Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathon Barnes
2001
Chapter 2 - Thales
According to Aristotle, Thales was the founder of natural philosophy and lived sometime between 625 BC and 545 BC. He is famous for observing or predicting an eclipse on May 28, 585 BC.
Thales may have or may not have written a book. There were no existing texts authored by him by the time of Aristotle so all knowledge we have of him comes from later writers.
"Thales was a man of practical wisdom, one of the so-called Seven Sages of early Greek history, and he was regarded by posterity not only as an original contributor to science and philosophy, but also as an astute statesman" (Barnes, 9).
Herodotus notes that he formed a political system for Ionia and that he engineered an easier crossing point for an army, marking both his ability as a statesmen and an engineer.
Aristotle notes that Thales held that everything was made from water and that water was the material principle of the world. This material principle comes and goes and is born and destroyed, returning to the original principle; thus, the substance remains while its properties change. He also notes that Thales seems to have believed that the soul was the cause of motion and that the soul is mixed with everything in the universe. "Perhaps this is why Thales thought that everything was full of gods" (Barnes, 12).
Proclus, a student of Aristotle, gives Thales credit for numerous geometrical functions that were used in practical matters, like the theorem that states a pair of triangles with one equal side and two equal angles are equal, which Thales used to determine the distance of ships out to sea.
Many ancient writers said Thales was descended from an exiled Phoenician family, but this is doubtful. He is most likely a native of a well-to-do Milesian family.
Various ancient writers have said that he was a great many things, and a great many first of things. He is thought to have been an early astronomer, geometry master, philosopher, scientist and an early proponent of the notion of an immortal soul.
Hermippus quotes Thales giving thanks for three things: "First, that I am a man and not a beast; secondly, that I am male and not female; thirdly, that I am Greek and not foreign" (Barnes, 15).
He was ascribed numerous aphorisms, my favorite of which is when he claimed that life is no different than death. A smart ass then asked, why don't you die? To which, Thales replied, because death is no different than life. In dealing with sin he said that no man can escape the notice of the gods if he does wrong, even if he thinks of doing wrong. When someone who had committed adultery asked him if he should lie about it in court, he told the man perjury is no worse than adultery.
His ethical stance comes from another aphorism in answering the question 'how can we live most justly? To which he replied, by not doing ourselves what we blame others for doing.
A History of Western Philosophy - The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Thales was from Miletus, an Ionian colony on the coast of Asia. According to Aristotle, who lived 250 years later, Thales believed that water is the cause of all things and that all things were filled with gods.
While much of our knowledge of Thales is conjectural and second hand (and third hand and fourth hand, etc.) just those two things show that Thales viewed the world process in natural terms, in breaking with the more mystical earlier elements of Greek thought. His cosmology wasn't quite science yet, but it was no longer a mere genealogy of deities describing natural events.
Thales, being interested in the natural world must have seen water as being able to transform into various things (air through evaporation, earth through witnessing deltas, etc.) and his predisposition to believing that the world was somehow one thing, water seemed like a natural choice.
Thales was a break from the Hesiods of the world. Hesiod was a master poet, but his Theogony was merely a poetic genealogy of gods wrapped into a creation myth. Later poets could improve upon the poetry aspect and be better poets than Hesiod, but they would still be trading in myths. Thales' greatest contribution was his breaking from the myth business and entering the scientist business. Better science and scientists would come along after Thales, but without his break from myth, science could never have started. Thales proposed a theory, something testable. And while water may not be the original substance, it could be falsified, rejected and a new theory could be produced. Hesiod's Theogony cannot be refuted, it can only be written from a different point of view, if the different point of view had a more fluid style of poetry.
"Thales' name is remembered then, because he was the first person whom we know to have answered in natural terms the question, 'Why do things happen as they do?'" (Jones, 9). Much of western philosophy for a long time was shaped by testing Thales' assertion, rejecting or revising it because of the various paradoxes it produced.
