It has been some time since I made a literature post. The reasons for this are numerous but I will be brief in my excuses.
First, I got a puppy. Having a puppy that was restless meant that the only way to calm him down a bit was to turn out the lights. When my reading light was on he felt he was free to get up and move around (which entailed his teething mouth moving around on any and every object within his grasp). So I turned out the lights resulting in a loss of my nightly reading time. This occurred about a day after I started A Tale of Two Cities.
Second, I became lazy. I don't just read at night; but, that was when I did a majority of it. I was lazy and didn't make up for my lost time in other parts of the day. That was intellectually lazy.
Third, Dickens suffers from the same disease that I suffer from in writing, only his is a much more refined version. That is to say, he is wordy. While my wordiness often leads to useless ramblings down rabbit holes that don't exactly push the story along but serve as self-aggrandizing ornamentation his wordiness is wrapped in an incredible attention to detail. I found this to be a factor in my slowness of reading the book. The first book and the second book up until the storming of the Bastille was crafted incredibly to transport me into the period in such a way that I felt there. But also in a way to make me feel like I was trapped there. But after the storming of the Bastille and throughout the third book it felt like the pace of the story was livelier and quickened. I read this part much more swiftly.
As far as an assessment, who am I to critique? The story is powerful, fantastic and incredibly crafted. I enjoyed the third book immensely and felt a strong satisfaction in completing it. In my darker moments I wondered if I was like Sydney Carton of chapter 20 - no good, but desiring to be good. Upon completion of the book I felt as if I wasn't at all like Mr. Carton; I am not capable of such a sacrifice.
But I did have an idea for a book while reading this one. I will call it A Tale: A Novel Destruction. What I propose to do is to take every fourth word of the book and mix them up to create a story that is nothing like the original. I'm not sure if I can actually do it, but I'd like to try. I've heard it said that Charles Dickens is the greatest storyteller in the English language. Maybe I can be a quarter of the man he was.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Saturday, October 31, 2015
October
October might be my favorite month. I love that it starts to get cool and I am released from the oppressive heat of the south. I love seeing the leaves change colors. But, most of all I love the World Series.
For most of my childhood and adolescence I believed that I would grow up to be the replacement for Cal Ripken Jr. The stage was set perfectly. Cal began his career at nearly 21 years old and retired when I was about to turn 18. There might have been a short little gap between us as I worked my way through the minor league system, but this could have been filled by Miguel Tejada. By 2004 he would have been out because of steroids and the next homegrown Marylander would take the reigns for a 21 year career at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Sadly, this never came to fruition. But in spite of my failures, I still get giddy in October. This World Series however has made me feel old. The reason is Raul Mondesi.
I remember baseball players from the 80's and 90's with an alarming accuracy. But, if I met them in real life I might not recognize them. For me, this is Raul Mondesi:
That's mid 90's baseball gold. It was smack dab in the middle of the steroid age and the junk wax era and I was dialed in. Raul Mondesi is about 12 years older than me. His son however was just named to the Royals' World Series roster. He made his debut yesterday in game three, striking out. (p.s. Baltimore, I could've debuted and struck out as well). But, what made me feel old is that I'm about 12 years older than Raul Mondesi Jr.
Good grief. I started feeling old when players that I collected hawkishly like Matt Williams and Don Mattingly started becoming managers. But this takes the cake!
For most of my childhood and adolescence I believed that I would grow up to be the replacement for Cal Ripken Jr. The stage was set perfectly. Cal began his career at nearly 21 years old and retired when I was about to turn 18. There might have been a short little gap between us as I worked my way through the minor league system, but this could have been filled by Miguel Tejada. By 2004 he would have been out because of steroids and the next homegrown Marylander would take the reigns for a 21 year career at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Sadly, this never came to fruition. But in spite of my failures, I still get giddy in October. This World Series however has made me feel old. The reason is Raul Mondesi.
I remember baseball players from the 80's and 90's with an alarming accuracy. But, if I met them in real life I might not recognize them. For me, this is Raul Mondesi:
Good grief. I started feeling old when players that I collected hawkishly like Matt Williams and Don Mattingly started becoming managers. But this takes the cake!
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Twain - How to Tell a Story
How to Tell a Story (1895) By Mark Twain.
Unlike the previous essay, I enjoyed this one without reservation. My favorite part came in the beginning though - "There are several kinds of stories, but only one difficult kind - the humorous. I will talk mainly about that one. The humorous story is American, the comic story is English, the witty story is French. The humorous story depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling; the comic story and the witty story upon the matter. The humorous story may be spun out to great length, and may wander around as much as it pleases, and arrive nowhere in particular; but the comic and witty stories must be brief and end with a point. The humorous story bubbles gently along, the others burst" (Twain, 70). I thought that was a very succinct and true speculation of the differences in storytelling between the three countries that holds relatively true even today. I like to think of myself as being born on the wrong side of the Atlantic, but after reading this and examining my own storytelling I find that I am alas, a humorous writer and not a comic one. I always knew I wasn't overly witty, I rely to much on wordplays and puns for that moniker. I wouldn't have made it at a French court to save my life. But, here I am bubbling along and not arriving anywhere in particular.
Twain finishes the essay with two tales, The Wounded Soldier and The Golden Arm. These are humorous tropes and quite frankly I can see myself telling a tale like this and interposing and intertwining completely unrelated details to arrive at the end, which really isn't all that fascinating or important. I've just got to work on my timing I guess. That's what Twain says to do anyway. Where was I again? Oh yeah... Who's got me golden arm? I think the soldier lost it and that's why I'm carrying him. No, I haven't got my timing down yet. I'll practice that some more and come tell you about it later...
Unlike the previous essay, I enjoyed this one without reservation. My favorite part came in the beginning though - "There are several kinds of stories, but only one difficult kind - the humorous. I will talk mainly about that one. The humorous story is American, the comic story is English, the witty story is French. The humorous story depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling; the comic story and the witty story upon the matter. The humorous story may be spun out to great length, and may wander around as much as it pleases, and arrive nowhere in particular; but the comic and witty stories must be brief and end with a point. The humorous story bubbles gently along, the others burst" (Twain, 70). I thought that was a very succinct and true speculation of the differences in storytelling between the three countries that holds relatively true even today. I like to think of myself as being born on the wrong side of the Atlantic, but after reading this and examining my own storytelling I find that I am alas, a humorous writer and not a comic one. I always knew I wasn't overly witty, I rely to much on wordplays and puns for that moniker. I wouldn't have made it at a French court to save my life. But, here I am bubbling along and not arriving anywhere in particular.
Twain finishes the essay with two tales, The Wounded Soldier and The Golden Arm. These are humorous tropes and quite frankly I can see myself telling a tale like this and interposing and intertwining completely unrelated details to arrive at the end, which really isn't all that fascinating or important. I've just got to work on my timing I guess. That's what Twain says to do anyway. Where was I again? Oh yeah... Who's got me golden arm? I think the soldier lost it and that's why I'm carrying him. No, I haven't got my timing down yet. I'll practice that some more and come tell you about it later...
Twain - Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences
Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences (1895). By Mark Twain.
This little essay has to be the least favorite of mine in this collection. While there was substantial humor in some of the outlandish attacks on the writings of James Fenimore Cooper. "It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature in Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins, to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it" (Twain, 59). That's very funny. It's smart, witty and quick. "Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in Deerslayer, and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offences against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record" (Twain, 59). That's outrageous. That's what makes it funny. I read this and settled in for what I thought would be a funny essay. What I got was seemingly mean-spirited and overly judgmental.
I'll admit I like Cooper. I liked The Last of the Mohicans; I loved The Spy. But, I like Twain substantially more than I like Cooper. But, the more I read him criticizing and criticizing Cooper, I got to wondering if Twain didn't write that essay after one of his works was bashed in a newspaper. It got me thinking about chefs who spout off about critics after one gives them an unfavorable review. All in all, I thought the work was slightly unfair and unduly harsh. It didn't stop it from being funny. But I felt as if I was forced to laugh at a pretty descent storyteller to enjoy the essay.
This little essay has to be the least favorite of mine in this collection. While there was substantial humor in some of the outlandish attacks on the writings of James Fenimore Cooper. "It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature in Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins, to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it" (Twain, 59). That's very funny. It's smart, witty and quick. "Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in Deerslayer, and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offences against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record" (Twain, 59). That's outrageous. That's what makes it funny. I read this and settled in for what I thought would be a funny essay. What I got was seemingly mean-spirited and overly judgmental.
I'll admit I like Cooper. I liked The Last of the Mohicans; I loved The Spy. But, I like Twain substantially more than I like Cooper. But, the more I read him criticizing and criticizing Cooper, I got to wondering if Twain didn't write that essay after one of his works was bashed in a newspaper. It got me thinking about chefs who spout off about critics after one gives them an unfavorable review. All in all, I thought the work was slightly unfair and unduly harsh. It didn't stop it from being funny. But I felt as if I was forced to laugh at a pretty descent storyteller to enjoy the essay.
A combination reflection of Psalm 31 & 34
In my reading a couple of days ago I bookmarked two verses, Psalm 31:4 and Psalm 34:7. I didn't realize at the time that the two would have a combination effect on me later when I wrote about what I read.
Psalm 31:4 states, "Free me from the trap that is set for me, for you are my refuge."
Psalm 34:7 states, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them".
I feel like it is so easy to fall into traps. There are so many of them out there. Some of my own making, some that are tested and set up specifically for me and then some that are new. But, God is faithful to free me from them because He is my refuge. But, even better than that, if I was observant (which I'm not always) I wouldn't even fall into them because he would deliver me from them before I even fell in. So hear my prayer God. First, thank you for freeing me so many times from the traps of this life and making yourself my refuge. And make me observant enough so that I don't fall into them by delivering me from them! Hear me Lord, amen.
Psalm 31:4 states, "Free me from the trap that is set for me, for you are my refuge."
Psalm 34:7 states, "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them".
I feel like it is so easy to fall into traps. There are so many of them out there. Some of my own making, some that are tested and set up specifically for me and then some that are new. But, God is faithful to free me from them because He is my refuge. But, even better than that, if I was observant (which I'm not always) I wouldn't even fall into them because he would deliver me from them before I even fell in. So hear my prayer God. First, thank you for freeing me so many times from the traps of this life and making yourself my refuge. And make me observant enough so that I don't fall into them by delivering me from them! Hear me Lord, amen.
A perfect picture of God
Psalm 30:5 is not a difficult verse. In fact, it is a resolution of much of the difficulty in verses that make God seem harsh or unduly punitive. "For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning".
I thank God that his anger only lasts a moment. I have felt that more than once in my lifetime when I've fallen short of his desire for me and run afoul of his plan. But, more often than those fleeting moments I have felt his favor and that lasts a lifetime.
As far as the difficult verses go though this verse sums up a perfect picture of God. God is justly angry and punishes, corrects, chastises and even causes pain for those who sin. But, this is only to bring us to Him. Sometimes without that gentle or even abrupt admonishment I might continue down the wrong path. Thankfully, He loves me enough and favors me enough to not let that happen.
I thank God that his anger only lasts a moment. I have felt that more than once in my lifetime when I've fallen short of his desire for me and run afoul of his plan. But, more often than those fleeting moments I have felt his favor and that lasts a lifetime.
As far as the difficult verses go though this verse sums up a perfect picture of God. God is justly angry and punishes, corrects, chastises and even causes pain for those who sin. But, this is only to bring us to Him. Sometimes without that gentle or even abrupt admonishment I might continue down the wrong path. Thankfully, He loves me enough and favors me enough to not let that happen.
Shame and God
Shame is a topic that's not fun to deal with or even discuss. It's such a strong feeling, emotion and state of being. It's nice to know that as a Christian, I shouldn't have to deal with it. It's comforting. It's full of hope. It's full of whatever the opposite of shame is. God gave me a good reminder of this in Psalm 25:3.
"No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame, but they will be put to shame who are treacherous without excuse".
