as he fled back to Aleppo. These little, dubious nuggets tell us more about history than verifiable, archeological facts as they speak to what the people believed at the time. Myths often contain as much truth as do bones dug up out of the ground when concerning civilizations.
After Rome, Istanbul has been my biggest dream destination to visit. This book reinforced that hope. It also drew my attention to Mount Athos: "Set on the stunningly beautiful Athonite peninsula, these twenty monasteries form an autonomous community- and they still fly the eagle flag of Byzantium". It sounds like a place of living history and I desperately want to visit now.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in history, unless you're a scholar and can read Latin, Greek and Arabic or you have an axe to grind. In that case, read something else and write a better book.
Lars Brownworth
I grabbed this book years ago because I loved his podcasts. The book is just as fantastic. It's easy to read, digestible and Brownworth writes in a style that makes the history enjoyable to read. While this isn't an exhaustive study of the history of the thousand years of Byzantine history, its 300 pages are surprisingly chock full of information.
I read a few of the reviews on the book and found that most people generally seem to agree with me. The few negative reviews I read (why do I always read the negative reviews of books I like?) are silly in their criticism. They attack Brownworth for being not academic enough or for focusing too much on the Christian aspect of the Empire. These attacks stem from either an elitism that often insulates the people stuck in their ivory towers who have lost touch with people that exist outside of academia or those who are looking for any way to disagree with something Christian. I also am tired of hearing complaints about mentioning that Christopher Columbus discovered America. He did discover the new world and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that. Was what he discovered a barren wasteland? Of course not. But it was the Columbus voyages that forever changed the world. Do you want to argue over whether or not the pros outweigh the cons because of Columbus' voyages? There's something that you can have mixed feelings on. But, this book isn't about Columbus and I really shouldn't mention it; but, I'm growing tired of the constant wailing and whining about the whole Columbus thing. It happened. It changed the world as we know it. Yes, others came to the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but it was his voyages that ushered in a new age, not the Vikings and not the pre-Columbian peoples. Besides that, if it hadn't been Columbus, the people whining about him would be arguing the same nonsense to fit their personal feelings by decrying the other Western European who would have taken Columbus' spot. For those complaining that the book isn't scholarly enough I suggest you go grab a text book; or, better yet, spend a lifetime learning Latin, Greek and Arabic and pick up only primary sources and leave the rest of us uneducated schmucks to enjoy our pop history. I'll end my rant there and move back to the book.
Some of the Emperors are well known: Justinian, Alexius, Theodosius, Constantine the Great, etc. Those parts I enjoyed; but, it was the lesser well known ones I found the most fascinating. I really enjoyed the sections covering the Isaurian, Nicephorus and Macedonian sections of the book. I found the probably apocryphal account of Syrian emir Sayf escaping the Byzantines by scattering gold coins behind him as he fled back to Aleppo. These little, dubious nuggets tell us more about history than verifiable, archeological facts as they speak to what the people believed at the time. Myths often contain as much truth as do bones dug up out of the ground when concerning civilizations.
After Rome, Istanbul has been my biggest dream destination to visit. This book reinforced that hope. It also drew my attention to Mount Athos: "Set on the stunningly beautiful Athonite peninsula, these twenty monasteries form an autonomous community- and they still fly the eagle flag of Byzantium". It sounds like a place of living history and I desperately want to visit now.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in history, unless you're a scholar and can read Latin, Greek and Arabic or you have an axe to grind. In that case, read something else and write a better book.
Early Greek Math & Astronomy
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIV Early Greek Mathematics and Astronomy
The Greeks took a little from the Egyptians and a little from the Babylonians and then developed some sound mathematics.
Euclid was still regarded as the sole textbook on geometry when Bertrand Russell was a schoolboy.
"Euclid Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect
monuments of the Greek intellect. It has, of course, the typical Greek limitations: the method is
purely deductive, and there is no way, within it, of testing the initial assumptions. These
assumptions were supposed to be unquestionable, but in the nineteenth century non-Euclidean
geometry showed that they might be in part mistaken, and that only observation could decide
whether they were so" (Russell, 211)
Like Plato, Euclid had a contempt for the practical utility of his work.
The Buridan's ass argument: two bundles of hay were placed at equal distances to the right and left of the donkey. Therefore, he died of hunger. That could be mined for an interesting short story idea.
In astronomy the Greeks made leaps and strides, with some even moving away from an anthropocentric universe. Of course, it wasn't quite heliocentric yet, but the notion of earth being just one of the planets moving in space paved the way from a heliocentric theory.
Heraclides, a pupil of Plato's school postulated that the earth rotates once on its own axis every twenty-four hours and discovered that Venus and Mercury revolve around the son.
Aristarchus of Samos (310 - 230 BC) "is the most interesting of all ancient astronomers, because he advanced the complete Copernican hypothesis, that all the planets, including the earth, revolve in circles around the sun, and that the earth rotates on its axis once in twenty-four hours" (Russell, 214).
Seleucus, Aristarchus' successor fully adhered to this theory as well, but then was not adopted by any other ancient astronomer.
Eratosthenes estimated the earth's diameter within 50 miles of the actual diameter.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIV Early Greek Mathematics and Astronomy
The Greeks took a little from the Egyptians and a little from the Babylonians and then developed some sound mathematics.
Euclid was still regarded as the sole textbook on geometry when Bertrand Russell was a schoolboy.
"Euclid Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect
monuments of the Greek intellect. It has, of course, the typical Greek limitations: the method is
purely deductive, and there is no way, within it, of testing the initial assumptions. These
assumptions were supposed to be unquestionable, but in the nineteenth century non-Euclidean
geometry showed that they might be in part mistaken, and that only observation could decide
whether they were so" (Russell, 211)
Like Plato, Euclid had a contempt for the practical utility of his work.
The Buridan's ass argument: two bundles of hay were placed at equal distances to the right and left of the donkey. Therefore, he died of hunger. That could be mined for an interesting short story idea.
In astronomy the Greeks made leaps and strides, with some even moving away from an anthropocentric universe. Of course, it wasn't quite heliocentric yet, but the notion of earth being just one of the planets moving in space paved the way from a heliocentric theory.
Heraclides, a pupil of Plato's school postulated that the earth rotates once on its own axis every twenty-four hours and discovered that Venus and Mercury revolve around the son.
Aristarchus of Samos (310 - 230 BC) "is the most interesting of all ancient astronomers, because he advanced the complete Copernican hypothesis, that all the planets, including the earth, revolve in circles around the sun, and that the earth rotates on its axis once in twenty-four hours" (Russell, 214).
Seleucus, Aristarchus' successor fully adhered to this theory as well, but then was not adopted by any other ancient astronomer.
Eratosthenes estimated the earth's diameter within 50 miles of the actual diameter.
Aristotle's Physics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)