Thales' first major assumption was monism. That is to say, that there was one thing that was the cause of everything else. His second major assumption was that this one thing was in fact a thing, not a god. Thirdly, he assumed that the ultimate stuff is active and can change. In his notion that 'everything was full of gods' he was not making a theological statement, rather explicitly denying divine causation. The Greek notion, beginning with Homer, was that the gods were causal agents. By Thales' assertion that everything was full of gods, he was denying the Homeric notion that the gods caused change, but the thing itself was the cause of change.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter II - The Milesian School
Miletus was a flourishing commercial city in Asia Minor when Thales was making his discoveries. But it was a city rife with class struggles between a large slave population and the lower and upper classes. The commercial nature of the Ionian coastal towns brought them into contact with the Kingdom of Lydia and Egypt. These contacts brought them contact with the wider ancient world.
"His science and philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation" (Russell, 26).
A great story that Russell relates is that Thales was made fun of for being poor. So, Thales purchased all of the olive presses in the town in winter at a low price and rented them out for an exorbitant profit in summer time. He is said to have stated, 'philosophers could be rich if they wanted, but their aims are elsewhere'.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The Rise of Greek Civilization - Part II
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
Greek civilization took an enormous step by adopting and adapting the Phoenician alphabet. The Greeks took it and added vowels to suit their needs.
The first "notable product of the Hellenic civilization was Homer" (Russell, 10). Homer was probably a series of poets and his masterpieces The Iliad and the Odyssey probably took about 200 years from 750 BC - 550 BC to crystalize into current form. Homeric poems arrived in Athens between 560 - 527 BC. Homer became the chief education of any Athenian youth.
"It must be admitted that religion, in Homer, is not very religious" (Russell, 11). The gods are exactly like men, but immortal and more powerful. The only genuine religious feeling found in Homer is directed at the Fate. The gods of Homer were a conquering aristocracy, not a band of useful fertility gods looking out for mankind.
The Olympian gods of Homer were not the only religious entities in ancient Greece. There were fertility cults, ritualistic and barbaric religions that offered human sacrifice and practiced cannibalism as a rite, and the religion of Pan managed to combine both of these elements into its worship. There was also the religion that surrounded Dionysus (Bacchus). Dionysus was originally a Thracian god. In Thrace, Bacchus was honored as being the inventor of beer because it gave divine intoxication. He was even more praised when they discovered wine. The religion migrated from Thrace to Greece, and in spite of being opposed by the religious orthodoxy it established itself in Greece and continued to develop into a mystical religion.
Civilization becomes coherent by the use of forethought. Forethought in society leads to laws, customs and religion. In Greece this manifested itself as a desire for prudence and moderation. The invasion of Bacchic religion from Thrace resulted in popularity for the religion partly because much of the non-aristocratic classes saw it as a way to react against an increasingly restrictive prudence being imposed upon them by the upper class.
"Without the Bacchic element, life would be uninteresting; with it, it is dangerous. Prudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party" (Russell, 16).
The influence that Bacchus has on the philosophical traditions does not come from the primitive and savage form of the religion, but from the mystical reworking of the religion done through Orpheus and the Orphics. The Orphics believed in a transmigration of souls, an afterlife based on works during this life and a wish to become one with the Bacchus through purification rituals and abstaining from certain things.
The primitive religious elements involved recreating the Bacchic myth by tearing animals limb to limb in sacrifice. This brought about intoxication through eating the flesh as it symbolized Bacchus (a god) entering into the earth-born (originally the Titans, but now the practitioners). Thus, the man who practices this Bacchic rite becomes at once, both man and god.
The most direct route that Bacchic religion had on philosophy began with Orpheus' reformation. Then Pythagoras reformed Orpheus' reformation and Pythagoras had a major influence on Plato who influenced the whole of western philosophy.
The Greeks themselves were a combination of the orthodoxy that rejected the Bacchic influence and the revelers in the rites of Dionysus. They believed in everything in moderation but practiced excess in all walks of life. They were at the same time religious and mystical, empirical and scientific. They were passionate and sensible simultaneously.