There is a promise of God. No one who hopes in Him will ever be put to shame. There is also a consequence noted from God. Whoever is treacherous without excuse will be put to shame. The word "treacherous" seems so harsh and on such a deep level. Whenever I think about the word I think of a backstabbing politician or general. I think of Benedict Arnold or of Tostig Godwinson coming to attack the English with the viking warlord Harald Hardrada. So initially, I glanced over the second part of the verse. But, something was gnawing at me so I just started with the simple act of looking up the definition of the word. I didn't need to consult a commentary or Strong's. As soon as I saw the Webster definition I knew what God was saying to me at this moment.
Treacherous is simply defined as being 'guilty of or involving betrayal or deception'. I wouldn't say that I'm often up for betraying someone. Even in my many rebellions against God these have been on account of selfishness, foolishness, being short-sighted or willfulness in wanting to do things my way. But, that word 'deceptive' struck at me. I tend to exaggerate or to omit bits of information to shape the conversation. It's one of my worst qualities. It might be admirable in certain aspects of the world, but I know in my heart of hearts it isn't right. I also understand where some of the being put to shame for treachery comes from. So hear my prayer Lord, may I not be deceitful in my speech. Instead fill me with your truth so that I speak only in that way. Amen.
"No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame, but they will be put to shame who are treacherous without excuse".
There is a promise of God. No one who hopes in Him will ever be put to shame. There is also a consequence noted from God. Whoever is treacherous without excuse will be put to shame. The word "treacherous" seems so harsh and on such a deep level. Whenever I think about the word I think of a backstabbing politician or general. I think of Benedict Arnold or of Tostig Godwinson coming to attack the English with the viking warlord Harald Hardrada. So initially, I glanced over the second part of the verse. But, something was gnawing at me so I just started with the simple act of looking up the definition of the word. I didn't need to consult a commentary or Strong's. As soon as I saw the Webster definition I knew what God was saying to me at this moment.
Treacherous is simply defined as being 'guilty of or involving betrayal or deception'. I wouldn't say that I'm often up for betraying someone. Even in my many rebellions against God these have been on account of selfishness, foolishness, being short-sighted or willfulness in wanting to do things my way. But, that word 'deceptive' struck at me. I tend to exaggerate or to omit bits of information to shape the conversation. It's one of my worst qualities. It might be admirable in certain aspects of the world, but I know in my heart of hearts it isn't right. I also understand where some of the being put to shame for treachery comes from. So hear my prayer Lord, may I not be deceitful in my speech. Instead fill me with your truth so that I speak only in that way. Amen.
Hard verses of Psalm 21
In some of the other 'Difficult Verses' passages it has been easy for me to see God as a judge to account for their difficult nature. In those passages, God is righteous and his punishment for the wicked is analogous to a judge. But, in Psalm 22 this doesn't appear to be the case.
"At the time of your appearing you will make them like a fiery furnace. In his wrath the Lord will swallow them up, and his fire will consume them. You will destroy their descendants from the earth, their posterity from mankind. Though they plot evil against you and devise wicked schemes, they cannot succeed; for you will make them turn their backs when you aim at them with drawn bow" (Psalm 21:9-12).
Here I see something different then God the judge. Here it seems like I see God the warrior. God is called the protector and refuge throughout the Psalms. But in chapter 21 we see God going on the offensive. But, even in this mode as the warrior, God is still acting on his ultimate righteousness. He is taking out the enemies of God and His people. He is still protecting. While I haven't quite come to a conclusion on this passage, what I do know is that God is not a passive God. He is active and involved in the lives of His people. It is His bow that will make the enemies of his people turn back. It is through the victories that God gave that has made his people glorious. It is through God's gift that has given them splendor and majesty. It's hard not to see God as Zeus wielding a thunderbolt to protect his people in this passage. I have to fight that imagery because I know it's inaccurate. But, my inaccuracies don't take away from God's glory or person. I simply have to know that God's righteousness demands action and that He is not afraid or unwilling to act.
"At the time of your appearing you will make them like a fiery furnace. In his wrath the Lord will swallow them up, and his fire will consume them. You will destroy their descendants from the earth, their posterity from mankind. Though they plot evil against you and devise wicked schemes, they cannot succeed; for you will make them turn their backs when you aim at them with drawn bow" (Psalm 21:9-12).
Here I see something different then God the judge. Here it seems like I see God the warrior. God is called the protector and refuge throughout the Psalms. But in chapter 21 we see God going on the offensive. But, even in this mode as the warrior, God is still acting on his ultimate righteousness. He is taking out the enemies of God and His people. He is still protecting. While I haven't quite come to a conclusion on this passage, what I do know is that God is not a passive God. He is active and involved in the lives of His people. It is His bow that will make the enemies of his people turn back. It is through the victories that God gave that has made his people glorious. It is through God's gift that has given them splendor and majesty. It's hard not to see God as Zeus wielding a thunderbolt to protect his people in this passage. I have to fight that imagery because I know it's inaccurate. But, my inaccuracies don't take away from God's glory or person. I simply have to know that God's righteousness demands action and that He is not afraid or unwilling to act.
Reflection on Psalm 19:12-13
I came across another good verse for me to remember and write in my heart. Hear my prayer Lord, make this the goal of my life.
Psalm 19:12-13
"Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. Then will I be blameless, innocent of great transgression".
Lord you know my hidden faults. I am sure I have many. Please forgive me of them. But, the convicting part comes from verse 13. Keep me from willful sins. That word, willful, is so apt for me. I am headstrong, willful. This isn't always a good thing. It leads me to great transgression. I do pray though God, that you will forgive me and keep me from them, so they do not rule over me.
I find myself when I am in willful rebellion against what and who I know that my sins can become rulers over me. It's a trap that I know about, but one that I seem incapable of avoiding. Write this verse on my heart so that I can remember when my willfulness begins to pop up again. Change my heart and desires to reflect your heart and desires. Hear my prayer oh God.
Psalm 19:12-13
"Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. Then will I be blameless, innocent of great transgression".
Lord you know my hidden faults. I am sure I have many. Please forgive me of them. But, the convicting part comes from verse 13. Keep me from willful sins. That word, willful, is so apt for me. I am headstrong, willful. This isn't always a good thing. It leads me to great transgression. I do pray though God, that you will forgive me and keep me from them, so they do not rule over me.
I find myself when I am in willful rebellion against what and who I know that my sins can become rulers over me. It's a trap that I know about, but one that I seem incapable of avoiding. Write this verse on my heart so that I can remember when my willfulness begins to pop up again. Change my heart and desires to reflect your heart and desires. Hear my prayer oh God.
Apart from you I have no good thing
Every once and awhile I get a good shock from God. Sometimes I get a strong conviction. Sometimes I get a little jab to get me to do something. And sometimes I get a stark, but gentle reminder of who God is in my life. Psalm 16:2 was a combination of all three.
"I say to the Lord, 'You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing'".
At first glance I was humbled by this short little passage. How true is it that I have nothing good apart from what God gives me? He has blessed me so much and given me so many good things. He's given me a beautiful, godly wife. He has given me a loving and godly family. He has given me a loving and godly in-law family. He has given me a good house. He has given me a good job. He has given me the ability to see so many parts of the world. He has given me all kinds of security. This verse was a reminder of all the things He has blessed me with.
But, then I reread the verse over and over again. Conviction. Jab. I had to look at the first part of that verse again. I say to the Lord. Unfortunately, I do not say to the Lord enough. Conviction. Jab. So here I proclaim, You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing.
"I say to the Lord, 'You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing'".
At first glance I was humbled by this short little passage. How true is it that I have nothing good apart from what God gives me? He has blessed me so much and given me so many good things. He's given me a beautiful, godly wife. He has given me a loving and godly family. He has given me a loving and godly in-law family. He has given me a good house. He has given me a good job. He has given me the ability to see so many parts of the world. He has given me all kinds of security. This verse was a reminder of all the things He has blessed me with.
But, then I reread the verse over and over again. Conviction. Jab. I had to look at the first part of that verse again. I say to the Lord. Unfortunately, I do not say to the Lord enough. Conviction. Jab. So here I proclaim, You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing.
God hates with a passion?
So in my reading I came across another difficult verse in Psalms 11.
Psalms 11:5-6
"The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot".
Not exactly the image of a loving God I seemed to get in Sunday School, is it? Again, we could probably easily explain it away in a flawed author (man) projecting his idea of what should happen, but I am still uncomfortable with that idea of explaining away the Bible. Contextually, it seems to highlight some of God's seemingly contradictory nature. On the one hand He is the refuge for the upright heart and on the other hand He is the judge of the wicked and doles out punishment. Verse 7 sort of resolves the issue though on what this nature of God is. He is a judge. "For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face".
What seems contradictory is actually pretty easy to sum up by analogy. God is like a judge. On the righteous he passes forgiveness and protection. On the wicked he doles out punishment deservedly. Of course as I've started looking at what I've called the 'Difficult Verses', I'm starting to realize that most of these are difficult if they are taken out of context, but put into context with the whole of Scriptures the difficulty washes away. But, I'm sure that some won't see it that way. I guess in some sense, faith protects me from these difficulties.
Psalms 11:5-6
"The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot".
Not exactly the image of a loving God I seemed to get in Sunday School, is it? Again, we could probably easily explain it away in a flawed author (man) projecting his idea of what should happen, but I am still uncomfortable with that idea of explaining away the Bible. Contextually, it seems to highlight some of God's seemingly contradictory nature. On the one hand He is the refuge for the upright heart and on the other hand He is the judge of the wicked and doles out punishment. Verse 7 sort of resolves the issue though on what this nature of God is. He is a judge. "For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face".
What seems contradictory is actually pretty easy to sum up by analogy. God is like a judge. On the righteous he passes forgiveness and protection. On the wicked he doles out punishment deservedly. Of course as I've started looking at what I've called the 'Difficult Verses', I'm starting to realize that most of these are difficult if they are taken out of context, but put into context with the whole of Scriptures the difficulty washes away. But, I'm sure that some won't see it that way. I guess in some sense, faith protects me from these difficulties.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Break his Arm God!
Something I noticed in Psalms 10 is one of what I call the
"difficult verses" of the Bible. These are verses that don't seem to
match up with our notion of a loving God or a God who is the embodiment
of morality. Of course these shouldn't be difficult verses for
Christians because they should accept God as He is presented throughout
the Word and where they might see something that is contrary to our
notion of who He is they should expand their notion. But, they are
difficult in the sense that they might trip up a believer in trying to
explain God to the unbelieving. While no Christian can have definitive
authority on God because no man can have definitive authority on God, I
have always thought about these verses and what I would say if
confronted by someone who does not believe on one of these verses. So in
my studies I will make note of the difficult verses and offer some
thoughts on them.
Psalm 10:15
"Break the arm of the wicked man; call the evildoer to account for his wickedness that would not otherwise be found out".
Here we have a Psalmist calling for the loving God to 'break the arm' of someone. That's not very nice. So how is it reconciled with a loving God. Firstly, I don't know. Secondly, I don't have authoritative answers; that is not my claim here. These are just my thoughts.
My first thought is that it is in line with God's embodiment of justice. As a judge, God is within his rights to break the arm of the wicked man who has been oppressing, murdering, robbing and waylaying the weak. But, is that an effective way of ministering to someone seeking answers about God? Am I going to be able to win the lost soul to Christ by explaining that because God is perfect and can't stand sin He must crush it? Well, firstly I don't think it's my duty to win the lost soul to Christ and if I'm trying to do that then I'm being a bit presumptuous in my duties as a Christian. I think that Christians who are out to win souls for Christ are either misguided and believe too much in their own importance in God's work of saving souls or are prideful or are simply using old language that is ineffective in the post-modern age. It doesn't mean that God isn't using them or blessing them, only that God is using them in spite of them. But, I'm not in a position to criticize anyone so I apologize if that is the outcome. I just think that it's our duty as Christians to present the Gospel, not necessarily sugar coat it, but also not try and scare beings into submission either. God is absolute justice. God is the absolute judge. And, like earthly judges who mete out justice, God will level justice in the forms of punishment and He may break the arm of the wicked in doing so.