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
Greek civilization took an enormous step by adopting and adapting the Phoenician alphabet. The Greeks took it and added vowels to suit their needs.
The first "notable product of the Hellenic civilization was Homer" (Russell, 10). Homer was probably a series of poets and his masterpieces The Iliad and the Odyssey probably took about 200 years from 750 BC - 550 BC to crystalize into current form. Homeric poems arrived in Athens between 560 - 527 BC. Homer became the chief education of any Athenian youth.
"It must be admitted that religion, in Homer, is not very religious" (Russell, 11). The gods are exactly like men, but immortal and more powerful. The only genuine religious feeling found in Homer is directed at the Fate. The gods of Homer were a conquering aristocracy, not a band of useful fertility gods looking out for mankind.
The Olympian gods of Homer were not the only religious entities in ancient Greece. There were fertility cults, ritualistic and barbaric religions that offered human sacrifice and practiced cannibalism as a rite, and the religion of Pan managed to combine both of these elements into its worship. There was also the religion that surrounded Dionysus (Bacchus). Dionysus was originally a Thracian god. In Thrace, Bacchus was honored as being the inventor of beer because it gave divine intoxication. He was even more praised when they discovered wine. The religion migrated from Thrace to Greece, and in spite of being opposed by the religious orthodoxy it established itself in Greece and continued to develop into a mystical religion.
Civilization becomes coherent by the use of forethought. Forethought in society leads to laws, customs and religion. In Greece this manifested itself as a desire for prudence and moderation. The invasion of Bacchic religion from Thrace resulted in popularity for the religion partly because much of the non-aristocratic classes saw it as a way to react against an increasingly restrictive prudence being imposed upon them by the upper class.
"Without the Bacchic element, life would be uninteresting; with it, it is dangerous. Prudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party" (Russell, 16).
The influence that Bacchus has on the philosophical traditions does not come from the primitive and savage form of the religion, but from the mystical reworking of the religion done through Orpheus and the Orphics. The Orphics believed in a transmigration of souls, an afterlife based on works during this life and a wish to become one with the Bacchus through purification rituals and abstaining from certain things.
The primitive religious elements involved recreating the Bacchic myth by tearing animals limb to limb in sacrifice. This brought about intoxication through eating the flesh as it symbolized Bacchus (a god) entering into the earth-born (originally the Titans, but now the practitioners). Thus, the man who practices this Bacchic rite becomes at once, both man and god.
The most direct route that Bacchic religion had on philosophy began with Orpheus' reformation. Then Pythagoras reformed Orpheus' reformation and Pythagoras had a major influence on Plato who influenced the whole of western philosophy.
The Greeks themselves were a combination of the orthodoxy that rejected the Bacchic influence and the revelers in the rites of Dionysus. They believed in everything in moderation but practiced excess in all walks of life. They were at the same time religious and mystical, empirical and scientific. They were passionate and sensible simultaneously.
The Rise of Greek Civilization - Part 1
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
The rise of the Greeks to such extraordinary heights is surprising. Civilization had existed thousands of years prior to the Greeks popping up on the scene in Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. But, the Greeks supplied a number of crucial inventions to society: their art and literature is incredible, but their invention of mathematics, science and philosophy were crucial. They were the first to history rather than merely annals and "they speculated freely about the nature of the world and the ends of life, without being bound in the fetters of any inherited orthodoxy" (Russell, 3).
In Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories the civilizations were supported by great rivers. A king rose up and aristocracies formed by military men and priests grew up around the king to check his powers. The people were often serfs of the king and/or the aristocrats. While there are huge differences between Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions there was a strong connection between law and lawgivers (deities) that transformed both cultures. "The connection between religion and morality became continually closer throughout ancient times" (Russell, 5). Since the laws were associated with the state and the gods, breaking a law was sinful as well.