Another thought was that the Psalmist is imperfect and calling for earthly justice from a divine judge. I remember hearing someone once, I forget who, explained much of what we see as hard or difficult verses in the Old Testament as pointing to the fallibility of the human author. This may be the case. Certainly even the disciples of Jesus were looking for earthly justice against the Romans when Jesus was looking to further the kingdom of Heaven. They never could quite get into their heads what that kingdom was supposed to be and how the Romans could still be in charge if Jesus was establishing it. But, I must admit that I am uncomfortable with this notion. It may be the right answer, but it clashes with a belief I have in a strong Scriptures. But, I'll develop this further at a later point because I've got to run here in a second. And, undoubtedly this thought will pop into my head again when I stumble across another difficult verse because whoever I heard say something like this must have said it at a time when I was impressionable because it's left a lasting lineage in my line of thought.
The last thought I had simply came from the text itself. The beginning of the chapter is describing someone or some persons that are running afoul and oppressing those weaker than himself. The chapter ends with a declaration of God being above anyone with earthly power. "The Lord is King forever and ever, the nations will perish from his land. You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them and you listen to their cry; defending the fatherless and the oppressed, so that mere earthly mortals will never again strike terror" (Psalm 10:16-18). In this context, the Psalmist is asking the defender (God) to break the arm of the oppressive one. It might sound harsh, but some strong arms need some strong arming. In this way, God is defending those who cannot offer a defense themselves and defense is sometimes necessarily harsh. Again, this might not be the answer, but it was the thought that most stuck with me.
Psalm 10:15
"Break the arm of the wicked man; call the evildoer to account for his wickedness that would not otherwise be found out".
Here we have a Psalmist calling for the loving God to 'break the arm' of someone. That's not very nice. So how is it reconciled with a loving God. Firstly, I don't know. Secondly, I don't have authoritative answers; that is not my claim here. These are just my thoughts.
My first thought is that it is in line with God's embodiment of justice. As a judge, God is within his rights to break the arm of the wicked man who has been oppressing, murdering, robbing and waylaying the weak. But, is that an effective way of ministering to someone seeking answers about God? Am I going to be able to win the lost soul to Christ by explaining that because God is perfect and can't stand sin He must crush it? Well, firstly I don't think it's my duty to win the lost soul to Christ and if I'm trying to do that then I'm being a bit presumptuous in my duties as a Christian. I think that Christians who are out to win souls for Christ are either misguided and believe too much in their own importance in God's work of saving souls or are prideful or are simply using old language that is ineffective in the post-modern age. It doesn't mean that God isn't using them or blessing them, only that God is using them in spite of them. But, I'm not in a position to criticize anyone so I apologize if that is the outcome. I just think that it's our duty as Christians to present the Gospel, not necessarily sugar coat it, but also not try and scare beings into submission either. God is absolute justice. God is the absolute judge. And, like earthly judges who mete out justice, God will level justice in the forms of punishment and He may break the arm of the wicked in doing so.
Another thought was that the Psalmist is imperfect and calling for earthly justice from a divine judge. I remember hearing someone once, I forget who, explained much of what we see as hard or difficult verses in the Old Testament as pointing to the fallibility of the human author. This may be the case. Certainly even the disciples of Jesus were looking for earthly justice against the Romans when Jesus was looking to further the kingdom of Heaven. They never could quite get into their heads what that kingdom was supposed to be and how the Romans could still be in charge if Jesus was establishing it. But, I must admit that I am uncomfortable with this notion. It may be the right answer, but it clashes with a belief I have in a strong Scriptures. But, I'll develop this further at a later point because I've got to run here in a second. And, undoubtedly this thought will pop into my head again when I stumble across another difficult verse because whoever I heard say something like this must have said it at a time when I was impressionable because it's left a lasting lineage in my line of thought.
The last thought I had simply came from the text itself. The beginning of the chapter is describing someone or some persons that are running afoul and oppressing those weaker than himself. The chapter ends with a declaration of God being above anyone with earthly power. "The Lord is King forever and ever, the nations will perish from his land. You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them and you listen to their cry; defending the fatherless and the oppressed, so that mere earthly mortals will never again strike terror" (Psalm 10:16-18). In this context, the Psalmist is asking the defender (God) to break the arm of the oppressive one. It might sound harsh, but some strong arms need some strong arming. In this way, God is defending those who cannot offer a defense themselves and defense is sometimes necessarily harsh. Again, this might not be the answer, but it was the thought that most stuck with me.
Thoughts on Psalms 10
In my reading yesterday I came across a verse on pride in Psalms 10 that served me as a reminder to be on guard against the ever present pride lurking in me.
Psalm 10:4
"In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God".
The Psalmist opened this chapter with questioning why God stands at a distance, "Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" For me, I understand why. It is because of my pride. In all my thoughts there is no room for God. God isn't standing at a distance from me in my times of trouble because he is indifferent to my troubles. He is at a distance because I haven't made room for Him. Hear my prayer Lord, I make room for you.
Psalm 10:4
"In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God".
The Psalmist opened this chapter with questioning why God stands at a distance, "Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" For me, I understand why. It is because of my pride. In all my thoughts there is no room for God. God isn't standing at a distance from me in my times of trouble because he is indifferent to my troubles. He is at a distance because I haven't made room for Him. Hear my prayer Lord, I make room for you.
Evil & Disillusionment in Psalms 7
Psalm 7:14-16
"Whoever is pregnant with evil conceives trouble and gives birth to disillusionment. Whoever digs a whole and scoops it out falls into the pit they have made. The trouble they cause recoils on them; their violence comes down on their own heads."
I've always been aware that the Bible teaches, especially in the Old Testament, that the sinners often find themselves suffering from their own sins. Even when they set out to do others harm, they do themselves the harm. But, verse 14 hit at me this week in reading. "Whoever is pregnant with evil conceives trouble and gives birth to disillusionment". I think with some of the mistakes I've made recently I'm finding that I have conceived trouble for myself and given birth to disillusionment. I've been disenchanted, disenfranchised and disillusioned with many things going on, especially work related recently. And I thought it had a lot to do with the stagnation at work, but I think that this verse, in light of my recent struggles has pinned down the root cause and it has nothing to do with work at all.
So my prayer for today is for my God to come and rescue me from the evil that I have become impregnated with. I find myself embarrassed and ashamed of it have ever occurring but I find that I can't deny or explain it away. It comes to the point where I must stand up and apologize and beg forgiveness for falling away. Not on account of any righteousness within me, but simply because the feeling of disillusionment, this state of being, is so painful, it has rendered me broken. So I ask for forgiveness Lord. Wash away the stain of sin and cleanse me from the evil I have engaged with and become entangled by. Do not let my decisions deprive me of my belief that gives hope. Do not let me sink further into this pit I have dug. Hear my prayer.
"Whoever is pregnant with evil conceives trouble and gives birth to disillusionment. Whoever digs a whole and scoops it out falls into the pit they have made. The trouble they cause recoils on them; their violence comes down on their own heads."
I've always been aware that the Bible teaches, especially in the Old Testament, that the sinners often find themselves suffering from their own sins. Even when they set out to do others harm, they do themselves the harm. But, verse 14 hit at me this week in reading. "Whoever is pregnant with evil conceives trouble and gives birth to disillusionment". I think with some of the mistakes I've made recently I'm finding that I have conceived trouble for myself and given birth to disillusionment. I've been disenchanted, disenfranchised and disillusioned with many things going on, especially work related recently. And I thought it had a lot to do with the stagnation at work, but I think that this verse, in light of my recent struggles has pinned down the root cause and it has nothing to do with work at all.
So my prayer for today is for my God to come and rescue me from the evil that I have become impregnated with. I find myself embarrassed and ashamed of it have ever occurring but I find that I can't deny or explain it away. It comes to the point where I must stand up and apologize and beg forgiveness for falling away. Not on account of any righteousness within me, but simply because the feeling of disillusionment, this state of being, is so painful, it has rendered me broken. So I ask for forgiveness Lord. Wash away the stain of sin and cleanse me from the evil I have engaged with and become entangled by. Do not let my decisions deprive me of my belief that gives hope. Do not let me sink further into this pit I have dug. Hear my prayer.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Twain - The Private History of a campaign that failed
The Private History of a campaign that failed (1885). By Mark Twain
Journalism in Tennessee still stands as my favorite Twain short story to date. But this one hits a little close to home in what I'm currently writing (My Completed Autobiography, evolving title) in that it captures a farcical historical event that is close enough to reality it might as well be true. Of course, I'm no Twain scholar so it may very well be true.
The interaction between the "soldiers" in this little tale are hysterical. Their jockeying for rank is my favorite part, especially, "nobody would cook; it was considered a degradation; so we had no dinner" (Twain, 47). In spite of the levity of the story it hits some profound history to as some of the failed soldiers would go on to be professionals in the Civil War. It makes light of a hard situation that is funny without truly making fun of the characters- no mean task. It's a good story and I hope to one day be able to capture a tone like it to inject enough humor in order to maintain the humanity in a story about inhumanity.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Twain - The Stolen White Elephant
I'm enjoying my Mark Twain short stories. I still feel that Journalism in Tennessee is my favorite thus far, but in reading Twain's The Stolen White Elephant I'm realizing that I like detective stories. Now, that said, I haven't read a Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie or any other "serious" detective fiction. But, I've loved Law & Order since at least high school; I think I liked it earlier, especially the crossover episodes with the Baltimore based Homicide: Life on the Street. I know I liked those when I was young and before I moved out of the area. But, it also made me never want to enter the city...
But, earlier on this blog and in one of my nascent stories I've mentioned the similarities between Douglas Adam's Dirk Gently and Raymond Queneau's Morcol in The Flight of Icarus and now having read Twain's short story The Stolen White Elephant, I'm finding that I really enjoy farcical detective stories. I'm also noticing a trend about such characters. They are, simultaneously, bungling and cunning. They have the great balance of bafoonery and intellect that allows them the expertise of the charlatan. Money moves them. I guess that's a well-worn thought because even in serious journalism we question the ethics of the police. Maybe we should simply make them well paid and then they wouldn't have to worry about bribes. That however would be a socialist notion and thus, completely unacceptable in America. We can't stand an ounce of socialism. On a side note, I'm very concerned that I'm not going to get my social security in forty years or so when I'm eligible. These aren't related thoughts, but my mind is always doubled over in multiple trajectories.
As for Twain's short story, it's great. It is silly and full of sharp language. That makes it easy to read and easy to pause and reread a fantastic passage or sentence. With Twain, it's often the sentence that you reread because of it's incredible sarcasm within its brevity. "Next morning it was all in the newspapers, in the minutest detail. It even had additions, consisting of Detective this, Detective that, and Detective the other's 'theory' as to how the robbery was done" (Twain, 28). Beautiful. Concise. Caustic.
The thing that I like so much about this story is that it incorporates an odd structure using the "telegraph" as a medium. I had this idea for a short story (which is still peculating within me) that makes use of a similar medium. Interwoven in the story will be some background narrative, but the story will be moved forward by a different medium - comments posted on Internet "journalism". I thought it would be a new novel and innovative technique. Twain wrote The Stolen White Elephant 101 years before I was born. What did Solomon say???
But, earlier on this blog and in one of my nascent stories I've mentioned the similarities between Douglas Adam's Dirk Gently and Raymond Queneau's Morcol in The Flight of Icarus and now having read Twain's short story The Stolen White Elephant, I'm finding that I really enjoy farcical detective stories. I'm also noticing a trend about such characters. They are, simultaneously, bungling and cunning. They have the great balance of bafoonery and intellect that allows them the expertise of the charlatan. Money moves them. I guess that's a well-worn thought because even in serious journalism we question the ethics of the police. Maybe we should simply make them well paid and then they wouldn't have to worry about bribes. That however would be a socialist notion and thus, completely unacceptable in America. We can't stand an ounce of socialism. On a side note, I'm very concerned that I'm not going to get my social security in forty years or so when I'm eligible. These aren't related thoughts, but my mind is always doubled over in multiple trajectories.
As for Twain's short story, it's great. It is silly and full of sharp language. That makes it easy to read and easy to pause and reread a fantastic passage or sentence. With Twain, it's often the sentence that you reread because of it's incredible sarcasm within its brevity. "Next morning it was all in the newspapers, in the minutest detail. It even had additions, consisting of Detective this, Detective that, and Detective the other's 'theory' as to how the robbery was done" (Twain, 28). Beautiful. Concise. Caustic.
The thing that I like so much about this story is that it incorporates an odd structure using the "telegraph" as a medium. I had this idea for a short story (which is still peculating within me) that makes use of a similar medium. Interwoven in the story will be some background narrative, but the story will be moved forward by a different medium - comments posted on Internet "journalism". I thought it would be a new novel and innovative technique. Twain wrote The Stolen White Elephant 101 years before I was born. What did Solomon say???
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Twain - A literary nightmare
Humorous Stories and Sketches
Mark Twain
1996
A Literary Nightmare (1876)
Once again I find myself amazed at Twain's ability to grasp a reader with a story about a rather mundane topic. He builds and builds in this story a farce entirely based on the premise of a jingle being stuck in his head! Pretty funny, but so far Journalism in Tennessee remains my favorite.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Twain - About Barbers
Humorous Stories and Sketches
Mark Twain
1996
"He was decaying inwardly while still alive, and this gave me much concern" (Twain, 15). That's funny.
The other two parts I found especially humorous were the way the barber dried the mans face off (un-Christian like) and the barber's attempts to sell the man some products he didn't need. Barbers never change.
Twain - Journalism in Tennessee
Humorous Stories and Sketches
Mark Twain
1996
Journalism in Tennessee
I found this story much more humorous than The Jumping Frog. Here are the best lines about the assistant editor nearly losing his life on the first day of the job:
"The shot spoiled Smith's aim, who was just taking a second chance, and he crippled a stranger. It was me" (Twain, 8).
"The Colonel's bullet ended its career in the fleshy part of my thigh" (Twain, 10).
"The Southern heart is too impulsive - Southern hospitality is too lavish with the stranger" (Twain, 12).
Twain - The Notorious Jumping Frog of Calaveras County
Since I have a current desire to try my hand at writing and since I was born on American soil I figured I ought to study up on the greatest American author to have ever put pen to paper. At the moment though I have not read every notable American author so I figured I'd just study Twain. I kid, I joke.
Humorous Stories and Sketches
Mark Twain
1996
The Notorious Jumping Frog of Calaveras County (1865) is a very short little story. The speed and shortness actually reminds me a bit of one of Voltaire's contes. Both are sharp, quick and satirical with heavy doses of irony. I love how the story began as a prank on the narrator to go and ask a man about a mythical friend that would ensnare the narrator in the clutches of a long winded storyteller. That is precisely what happens.
The story itself didn't sparkle for me but I liked the line, "he never smiled, he never frowned...but all through the interminable narrative there ran a vein of impressive earnestness and sincerity, which showed me plainly that, so far from imagining that there was anything ridiculous or funny about his story, he regarded it as a really important matter" (Twain, 1-2). The storyteller then weaved a tale of a compulsive gambler and how he was cheated out of $40 by a crooked man who filled a jumping frog's stomach full of led to ensure a victory in a bet. After this scenario the narrator escaped further stories about the gambling addict.
Pedro Paramo
I read Juan Rulfo's Pedro Paramo for the first time last night. I kept starting and stopping as I needed to go to bed. But, in the end I wound up staying up til 3 am to finish it. I have to read it again, and soon.
It is a crazy book. The surrealist aspects are grotesque, but not in the way that Bataille's The Story of the Eye is grotesque. Rulfo focuses on death in this book, not unseemly sexual encounters involving copious amounts of piss.
Juan Preciado is instructed by his dying mother to return to her hometown and take some sort of revenge on his father. The town of Comala is a ghost town in a more literal sense of the word. It is a quasi-purgatory where the disembodied souls of the townsfolk live in shame and fear of the dead Pedro Paramo. As I said earlier I have to read it again to grasp the fullness (or lack thereof) of the book. But, a couple things really struck me on this initial reading.
First, when Juan dies, or when he realizes he is dead - I am not sure if he was ever alive in the story or not, he is buried into a grave with Dorotea and the two begin to speak. That first encounter was fascinating. Dorotea takes over the narrative from this point, but her description of her death was truly incredible. She talks about her soul demanding that her body continue working, but the body is speaking to Juan inside their shared grave. The body tells him that she simply opened up her mouth and released the soul.
Second, when Juan encounters the burro driver you have no idea he's dead. Then he doesn't play much of a part for the whole book except to bring about what ever semblance of conclusion you can get. That was interesting too.
Third, and this might have been my favorite story arch within this multi-tiered story is that of Father Renteria. Father Renteria is a priest (whom we find out was killed by one of Pedro's many sons) that has been condemned to purgatory for putting up with Pedro and his horrible ways. Father Renteria even goes over into another town and finds another priest who refuses him absolution. It is a very intriguing story.
I'm finding that I enjoy some of the surrealist stories much better than others. I loved Queneau's Flight of Icarus and Rulfo's Pedro Paramo. I liked Nadja by Andre Breton. I hated The Story of the Eye. I don't think I can say that enough. I guess it's the same with all genres, but while Nadja and Icarus eventually wrapped up somewhat, Pedro and The Story of the Eye really offered no real ending per se. Yet of the four I would (at this moment) rank them my top and bottom of surrealist literature read so far. I guess the surrealist must have been on to something as style tends to outweigh substance in their genre.
It is a crazy book. The surrealist aspects are grotesque, but not in the way that Bataille's The Story of the Eye is grotesque. Rulfo focuses on death in this book, not unseemly sexual encounters involving copious amounts of piss.
Juan Preciado is instructed by his dying mother to return to her hometown and take some sort of revenge on his father. The town of Comala is a ghost town in a more literal sense of the word. It is a quasi-purgatory where the disembodied souls of the townsfolk live in shame and fear of the dead Pedro Paramo. As I said earlier I have to read it again to grasp the fullness (or lack thereof) of the book. But, a couple things really struck me on this initial reading.
First, when Juan dies, or when he realizes he is dead - I am not sure if he was ever alive in the story or not, he is buried into a grave with Dorotea and the two begin to speak. That first encounter was fascinating. Dorotea takes over the narrative from this point, but her description of her death was truly incredible. She talks about her soul demanding that her body continue working, but the body is speaking to Juan inside their shared grave. The body tells him that she simply opened up her mouth and released the soul.
Second, when Juan encounters the burro driver you have no idea he's dead. Then he doesn't play much of a part for the whole book except to bring about what ever semblance of conclusion you can get. That was interesting too.
Third, and this might have been my favorite story arch within this multi-tiered story is that of Father Renteria. Father Renteria is a priest (whom we find out was killed by one of Pedro's many sons) that has been condemned to purgatory for putting up with Pedro and his horrible ways. Father Renteria even goes over into another town and finds another priest who refuses him absolution. It is a very intriguing story.
I'm finding that I enjoy some of the surrealist stories much better than others. I loved Queneau's Flight of Icarus and Rulfo's Pedro Paramo. I liked Nadja by Andre Breton. I hated The Story of the Eye. I don't think I can say that enough. I guess it's the same with all genres, but while Nadja and Icarus eventually wrapped up somewhat, Pedro and The Story of the Eye really offered no real ending per se. Yet of the four I would (at this moment) rank them my top and bottom of surrealist literature read so far. I guess the surrealist must have been on to something as style tends to outweigh substance in their genre.
Assessment of Go Set a Watchman
Let me preface this by saying that I hadn't read Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird in a long time, 17-20 years long time. I picked it up to reread it before reading the lately released sequel Go Set a Watchman. I loved Mockingbird. I understood it more this time having witnessed a bit more of the world. I've seen the hatred and the racism that I didn't notice or wasn't exposed to as a young teenager. It was heartbreaking. But, I think in the reread I didn't associate with Scout or Jem like I might have the first time; rather, being closer in age, I looked up to Atticus as an example. That may have been the problem with Watchman.
Stylistically, the two are on par with one another. The only problem there was that Watchman copied verbatim (or at least nearly) on describing Maycomb County and Aunt Alexandra. I thought that this occurrence was weird, maybe a little lazy. But, my wife, being the English teacher she is, told me that Watchman was, at least, conceptually written first. Given that, it was understandable.
One of the things that made Mockingbird such a great novel was that it exposed not only the injustice in race relations, but also the inconsistencies of good people. Scout's teacher failed to connect the dots between despising Hitler and what he was doing to the Jews and what Maycomb county had done to Tom Robinson. But, that inconsistency was put onto Atticus, destroying him as a character.
Atticus is turned into at the very least, a classist and elitist who performs justice for the sake of some abstract notion of justice. He doesn't care about the people he defends, the people are merely the means by which he can offer his worship to the disembodied justice. At this, he is at least a cold, callous ethics professor, sitting in an ivory tower pronouncing judgment from upon high in language that makes the dim townsfolk not know he is judging them. He lets Scout into his world because, although he fights his sister's claims, he holds a belief in the superiority of the Finch family and its ilk. That's being kind. The reality is Harper Lee has exposed him as a hypocritical racist.
Mockingbird seemed like a story of injustice, one that made you groan in your soul. The whole point of Watchman though is Scout coming of age and developing her own conscience independent of Atticus. In order to do that Scout can no longer (and thus, we as readers) deify Atticus. Lee has to make him human and the way she chose to do it was to turn him into a hypocrite. Atticus' brother tells Scout, "They must never descend to human level", because when they do they fall further down than the typical man does. In taking this tack, Lee produced another well written novel and a good story, but she destroyed the man Atticus. She killed Jem for no reason. She sent Dill to Italy for no reason. If she wanted to write a compelling story she could have done so without flaying Atticus. She could have made Scout the fiancée of Henry, the successor of the recently deceased Atticus. Henry could have been the flawed racist/moralist and Scout could have still had the convulsions she did in the book.
I don't even want to talk about what she did to Calpurnia. The bond was broken unnecessarily. Maybe I'm too much of a romantic to like this novel. Maybe Lee, having lived through this, has a better grasp on the realities that was 1950s Alabama. Living in Georgia in the 21st century I get a glimpse of the holdovers from that era. Living in a society where racial tensions are currently on the rise, or at least currently in the ascendency in the news cycle I can tell you Watchman offers no hope. Watchman only gives facts. If it existed and Mockingbird did not, it would be a good novel that was descriptive but devoid of inspiring. Mockingbird was inspiring and is inspiring for readers of all ages for two reasons, Jem & Scout and Atticus. Jem & Scout are relatable to the teenagers forced to read it because they still live in relative innocence. Their innocence being tested by the trial and unjust verdict opens them up to a new world. Jem's anger is a righteous anger that ought to be shared by the reader, especially the young ones who are impotent to exact real societal change. Scout's unceasing questions are also a laudable goal that should be followed by the young reader. Older readers have Atticus to look to as a source of justice in an unjust world. Not only that, he's pragmatic not simply populous or moralizing. But in Watchman there are no inspirational characters. Jem and his righteous anger is dead. Scout has been turned catatonic and has been demoralized. Atticus has been exposed as a racist. It is a sad (albeit true) commentary on the current state of affairs. But, where is the hope?
Stylistically, the two are on par with one another. The only problem there was that Watchman copied verbatim (or at least nearly) on describing Maycomb County and Aunt Alexandra. I thought that this occurrence was weird, maybe a little lazy. But, my wife, being the English teacher she is, told me that Watchman was, at least, conceptually written first. Given that, it was understandable.
One of the things that made Mockingbird such a great novel was that it exposed not only the injustice in race relations, but also the inconsistencies of good people. Scout's teacher failed to connect the dots between despising Hitler and what he was doing to the Jews and what Maycomb county had done to Tom Robinson. But, that inconsistency was put onto Atticus, destroying him as a character.
Atticus is turned into at the very least, a classist and elitist who performs justice for the sake of some abstract notion of justice. He doesn't care about the people he defends, the people are merely the means by which he can offer his worship to the disembodied justice. At this, he is at least a cold, callous ethics professor, sitting in an ivory tower pronouncing judgment from upon high in language that makes the dim townsfolk not know he is judging them. He lets Scout into his world because, although he fights his sister's claims, he holds a belief in the superiority of the Finch family and its ilk. That's being kind. The reality is Harper Lee has exposed him as a hypocritical racist.