The Greek civilization seems to have sprung from the classical Cretan civilization The Minoans. The Minoan civilization was a commercial empire that transacted with Egypt and ancient Syria/Asia Minor. At some point they traveled to mainland Greece and became the Mycenaean Civilization either by conquest or integration with the local population. "The Mycenaean civilization, seen through a haze of legend, is that which is depicted in Homer" (Russell, 7).
"The Greeks came to Greece in three successive waves, first the Ionians, then the Achaeans, and last the Dorians" (Russell, 7). The Ionians adopted the Cretan civilization pretty much fully. The Achaeans displaced the Ionians and some of the remaining Mycenaean civilization. The Dorians destroyed the weakened Mycenaean civilization altogether.
"The Dorians retained the original Indo-European religion of their ancestors. The religion of Mycenaean times, however, lingered on, especially in the lower classes, and the religion of classical Greece was a blend of the two" (Russell, 8).
Some of the Greeks became farmers, but the ones who made impacts moved further into islands, Asia Minor, Sicily and Southern Italy where they became seafaring commercial opportunists. It was these Greeks that first impacted the world.
Because of the Greek landscape, independent communities sprang up on the mainland that were isolated from one another. Thus, various social systems developed simultaneously. Generally speaking though the development of society began with a sort of limited monarchy, then aristocracy before devolving into a rotating door of tyranny and democracy.
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
The rise of the Greeks to such extraordinary heights is surprising. Civilization had existed thousands of years prior to the Greeks popping up on the scene in Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. But, the Greeks supplied a number of crucial inventions to society: their art and literature is incredible, but their invention of mathematics, science and philosophy were crucial. They were the first to history rather than merely annals and "they speculated freely about the nature of the world and the ends of life, without being bound in the fetters of any inherited orthodoxy" (Russell, 3).
In Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories the civilizations were supported by great rivers. A king rose up and aristocracies formed by military men and priests grew up around the king to check his powers. The people were often serfs of the king and/or the aristocrats. While there are huge differences between Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions there was a strong connection between law and lawgivers (deities) that transformed both cultures. "The connection between religion and morality became continually closer throughout ancient times" (Russell, 5). Since the laws were associated with the state and the gods, breaking a law was sinful as well.
The Greek civilization seems to have sprung from the classical Cretan civilization The Minoans. The Minoan civilization was a commercial empire that transacted with Egypt and ancient Syria/Asia Minor. At some point they traveled to mainland Greece and became the Mycenaean Civilization either by conquest or integration with the local population. "The Mycenaean civilization, seen through a haze of legend, is that which is depicted in Homer" (Russell, 7).
"The Greeks came to Greece in three successive waves, first the Ionians, then the Achaeans, and last the Dorians" (Russell, 7). The Ionians adopted the Cretan civilization pretty much fully. The Achaeans displaced the Ionians and some of the remaining Mycenaean civilization. The Dorians destroyed the weakened Mycenaean civilization altogether.
"The Dorians retained the original Indo-European religion of their ancestors. The religion of Mycenaean times, however, lingered on, especially in the lower classes, and the religion of classical Greece was a blend of the two" (Russell, 8).
Some of the Greeks became farmers, but the ones who made impacts moved further into islands, Asia Minor, Sicily and Southern Italy where they became seafaring commercial opportunists. It was these Greeks that first impacted the world.
Because of the Greek landscape, independent communities sprang up on the mainland that were isolated from one another. Thus, various social systems developed simultaneously. Generally speaking though the development of society began with a sort of limited monarchy, then aristocracy before devolving into a rotating door of tyranny and democracy.
God and Nature in Hesiod
A History of Western Philosophy - The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Just like Homer, Hesiod was a man of his times. In Hesiod's age, Greece was suffering from some socioeconomic pressures. Small farmers were being pressured to choose between serfdom and emigration. Hesiod, in his writings, appears to have been such a small farmer, as he railed against the nobles who oppressed the poor.