Mockingbird seemed like a story of injustice, one that made you groan in your soul. The whole point of Watchman though is Scout coming of age and developing her own conscience independent of Atticus. In order to do that Scout can no longer (and thus, we as readers) deify Atticus. Lee has to make him human and the way she chose to do it was to turn him into a hypocrite. Atticus' brother tells Scout, "They must never descend to human level", because when they do they fall further down than the typical man does. In taking this tack, Lee produced another well written novel and a good story, but she destroyed the man Atticus. She killed Jem for no reason. She sent Dill to Italy for no reason. If she wanted to write a compelling story she could have done so without flaying Atticus. She could have made Scout the fiancée of Henry, the successor of the recently deceased Atticus. Henry could have been the flawed racist/moralist and Scout could have still had the convulsions she did in the book.
I don't even want to talk about what she did to Calpurnia. The bond was broken unnecessarily. Maybe I'm too much of a romantic to like this novel. Maybe Lee, having lived through this, has a better grasp on the realities that was 1950s Alabama. Living in Georgia in the 21st century I get a glimpse of the holdovers from that era. Living in a society where racial tensions are currently on the rise, or at least currently in the ascendency in the news cycle I can tell you Watchman offers no hope. Watchman only gives facts. If it existed and Mockingbird did not, it would be a good novel that was descriptive but devoid of inspiring. Mockingbird was inspiring and is inspiring for readers of all ages for two reasons, Jem & Scout and Atticus. Jem & Scout are relatable to the teenagers forced to read it because they still live in relative innocence. Their innocence being tested by the trial and unjust verdict opens them up to a new world. Jem's anger is a righteous anger that ought to be shared by the reader, especially the young ones who are impotent to exact real societal change. Scout's unceasing questions are also a laudable goal that should be followed by the young reader. Older readers have Atticus to look to as a source of justice in an unjust world. Not only that, he's pragmatic not simply populous or moralizing. But in Watchman there are no inspirational characters. Jem and his righteous anger is dead. Scout has been turned catatonic and has been demoralized. Atticus has been exposed as a racist. It is a sad (albeit true) commentary on the current state of affairs. But, where is the hope?
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Parmenides and Zeno
(Originally written August 12, 2015)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
The first physicists and cosmologists to use the new geometric method of deductive reasoning from self-evident starts found their logical conclusions clashed with real world experience and the problem of perception was born.
Parmenides was consumed with the problem of change.
Parmenides started with monism and added two tautologies:
1. What is, is
2. What is not, is not.
What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. 'Nothing' is essentially a meaningless word. His reasoning for this is that it is impossible to think of nothing. [FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - "Nothingness Bar, where it's truly possible to think of nothing" side effects may include, write an exceptionally long list]
From his two self-evident tautologies he declare that what is, is uncreated, indestructible, eternal and unchangeable.
1. It is uncreated because it was either created out of nothing or something. It can't be created out of nothing because nothing does not exist. It can't be created out of something because as a monist there is only one something.
2. It is indestructible because to destroy it would make it become nothing. There is no nothing.
3. It is eternal because 1+2
4. It is unchangeable because a) monism and b) if it changed into something new the old thing would be nothing. There is no nothing.
Zeno's Paradoxes
1. Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-ways there are infinite in number. It's impossible to go distances of an infinite number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2. Achilles and the Tortoise
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Heraclitus - Everything Changes
Parmenides - Nothing Changes
Parmenides
-from Elea, Southern Italy
-circa 5th century B.C.
-met with Socrates circa 450 B.C.
-invented metaphysics based on logic
-senses are deceptive
-the multitude of things is an illusion
-had two strands of thought 1) way of truth 2) way of opinion
Way of truth - can't think about nothing, there is no nothing. No becoming, no passing away
Thought and language require objects outside themselves
"Parmenides maintains that not only must George Washington have existed in the past, but in some sense he must still exist since we can use his name significantly" (Russell, 49).
Parmenides argument: if a word can be used significantly it must mean something, not nothing. Therefore, the meaning of the word must have some existence.
Parmenides' argument relies on unchanging meaning of words.
Because of the continual 'existence' that words guarantee, there is really no past. Since there is no past, there is no change.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
"What can be said and be thought of must be; for it can be, and nothing cannot" (Barnes, 81).
He warned against the senses and extolled man not to let habit and experience force you to trust the senses.
What is, is un-generated and indestructible. No past, no future, always is.
"Thinking and a thought that it is are the same thing" (Barnes, 83). [FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - the concept behind the Parmenidean Engine]
"Parmenides was the first to declare that the earth is spherical and lies in the middle of the universe - Diogenes Laertius" (Barnes, 89).
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
The first physicists and cosmologists to use the new geometric method of deductive reasoning from self-evident starts found their logical conclusions clashed with real world experience and the problem of perception was born.
Parmenides was consumed with the problem of change.
Parmenides started with monism and added two tautologies:
1. What is, is
2. What is not, is not.
What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. 'Nothing' is essentially a meaningless word. His reasoning for this is that it is impossible to think of nothing. [FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - "Nothingness Bar, where it's truly possible to think of nothing" side effects may include, write an exceptionally long list]
From his two self-evident tautologies he declare that what is, is uncreated, indestructible, eternal and unchangeable.
1. It is uncreated because it was either created out of nothing or something. It can't be created out of nothing because nothing does not exist. It can't be created out of something because as a monist there is only one something.
2. It is indestructible because to destroy it would make it become nothing. There is no nothing.
3. It is eternal because 1+2
4. It is unchangeable because a) monism and b) if it changed into something new the old thing would be nothing. There is no nothing.
Zeno's Paradoxes
1. Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-ways there are infinite in number. It's impossible to go distances of an infinite number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2. Achilles and the Tortoise
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Heraclitus - Everything Changes
Parmenides - Nothing Changes
Parmenides
-from Elea, Southern Italy
-circa 5th century B.C.
-met with Socrates circa 450 B.C.
-invented metaphysics based on logic
-senses are deceptive
-the multitude of things is an illusion
-had two strands of thought 1) way of truth 2) way of opinion
Way of truth - can't think about nothing, there is no nothing. No becoming, no passing away
Thought and language require objects outside themselves
"Parmenides maintains that not only must George Washington have existed in the past, but in some sense he must still exist since we can use his name significantly" (Russell, 49).
Parmenides argument: if a word can be used significantly it must mean something, not nothing. Therefore, the meaning of the word must have some existence.
Parmenides' argument relies on unchanging meaning of words.
Because of the continual 'existence' that words guarantee, there is really no past. Since there is no past, there is no change.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
"What can be said and be thought of must be; for it can be, and nothing cannot" (Barnes, 81).
He warned against the senses and extolled man not to let habit and experience force you to trust the senses.
What is, is un-generated and indestructible. No past, no future, always is.
"Thinking and a thought that it is are the same thing" (Barnes, 83). [FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - the concept behind the Parmenidean Engine]
"Parmenides was the first to declare that the earth is spherical and lies in the middle of the universe - Diogenes Laertius" (Barnes, 89).
Archelaus
(Originally written August 12, 2015)
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Archelaus
-First Athenian philosopher
-Student of Anaxagoras
-Teacher of Socrates
- animals come from mud (including humans) but the mud born lived shorter lives than the natural born
- the nobility or ignoble of a thing is based on the perception of the thing and not the thing itself
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Archelaus
-First Athenian philosopher
-Student of Anaxagoras
-Teacher of Socrates
- animals come from mud (including humans) but the mud born lived shorter lives than the natural born
- the nobility or ignoble of a thing is based on the perception of the thing and not the thing itself
The Peloponnesian War
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 2 - Education through violence
In order to understand Plato one must understand both the pre-Socratic philosophers and the state of affairs in Athens and greater Greece at the time of Plato's life. Plato grew up in the Peloponnesian War.
Thucydides - "War is a teacher who educates through violence; and he makes men's characters fit their condition" (Jones, 41).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Our traveler must enter in a classroom being conducted by Mr. War, who I envision looks an awful lot like the WWF wrestler The Ultimate Warrior
The Peloponnesian war was brought about by both economic and ideological rivalry between Sparta and Athens.
Sparta:
- Marriage was a contract to produce the healthiest of children
- It was forbidden for any Spartan to engage in money-making professions
- They were soldiers, the best in Greece but had a small population that ruled over a large population of serfs who had zero political rights
- oligarchical rule
Athens
- Direct Democracy: In Athens the 40,000 native males made up the Assembly that ruled the 400,000 inhabitants of the city. The Assembly was the legislative, judicial and executive branch of the government
- Athens acquired an empire of city-states, mostly on the Aegean islands that paid tribute money for the protection of the Athenian navy
The clash between Athens and Sparta was inevitable. Athens was, in the 5th century BC able to challenge Sparta militarily and crush other commercial centers financially. Eventually, Corinth and Sparta teamed up to stamp out the growing Athenian menace.
The war lasted 27 years and began with Pericles' policy to allow the Spartans and their allies to ravage the countryside, pulling all the population into the city's walls. Pericles thought that with the financial advantages and the naval advantages he could win a war of attrition. He might have been correct had not an overpopulated Athens been ravaged by the plague and rich families bemoan his policies leading to infighting.
Athens still might have won a defensive war had not direct democracy gotten in the way. A young general named Alcibiades convinced the Assembly to attack Syracuse in Sicily that resulted in the decimation of Athens' forces. Still, the war limped on another 10 years before some of the wealthiest families in Athens looked to make peace with Sparta and reclaim some normalcy. They figured that they could be granted political preference by Sparta and restore the old oligarchy. Likewise, they figured that good governance was preferable to the freedom and disorganized and chaotic government that the Assembly provided.
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 2 - Education through violence
In order to understand Plato one must understand both the pre-Socratic philosophers and the state of affairs in Athens and greater Greece at the time of Plato's life. Plato grew up in the Peloponnesian War.
Thucydides - "War is a teacher who educates through violence; and he makes men's characters fit their condition" (Jones, 41).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Our traveler must enter in a classroom being conducted by Mr. War, who I envision looks an awful lot like the WWF wrestler The Ultimate Warrior
The Peloponnesian war was brought about by both economic and ideological rivalry between Sparta and Athens.
Sparta:
- Marriage was a contract to produce the healthiest of children
- It was forbidden for any Spartan to engage in money-making professions
- They were soldiers, the best in Greece but had a small population that ruled over a large population of serfs who had zero political rights
- oligarchical rule
Athens
- Direct Democracy: In Athens the 40,000 native males made up the Assembly that ruled the 400,000 inhabitants of the city. The Assembly was the legislative, judicial and executive branch of the government
- Athens acquired an empire of city-states, mostly on the Aegean islands that paid tribute money for the protection of the Athenian navy
The clash between Athens and Sparta was inevitable. Athens was, in the 5th century BC able to challenge Sparta militarily and crush other commercial centers financially. Eventually, Corinth and Sparta teamed up to stamp out the growing Athenian menace.
The war lasted 27 years and began with Pericles' policy to allow the Spartans and their allies to ravage the countryside, pulling all the population into the city's walls. Pericles thought that with the financial advantages and the naval advantages he could win a war of attrition. He might have been correct had not an overpopulated Athens been ravaged by the plague and rich families bemoan his policies leading to infighting.
Athens still might have won a defensive war had not direct democracy gotten in the way. A young general named Alcibiades convinced the Assembly to attack Syracuse in Sicily that resulted in the decimation of Athens' forces. Still, the war limped on another 10 years before some of the wealthiest families in Athens looked to make peace with Sparta and reclaim some normalcy. They figured that they could be granted political preference by Sparta and restore the old oligarchy. Likewise, they figured that good governance was preferable to the freedom and disorganized and chaotic government that the Assembly provided.
The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Anaxagoras became the first critic of Empedocles. But, like Empedocles he had similar views on the outset:
1) The stuff of the world is eternal
2) There is a many (pluralism), but each one of the many is a Parmenidean one
3) There is motion
Whereas Empedocles had maintained that everything that exists in the visible world is made up of a mixture of one of the four roots (the elements), Anaxagoras claimed that everything contained miniscule and infinite bits of all the stuffs. We just saw things like flesh or hair as flesh or hair because the flesh bits dominated in flesh and the hair bits dominated in hair.
Whereas Empedocles had Love and Strife as the causation for the mixing of the bits, Anaxagoras had "Mind". Mind is material and it sets all things in order. But, the Mind is purely mechanical in nature and doesn't necessarily mean intention when setting all things in order.
In the beginning, according to Anaxagoras, all the bits and stuffs were so together it would have been impossible to see any particular stuff. Then Mind entered in, creating a vortex and separated off the many stuffs. As the process of separation continues eventually all the infinitely tiny stuffs will be sorted out completely, that just hasn't happened yet.
The problem with Anaxagoras is that while he (like Empedocles) was able to arrive at the problems plaguing Greek thought up to this point, namely 'How does the world get to where its at now, a quantitatively plural amount of things from the qualitatively single stuff?' But, because of the numerous difficulties in his system of separation he introduced an idea of an infinitely plural stuff and killed some of the scientific spirit that was going on in the Greek thought.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Anaxagoras - Chapter 8
-An Ionian from Clazomenae circa 500 BC
-Introduced Athens to philosophy and lived there from 462-432 BC
-Was brought to Athens by Pericles
-Left Athens after the Athenians charged him with some charges amounting to sacrilege
-held that everything was infinitely divisible
-held that every small portion of matter contains some of everything and that things appear as what they contain the most of
-believed that mind entered into the living things and differentiated them from the dead things
-Mind had the power over all things living
-Mind is infinite and mixed with nothing
-mind is the source of motion
-mind is uniform
-"Man's apparent superiority [to animals] is due to the fact that he has hands; all seeming differences of intelligence are really due to bodily differences" (Russell, 63).
-he was probably an atheist
-rejected necessity and chance as being causes, but also did not subscribe to providence
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-a follower of Anaximenes, he attempted to revive the Milesian's theories in a post-Parmenidean world of thought
-wasn't really interested in politics and euphemistically called the heavens his country. He also is reported to have said after somebody asked him about dying in a foreign country, 'Wherever you start from, the descent to Hades is the same'.
-believed the sun to be a fiery mass
-believed there to be inhabitants on the moon
-thought is what all things moved by
-"Anaxagoras' universe began as undifferentiated mass. Thought, or mind, worked on the mass, and the articulated world developed. The materials of Anaxagoras' world are uniform and continuous stuffs, not collections of particles or atoms. The cosmic development does not, and cannot, produce any 'pure' stuffs - every stuff always contains a 'portion' or 'share', however small, of every other stuff" (Barnes, 189).
-the mind is unmixed with anything else. it is independent and pure. It has knowledge about everything and the greatest strength; hence, it can control the other stuffs.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Anaxagoras became the first critic of Empedocles. But, like Empedocles he had similar views on the outset:
1) The stuff of the world is eternal
2) There is a many (pluralism), but each one of the many is a Parmenidean one
3) There is motion
Whereas Empedocles had maintained that everything that exists in the visible world is made up of a mixture of one of the four roots (the elements), Anaxagoras claimed that everything contained miniscule and infinite bits of all the stuffs. We just saw things like flesh or hair as flesh or hair because the flesh bits dominated in flesh and the hair bits dominated in hair.
Whereas Empedocles had Love and Strife as the causation for the mixing of the bits, Anaxagoras had "Mind". Mind is material and it sets all things in order. But, the Mind is purely mechanical in nature and doesn't necessarily mean intention when setting all things in order.
In the beginning, according to Anaxagoras, all the bits and stuffs were so together it would have been impossible to see any particular stuff. Then Mind entered in, creating a vortex and separated off the many stuffs. As the process of separation continues eventually all the infinitely tiny stuffs will be sorted out completely, that just hasn't happened yet.
The problem with Anaxagoras is that while he (like Empedocles) was able to arrive at the problems plaguing Greek thought up to this point, namely 'How does the world get to where its at now, a quantitatively plural amount of things from the qualitatively single stuff?' But, because of the numerous difficulties in his system of separation he introduced an idea of an infinitely plural stuff and killed some of the scientific spirit that was going on in the Greek thought.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Anaxagoras - Chapter 8
-An Ionian from Clazomenae circa 500 BC
-Introduced Athens to philosophy and lived there from 462-432 BC
-Was brought to Athens by Pericles
-Left Athens after the Athenians charged him with some charges amounting to sacrilege
-held that everything was infinitely divisible
-held that every small portion of matter contains some of everything and that things appear as what they contain the most of
-believed that mind entered into the living things and differentiated them from the dead things
-Mind had the power over all things living
-Mind is infinite and mixed with nothing
-mind is the source of motion
-mind is uniform
-"Man's apparent superiority [to animals] is due to the fact that he has hands; all seeming differences of intelligence are really due to bodily differences" (Russell, 63).
-he was probably an atheist
-rejected necessity and chance as being causes, but also did not subscribe to providence
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-a follower of Anaximenes, he attempted to revive the Milesian's theories in a post-Parmenidean world of thought
-wasn't really interested in politics and euphemistically called the heavens his country. He also is reported to have said after somebody asked him about dying in a foreign country, 'Wherever you start from, the descent to Hades is the same'.
-believed the sun to be a fiery mass
-believed there to be inhabitants on the moon
-thought is what all things moved by
-"Anaxagoras' universe began as undifferentiated mass. Thought, or mind, worked on the mass, and the articulated world developed. The materials of Anaxagoras' world are uniform and continuous stuffs, not collections of particles or atoms. The cosmic development does not, and cannot, produce any 'pure' stuffs - every stuff always contains a 'portion' or 'share', however small, of every other stuff" (Barnes, 189).
-the mind is unmixed with anything else. it is independent and pure. It has knowledge about everything and the greatest strength; hence, it can control the other stuffs.
-thought has power over whatever exists
-everything shares a portion with everything else
-"each single thing is and was most clearly those things of which it contains most" (Barnes, 193).
-believed in multiple worlds, which were bound up together before the separating process began
-there is no creation or destruction, only separation (dissociation) and coming together (association)
-argued against the senses: "we are not capable of discerning the truth by reason of their feebleness" (Barnes, 197).
Hippo
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Hippo was a Pythagorean from the 5th century BC
-Aristotle was not exactly kind to Hippo: "One would not propose to place Hippo among these men because of the poverty of his thought" (Barnes, 183).
-Like Thales, Hippo thought the primary substance to be water, he came to this thought by seeing that water gives life to everything and when water is taken away life dries up as well.
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Hippo was a Pythagorean from the 5th century BC
-Aristotle was not exactly kind to Hippo: "One would not propose to place Hippo among these men because of the poverty of his thought" (Barnes, 183).
-Like Thales, Hippo thought the primary substance to be water, he came to this thought by seeing that water gives life to everything and when water is taken away life dries up as well.
Ion of Chios
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Ion of Chios
-born circa 485 BC on the island of Chios
-lived most of his life in Athens
-Believed all things are three in nature: intelligence and power and fortune
-Plutarch referred to him and made an interesting observation: even though fortune and wisdom are very dissimilar, both produced similar results: "both will aggrandize States, adorn men and bring glory and power and dominion"(Barnes, 182).
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Ion of Chios
-born circa 485 BC on the island of Chios
-lived most of his life in Athens
-Believed all things are three in nature: intelligence and power and fortune
-Plutarch referred to him and made an interesting observation: even though fortune and wisdom are very dissimilar, both produced similar results: "both will aggrandize States, adorn men and bring glory and power and dominion"(Barnes, 182).
Philolaus
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Philolaus
-a Pythagorean
-born in Croton circa 470 B.C.
-left Croton when the Pythagorean school was destroyed and went to mainland Greece
-believed that the universe existed from a harmonizing of limitless and limiting things
-believed all things have a number
-Geometry was the greatest science and gave the best knowledge because it elevates the mind and purifies it, releasing it from perception
-believed that there was fire in the middle at the center (the hearth of the universe/house of Zeus)
"The old theologians and prophets also testify that the soul has been yoked to the body as a punishment and that it is buried in it as though in a tomb" (Barnes, 181).
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Philolaus
-a Pythagorean
-born in Croton circa 470 B.C.
-left Croton when the Pythagorean school was destroyed and went to mainland Greece
-believed that the universe existed from a harmonizing of limitless and limiting things
-believed all things have a number
-Geometry was the greatest science and gave the best knowledge because it elevates the mind and purifies it, releasing it from perception
-believed that there was fire in the middle at the center (the hearth of the universe/house of Zeus)
"The old theologians and prophets also testify that the soul has been yoked to the body as a punishment and that it is buried in it as though in a tomb" (Barnes, 181).
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.
Empedocles
Empedocles
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles is a wealth of subject matter.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Empedocles
-Empedocles is the first pluralist we know anything about.
-accepted the Parmenidean notion that nothing is created or destroyed
-denied the Parmenidean notion that motion is impossible
-argued that motion took place by things swapping places in the plenum
-The many things that exist are roots: earth, air, fire and water. Each of these roots are a Parmenidean one, eternal, uncreated, indestructible and unchanging
-Two types of motion: Love & Strife
-Love - the motion of uniting
-Strife - the motion of separation
-The world ebbs and flows between total love (absolute mixing of the four roots) and total strife (absolute segregation of the four roots)
-the objects of the perceivable world are unstable combinations of the four roots
-anticipated the survival of the fittest part of evolution in a creative way:
As love begins to come back into the ascendency and take back from strife the world will have a strange look: "At this time the various parts of animals arise in a hit-or-miss way, as Love bit by bit mixes the elements that Strife has separated: 'heads spring up without necks and arms wander bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes stray up and down in want of foreheads'. As love continues to mix things up, these parts get united in a completely haphazard way: 'these things joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides continually arose'. Eyes might, for instance, 'mix' with hands, feet with shoulders. Such mixtures obviously cannot survive, but in the course of random combinations a successful relationship sooner or later occurs" (Jones, 27). But the evolutionary process is completely controlled by chance. There is no god guiding it along.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles needs to be a sort of mad scientist letting things 'evolve' by random. Weird beasts with no eyes, six hands and a foot, sort of a Dali painting out of a nightmare.
While Empedocles denied the existence of god in the evolutionary process of love coming into the ascendency, he did worship the overall process as a god like Xenophanes. Also like Xenophanes, the god of Empedocles was not anthropomorphic.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
"The mixture of philosopher, prophet, man of science, and charlatan, which we found already in Pythagoras, was exemplified very completely in Empedocles" (Russell, 53).
-Flourished circa 440 BC
-from Acragas, Sicily
-a democratic politician and claimed to be a god
-stories abound of him as a miracle worker, could control the winds, brought a woman back to life after being dead for 30 days
- to prove he was a god he leapt into the crater of Etna
"Great Empedocles, that ardent soul
Leapt into Etna, and was roasted whole"
-Like his contemporary Parmenides, Empedocles wrote in verse
-his science and religion were inconsistent with one another
-discovered a crude version of centrifugal force
-wild evolutionary theory
-knew that the moon shined by reflected life (but, thought the sun did too)
-four elements (six in function): fire, earth, water, air (love & strife)
-love and strife are processes that are cyclical. there was a time when love fully wiped out stripe and men only worshiped the Cyprian Aphrodite then. But strife came back and things began to separate again.
-The cycle of life was not teleological. It was only governed by chance.
-His religious leanings were Pythagorean and Orphic
-He also considered himself a god, even if sometimes he felt like one in exile for some sin
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Came from Acragas, Sicily
-Came from a rich and distinguished family
-lived circa 495-435 BC
-claimed to be no longer mortal, an immortal god, compassionate for strangers and inexperienced in evil
-was a little conceited, "But why do I attack them as though I were achieving something great if I prove superior to much-perishing mortal men?" (Barnes, 112). This is how Empedocles described being smarter than the average man, eh Boo-Boo. Sextus Empiricus however says that no one even moderately versed in philosophy would have thought him boastful.
Plutarch describes some of his words (the bold are Empedocles, the regular Pultarch):
There is an oracle of necessity, an ancient decree of the gods, that whenever anyone errs and defiles in fear his dear limbs - one of the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life - he shall wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. Such is the road I now follow, an exile from the gods and a wanderer. He proves from his own case that not just he himself but all of us are immigrants here and strangers and exiles. For it is not blood, my friends, nor blended breath (he says) which provides the substance and principle of our souls: from these the body has been fashioned, earth-born and mortal; but the soul has come here from elsewhere and he calls birth by the gentlest of terms, a journey abroad. And what is most true, the soul flees and wanders, driven by divine decrees and laws...when it is tied to the body, it cannot recall or remember from what honour and from what breadth of bliss it has come, having exchanged not Sardis for Athens, nor Corinth for Lemnos or Scyros, but the heavens and the moon for earth and an earthly life (Barnes, 113).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - This is why the Greeks live on another planet. They were sent to earth to live abroad by the gods. Some of them are still stuck in a cycle of birth-death in exile on earth, but some have returned to their home planet, where our traveler is being taken. They were sent to earth because of sin they committed, decreed to wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. But, the gods got bored waiting and followed them to earth, forgot how to get home and have since traveled elsewhere. Only Prometheus, because of his punishment was sent back home to wait.
-Souls were 'long-lasting spirits' in his poetry because the soul is immortal
-Strife, the process by which things are coming apart in his cosmology punish the souls by forcing them to go from body to body
-the bodies of the animals men eat are the dwelling places of punished souls
-sex is bad because it makes men and women co-workers with strife
-He called those who gain the wealth of divine thoughts happy and those whose beliefs about the gods are dark are wretched
-believed that no part of the universe is empty
His biological evolution theory had four generations:
1st Generation of animals was just body parts
2nd Generation of animals were monstrous
3rd generation of animals are what we see today (properly joined limbs and such)
4th generation of animals is when Love is totally in dominance and all is One
"In the time of Love where many neckless heads sprang up" (Barnes, 142)
FUTUTRE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - A field of 'Love' where neckless heads are being grown like cabbages. There is a scarecrow in the field to scare away the strifebirds.
"Many were born double-headed and double-chested - man-faced oxen arose and again ox-headed men" (Barnes, 143).
For Empedocles blood contained the capacity to understand. Thought is located in the blood.
Empedocles was a vegetarian because he found that the souls migrated from one body to another. Eating an animal was a grave sin because you devour another when you eat meat.
Like Pythagoras, Empedocles said it was a sin to eat beans.
Empedocles had a Utopian ideal. In his Utopian age, the beasts and animals were friendly to man and man friendly to them.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles is a wealth of subject matter.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Empedocles
-Empedocles is the first pluralist we know anything about.
-accepted the Parmenidean notion that nothing is created or destroyed
-denied the Parmenidean notion that motion is impossible
-argued that motion took place by things swapping places in the plenum
-The many things that exist are roots: earth, air, fire and water. Each of these roots are a Parmenidean one, eternal, uncreated, indestructible and unchanging
-Two types of motion: Love & Strife
-Love - the motion of uniting
-Strife - the motion of separation
-The world ebbs and flows between total love (absolute mixing of the four roots) and total strife (absolute segregation of the four roots)
-the objects of the perceivable world are unstable combinations of the four roots
-anticipated the survival of the fittest part of evolution in a creative way:
As love begins to come back into the ascendency and take back from strife the world will have a strange look: "At this time the various parts of animals arise in a hit-or-miss way, as Love bit by bit mixes the elements that Strife has separated: 'heads spring up without necks and arms wander bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes stray up and down in want of foreheads'. As love continues to mix things up, these parts get united in a completely haphazard way: 'these things joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides continually arose'. Eyes might, for instance, 'mix' with hands, feet with shoulders. Such mixtures obviously cannot survive, but in the course of random combinations a successful relationship sooner or later occurs" (Jones, 27). But the evolutionary process is completely controlled by chance. There is no god guiding it along.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Empedocles needs to be a sort of mad scientist letting things 'evolve' by random. Weird beasts with no eyes, six hands and a foot, sort of a Dali painting out of a nightmare.
While Empedocles denied the existence of god in the evolutionary process of love coming into the ascendency, he did worship the overall process as a god like Xenophanes. Also like Xenophanes, the god of Empedocles was not anthropomorphic.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
"The mixture of philosopher, prophet, man of science, and charlatan, which we found already in Pythagoras, was exemplified very completely in Empedocles" (Russell, 53).
-Flourished circa 440 BC
-from Acragas, Sicily
-a democratic politician and claimed to be a god
-stories abound of him as a miracle worker, could control the winds, brought a woman back to life after being dead for 30 days
- to prove he was a god he leapt into the crater of Etna
"Great Empedocles, that ardent soul
Leapt into Etna, and was roasted whole"
-Like his contemporary Parmenides, Empedocles wrote in verse
-his science and religion were inconsistent with one another
-discovered a crude version of centrifugal force
-wild evolutionary theory
-knew that the moon shined by reflected life (but, thought the sun did too)
-four elements (six in function): fire, earth, water, air (love & strife)
-love and strife are processes that are cyclical. there was a time when love fully wiped out stripe and men only worshiped the Cyprian Aphrodite then. But strife came back and things began to separate again.
-The cycle of life was not teleological. It was only governed by chance.
-His religious leanings were Pythagorean and Orphic
-He also considered himself a god, even if sometimes he felt like one in exile for some sin
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Came from Acragas, Sicily
-Came from a rich and distinguished family
-lived circa 495-435 BC
-claimed to be no longer mortal, an immortal god, compassionate for strangers and inexperienced in evil
-was a little conceited, "But why do I attack them as though I were achieving something great if I prove superior to much-perishing mortal men?" (Barnes, 112). This is how Empedocles described being smarter than the average man, eh Boo-Boo. Sextus Empiricus however says that no one even moderately versed in philosophy would have thought him boastful.
Plutarch describes some of his words (the bold are Empedocles, the regular Pultarch):
There is an oracle of necessity, an ancient decree of the gods, that whenever anyone errs and defiles in fear his dear limbs - one of the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life - he shall wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. Such is the road I now follow, an exile from the gods and a wanderer. He proves from his own case that not just he himself but all of us are immigrants here and strangers and exiles. For it is not blood, my friends, nor blended breath (he says) which provides the substance and principle of our souls: from these the body has been fashioned, earth-born and mortal; but the soul has come here from elsewhere and he calls birth by the gentlest of terms, a journey abroad. And what is most true, the soul flees and wanders, driven by divine decrees and laws...when it is tied to the body, it cannot recall or remember from what honour and from what breadth of bliss it has come, having exchanged not Sardis for Athens, nor Corinth for Lemnos or Scyros, but the heavens and the moon for earth and an earthly life (Barnes, 113).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - This is why the Greeks live on another planet. They were sent to earth to live abroad by the gods. Some of them are still stuck in a cycle of birth-death in exile on earth, but some have returned to their home planet, where our traveler is being taken. They were sent to earth because of sin they committed, decreed to wander thrice ten thousand seasons far from the blessed ones. But, the gods got bored waiting and followed them to earth, forgot how to get home and have since traveled elsewhere. Only Prometheus, because of his punishment was sent back home to wait.
-Souls were 'long-lasting spirits' in his poetry because the soul is immortal
-Strife, the process by which things are coming apart in his cosmology punish the souls by forcing them to go from body to body
-the bodies of the animals men eat are the dwelling places of punished souls
-sex is bad because it makes men and women co-workers with strife
-He called those who gain the wealth of divine thoughts happy and those whose beliefs about the gods are dark are wretched
-believed that no part of the universe is empty
His biological evolution theory had four generations:
1st Generation of animals was just body parts
2nd Generation of animals were monstrous
3rd generation of animals are what we see today (properly joined limbs and such)
4th generation of animals is when Love is totally in dominance and all is One
"In the time of Love where many neckless heads sprang up" (Barnes, 142)
FUTUTRE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - A field of 'Love' where neckless heads are being grown like cabbages. There is a scarecrow in the field to scare away the strifebirds.
"Many were born double-headed and double-chested - man-faced oxen arose and again ox-headed men" (Barnes, 143).
For Empedocles blood contained the capacity to understand. Thought is located in the blood.
Empedocles was a vegetarian because he found that the souls migrated from one body to another. Eating an animal was a grave sin because you devour another when you eat meat.
Like Pythagoras, Empedocles said it was a sin to eat beans.
Empedocles had a Utopian ideal. In his Utopian age, the beasts and animals were friendly to man and man friendly to them.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
W.T. Jones - Rationalism, Empiricism and Pluralism
Up to this point in pre-Socratic philosophy the development of Greek thought has been Monist in nature. The Milesian Three came up with the idea that the primal stuff became all the things in the world and then went back again to that primal stuff it was. Heraclitus rejected the idea that anything was ever really one thing, but constantly changing. The monist thing for Heraclitus was a process of change. Parmenides (and Zeno and Melissus) rejected the idea of a process being a stuff. They returned to a single thing and because that single thing was a stuff, the idea that it could change made no sense. They built logical theorems that were sound and showed why if everything was one stuff it always had to be that way. Thus, everything is one; it is uncreated; it is indestructible; it is unchanging; and, it will always be that way.
Parmenides (and his followers) were absolute rationalists. They rejected empirical evidence because empirical evidence was gathered by the senses and the senses were deceptive. Not only were they deceptive but what they were perceiving was illusionary anyway. Double fault. Empiricists however rely on sensory perception. Much of the history of philosophy is studying people who took sides with one of these doctrines. But, for the most part accepting an absolute position on either leads to bad results. Pure rationalism ends up leading to some of Parmenides airtight logical arguments that make no sense. It's hard to argue against the logic of Parmenides, but things obviously change. Pure empiricism tends to lead to unsatisfactory results too.
What Parmenides and his followers never considered though was rejecting the monist basis of the Milesian three. Pluralism however was about to replace the monism of the Milesians.
Parmenides (and his followers) were absolute rationalists. They rejected empirical evidence because empirical evidence was gathered by the senses and the senses were deceptive. Not only were they deceptive but what they were perceiving was illusionary anyway. Double fault. Empiricists however rely on sensory perception. Much of the history of philosophy is studying people who took sides with one of these doctrines. But, for the most part accepting an absolute position on either leads to bad results. Pure rationalism ends up leading to some of Parmenides airtight logical arguments that make no sense. It's hard to argue against the logic of Parmenides, but things obviously change. Pure empiricism tends to lead to unsatisfactory results too.
What Parmenides and his followers never considered though was rejecting the monist basis of the Milesian three. Pluralism however was about to replace the monism of the Milesians.
Zeno
Zeno
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Zeno's Paradoxes
1) Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-way theres are infinite. It is impossible to go distances infinite in number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2) Achilles and the Tortoise - Achilles if he is chasing a tortoise will never actually overtake the tortoise in spite of seeming to be faster. No matter how fast Achilles runs he never catches where the tortoise is because of something akin to the half-way theres paradox. Achilles always ends up at a starting point of the tortoise.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Plato writes a fictional encounter between Zeno and Socrates in his dialogue Parmenides.
-Zeno was 40 when Parmenides was 65 (it was said the two were lovers)
-Zeno visited Athens for a festival when Socrates was very young
-The interaction between Zeno and Socrates has Zeno claiming that while it may seem counterintuitive to assume that only one thing exists, the opposite is actually true. By embracing monism you get less ridiculous logical outcomes than by embracing dualism or pluralism.
Zeno argues that pluralism demands that everything be infinitely divisible. If things are divided so often eventually the parts that constitute the whole will become so small they will decrease to nothing. Nothing cannot exist so there can be no division whatsoever. In this way he aims to show that the pluralists have even more crazy assertions than the monists because if everything is made up of infinitely divisible things then everything is made from things that are essentially nothing, which is a logical absurdity. This is the puzzle of dichotomy.
The whole point of Zeno's puzzles or paradoxes are not to do away with the One of Parmenides, "but rather with a plurality of things (by showing that those who hypothesize a plurality are committed to inconsistencies), thus confirming Parmenides' argument that what exists is one" (Barnes, 104).
Aristotle was not exactly kind to Zeno in his book Physics. He states that Zeno argues fallaciously and that he set up arguments simply to embarrass people. Aristotle tallies some arguments Zeno gives against motion:
1) The infinite half-way there paradoxes
2) Achilles and the tortoise
3) The traveling arrow stands still (based on the half-distances and the Achilles one)
Aristotle argues that Zeno's paradoxes are based on an erroneous presumption that time is made up of instances. But Aristotle argues that time is the limitless thing.
Zeno argues against space and places saying that if anything exists it will be in a place. But if a place exists then it will be in a place and if the place that holds the place exists it will too have to be in a place. Zeno uses the infinite regression to argue that places therefore can't exist.
Another quote from Zeno (though its veracity is doubted) about the impossibility of motion is "What is moving moves neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not" (Barnes, 108).
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Zeno's Paradoxes
1) Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-way theres are infinite. It is impossible to go distances infinite in number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2) Achilles and the Tortoise - Achilles if he is chasing a tortoise will never actually overtake the tortoise in spite of seeming to be faster. No matter how fast Achilles runs he never catches where the tortoise is because of something akin to the half-way theres paradox. Achilles always ends up at a starting point of the tortoise.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Plato writes a fictional encounter between Zeno and Socrates in his dialogue Parmenides.
-Zeno was 40 when Parmenides was 65 (it was said the two were lovers)
-Zeno visited Athens for a festival when Socrates was very young
-The interaction between Zeno and Socrates has Zeno claiming that while it may seem counterintuitive to assume that only one thing exists, the opposite is actually true. By embracing monism you get less ridiculous logical outcomes than by embracing dualism or pluralism.
Zeno argues that pluralism demands that everything be infinitely divisible. If things are divided so often eventually the parts that constitute the whole will become so small they will decrease to nothing. Nothing cannot exist so there can be no division whatsoever. In this way he aims to show that the pluralists have even more crazy assertions than the monists because if everything is made up of infinitely divisible things then everything is made from things that are essentially nothing, which is a logical absurdity. This is the puzzle of dichotomy.
The whole point of Zeno's puzzles or paradoxes are not to do away with the One of Parmenides, "but rather with a plurality of things (by showing that those who hypothesize a plurality are committed to inconsistencies), thus confirming Parmenides' argument that what exists is one" (Barnes, 104).
Aristotle was not exactly kind to Zeno in his book Physics. He states that Zeno argues fallaciously and that he set up arguments simply to embarrass people. Aristotle tallies some arguments Zeno gives against motion:
1) The infinite half-way there paradoxes
2) Achilles and the tortoise
3) The traveling arrow stands still (based on the half-distances and the Achilles one)
Aristotle argues that Zeno's paradoxes are based on an erroneous presumption that time is made up of instances. But Aristotle argues that time is the limitless thing.
Zeno argues against space and places saying that if anything exists it will be in a place. But if a place exists then it will be in a place and if the place that holds the place exists it will too have to be in a place. Zeno uses the infinite regression to argue that places therefore can't exist.
Another quote from Zeno (though its veracity is doubted) about the impossibility of motion is "What is moving moves neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not" (Barnes, 108).
Melissus
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathon Barnes
2001
Like Parmendies and Zeno, Melissus was in the Eleatic school.
Melissus was from Samos and at one point defeated Pericles and the Athenians in a sea battle. But, he is better known as a follower of Parmenides. Melissus' known book is actually a prose version of Parmenides' strange poetic work 'The Way of Truth'
Like Parmenides, he insists that whatever exist has always existed because it cannot have come from nothing (nothing can't exist) and it couldn't have come from something else (otherwise it would have always been that something in the first place).
He also agrees with Parmenides that nothing can be destroyed.
He also agrees that it it is limitless. Since it is limitless there can be nothing else. This is the justification for monism.
Since it is uncreated, indestructible and limitless making everything one, there is no change. You can't change anything into something else if there is only one limitless thing.
He also denies the possibility of motion. He does this by reasoning since everything is one, it cannot condense or become rarefied as earlier philosophers said because if it did condense or become rarefied it would be at the same time denser than itself, which is impossible. So since it cannot change it is full. If it is full then there is no chance for anything to move within itself.
"For what does not exist wholly cannot exist always" (Barnes, 94). Nothing can come into being. It exists or it does not.
He has an interesting thought on how the limitless thing cannot suffer pain: "Nor does it suffer pain. For if it is in pain it will not wholly exist; for a thing in pain cannot exist always, nor does it have equal power with what is healthy. Nor will it be similar if it suffers pain; for it will suffer pain by the loss or the addition of something, and it will no longer be similar. Nor could what is healthy suffer pain; for the health which existed would perish and what did not exist would come into being. With regard to suffering anguish, the same argument holds as for being in pain" (Barnes, 96). That's an interesting thought if Melissus equates the limitless with god in a pantheistic way.
The physical world for Melissus was 'the way of opinion', not in 'the way of truth'. The physical world isn't the true reality.
For both Parmenides and Melissus the physical objects of the world only seem to exist but have no true existence.
Jonathon Barnes
2001
Like Parmendies and Zeno, Melissus was in the Eleatic school.
Melissus was from Samos and at one point defeated Pericles and the Athenians in a sea battle. But, he is better known as a follower of Parmenides. Melissus' known book is actually a prose version of Parmenides' strange poetic work 'The Way of Truth'
Like Parmenides, he insists that whatever exist has always existed because it cannot have come from nothing (nothing can't exist) and it couldn't have come from something else (otherwise it would have always been that something in the first place).
He also agrees with Parmenides that nothing can be destroyed.
He also agrees that it it is limitless. Since it is limitless there can be nothing else. This is the justification for monism.
Since it is uncreated, indestructible and limitless making everything one, there is no change. You can't change anything into something else if there is only one limitless thing.
He also denies the possibility of motion. He does this by reasoning since everything is one, it cannot condense or become rarefied as earlier philosophers said because if it did condense or become rarefied it would be at the same time denser than itself, which is impossible. So since it cannot change it is full. If it is full then there is no chance for anything to move within itself.
"For what does not exist wholly cannot exist always" (Barnes, 94). Nothing can come into being. It exists or it does not.
He has an interesting thought on how the limitless thing cannot suffer pain: "Nor does it suffer pain. For if it is in pain it will not wholly exist; for a thing in pain cannot exist always, nor does it have equal power with what is healthy. Nor will it be similar if it suffers pain; for it will suffer pain by the loss or the addition of something, and it will no longer be similar. Nor could what is healthy suffer pain; for the health which existed would perish and what did not exist would come into being. With regard to suffering anguish, the same argument holds as for being in pain" (Barnes, 96). That's an interesting thought if Melissus equates the limitless with god in a pantheistic way.
The physical world for Melissus was 'the way of opinion', not in 'the way of truth'. The physical world isn't the true reality.
For both Parmenides and Melissus the physical objects of the world only seem to exist but have no true existence.
Parmenides
Parmenides
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
The first physicists and cosmologists to use the new geometric method of deductive reasoning from self-evident starting positions found that their logical conclusions clashed with the real world experience they had. The problem of perception was born.
Parmenides was consumed with the problem of change.
Parmenides started with monism and added two tautologies:
1) What is, is
2) What is not, is not
What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. 'Nothing' is essentially a meaningless word. His reasoning for claiming that there is no nothing is that it is impossible to think of nothing.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - The Parmenides - An Oxygen Like Bar where the users imbibe on a vapor that allows them to conceptualize nothing. It often drives its users to depression, madness and suicide. But, occasionally genius is borne out of using. Not recommended for persons on their first few cycles of birth and death.
From his two self-evident tautologies he deemed that what is, is uncreated, indestructible, eternal and unchangeable.
- It is uncreated because it was either created out of nothing or something. It can't be created out of nothing because nothing does not exist. It can't be created out of something because as a monist he assumed that there is only that one something.
-It is indestructible because to destroy it would make it become nothing. There is no nothing. Therefore it is indestructible.
-It is eternal because it is uncreated and indestructible.
-It is unchangeable because there is nothing it can change into in a monist system. Also, if it did change the old thing it was would become nothing. There is no nothing, so change is impossible.
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Heraclitus: everything changes
Parmenides: nothing changes
-From Elea, Southern Italy
-flourished circa 5th century BC
-Met with Socrates circa 450 BC
-Invented metaphysics based on logic
-believed the senses to be deceptive
-believed that the multitude of things was illusionary
-had two strands of thought: the way of truth and the way of opinion
Way of Truth: can't think about nothing, there is no nothing. there is no becoming and no passing away.
"Parmenides maintains that not only must George Washington have existed in the past, but in some sense he must still exist, since we can use his name significantly" (Russell, 49).
Parmenides' argument: if a word can be used significantly it must mean something and not nothing. Therefore, the meaning of the word must have some existence. This argument relies on the notion that the meaning of words is unchanging.
Because of the continual 'existence' that words guarantee, there really is no past. Since there is no past, there is no change.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
"What can be said and be thought of must be; for it can be, and nothing cannot" (Barnes, 81).
He warned against the senses and extolled man not to let habit and experience force you to trust the deceptive senses.
What is, is un-generated and indestructible. No past, no future, always is.
"Thinking and a thought that it is are the same thing" (Barnes, 83).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - This is the basis for the Parmenides Engine. Think of the place that you are going and you are there. This allows for the space explorer to travel the vastness of space in short periods of time without massive amounts of fuel. The problem is that it can only be piloted by someone able to focus their mind completely on a single object. Distracted pilots have had disastrous results with this type of engine. Sometimes they end up half in one place and half in another. Sometimes they end up somewhere as something else. Sometimes they end up nowhere, if they have recently imbibed on the Parmenides vapor. This is actually the origin of black holes.
"[Parmenides] was the first to declare that the earth is spherical and lies in the middle [of the universe] - Diogenes Laertius" (Barnes, 89).
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
The first physicists and cosmologists to use the new geometric method of deductive reasoning from self-evident starting positions found that their logical conclusions clashed with the real world experience they had. The problem of perception was born.
Parmenides was consumed with the problem of change.
Parmenides started with monism and added two tautologies:
1) What is, is
2) What is not, is not
What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. 'Nothing' is essentially a meaningless word. His reasoning for claiming that there is no nothing is that it is impossible to think of nothing.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - The Parmenides - An Oxygen Like Bar where the users imbibe on a vapor that allows them to conceptualize nothing. It often drives its users to depression, madness and suicide. But, occasionally genius is borne out of using. Not recommended for persons on their first few cycles of birth and death.
From his two self-evident tautologies he deemed that what is, is uncreated, indestructible, eternal and unchangeable.
- It is uncreated because it was either created out of nothing or something. It can't be created out of nothing because nothing does not exist. It can't be created out of something because as a monist he assumed that there is only that one something.
-It is indestructible because to destroy it would make it become nothing. There is no nothing. Therefore it is indestructible.
-It is eternal because it is uncreated and indestructible.
-It is unchangeable because there is nothing it can change into in a monist system. Also, if it did change the old thing it was would become nothing. There is no nothing, so change is impossible.
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Heraclitus: everything changes
Parmenides: nothing changes
-From Elea, Southern Italy
-flourished circa 5th century BC
-Met with Socrates circa 450 BC
-Invented metaphysics based on logic
-believed the senses to be deceptive
-believed that the multitude of things was illusionary
-had two strands of thought: the way of truth and the way of opinion
Way of Truth: can't think about nothing, there is no nothing. there is no becoming and no passing away.
"Parmenides maintains that not only must George Washington have existed in the past, but in some sense he must still exist, since we can use his name significantly" (Russell, 49).
Parmenides' argument: if a word can be used significantly it must mean something and not nothing. Therefore, the meaning of the word must have some existence. This argument relies on the notion that the meaning of words is unchanging.
Because of the continual 'existence' that words guarantee, there really is no past. Since there is no past, there is no change.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
"What can be said and be thought of must be; for it can be, and nothing cannot" (Barnes, 81).
He warned against the senses and extolled man not to let habit and experience force you to trust the deceptive senses.
What is, is un-generated and indestructible. No past, no future, always is.
"Thinking and a thought that it is are the same thing" (Barnes, 83).
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - This is the basis for the Parmenides Engine. Think of the place that you are going and you are there. This allows for the space explorer to travel the vastness of space in short periods of time without massive amounts of fuel. The problem is that it can only be piloted by someone able to focus their mind completely on a single object. Distracted pilots have had disastrous results with this type of engine. Sometimes they end up half in one place and half in another. Sometimes they end up somewhere as something else. Sometimes they end up nowhere, if they have recently imbibed on the Parmenides vapor. This is actually the origin of black holes.
"[Parmenides] was the first to declare that the earth is spherical and lies in the middle [of the universe] - Diogenes Laertius" (Barnes, 89).
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)