This conception changed the theology surrounding Zeus. If Zeus was like the capricious kings of the Homeric age that punished human insolence rather than human wrongdoing in Homer, Zeus was a ruler who would eventually punish all human wrongdoing in Hesiod. Homer lived in a warrior class society and thus, hübris (insubordination) was the chief sin. Hesiod lived in a society where oppression was rife and thus, oppression became the chief sin.
Zeus was transformed from a capricious and impulsive god in Homer to a justice-minded ruler in Hesiod. In that way, the cosmos lost its impulsive nature and became much more well ordered in Hesiod's writings.
Hesiod also transformed fate from something indifferent to the plights of men into a force which Zeus used to form the moral law and the enforcement of that moral law.
A typical Greek view is expressed in Hesiod's Works and Days: "Man is different from the rest of nature; he has an obligation to live in a characteristically human way, to do certain acts and to abstain from doing others... Man must live up to his responsibilities as a man" (Jones, 7).
Moderation is a key concept of being a man. Animals are not expected to temper their impulses. But, man is capable of discipline and must live by this principle. For, if they don't live by this unique human aspect, they will pay for their sins.
In spite of the advancements of theology surrounding Zeus and the morality of human beings and gods, Homer and Hesiod both exist in pre-philosophy and the mythic. Hesiod's Theogony reads like a genealogy of anthropomorphizing the natural world.
W.T. Jones
1980
Just like Homer, Hesiod was a man of his times. In Hesiod's age, Greece was suffering from some socioeconomic pressures. Small farmers were being pressured to choose between serfdom and emigration. Hesiod, in his writings, appears to have been such a small farmer, as he railed against the nobles who oppressed the poor.
This conception changed the theology surrounding Zeus. If Zeus was like the capricious kings of the Homeric age that punished human insolence rather than human wrongdoing in Homer, Zeus was a ruler who would eventually punish all human wrongdoing in Hesiod. Homer lived in a warrior class society and thus, hübris (insubordination) was the chief sin. Hesiod lived in a society where oppression was rife and thus, oppression became the chief sin.
Zeus was transformed from a capricious and impulsive god in Homer to a justice-minded ruler in Hesiod. In that way, the cosmos lost its impulsive nature and became much more well ordered in Hesiod's writings.
Hesiod also transformed fate from something indifferent to the plights of men into a force which Zeus used to form the moral law and the enforcement of that moral law.
A typical Greek view is expressed in Hesiod's Works and Days: "Man is different from the rest of nature; he has an obligation to live in a characteristically human way, to do certain acts and to abstain from doing others... Man must live up to his responsibilities as a man" (Jones, 7).
Moderation is a key concept of being a man. Animals are not expected to temper their impulses. But, man is capable of discipline and must live by this principle. For, if they don't live by this unique human aspect, they will pay for their sins.
In spite of the advancements of theology surrounding Zeus and the morality of human beings and gods, Homer and Hesiod both exist in pre-philosophy and the mythic. Hesiod's Theogony reads like a genealogy of anthropomorphizing the natural world.
God and Nature in Homer
A History of Western Philosophy - The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Philosophy has murky beginnings, not because of lost records, but because by the very nature of philosophy as process and gradual change. There is a continuum; thus, no definitive beginning to western philosophy.
God & Nature in Homer
In Homer, Zeus is not an all-powerful god. He is beseeched by his children, prayed to by both other gods and men. The gods of Homer were a reflection of the Homeric state. "The Greek state, as Homer described it, was monarchial in principle, but the king was by no means an absolute monarch. Public opinion, as represented by the warriors and nobles - not the 'people', of course - clearly played a part in limiting the royal prerogative" (Jones, 4). But, this limited royal prerogative could be overridden by the ruler as there was no law checking the king/chieftain. [Side note, make this the government of the Future Modern Ancient Greeks].
Homer did not believe in a regularly ordered cosmos. The irregularities of nature like thunderstorms, severe winters, unexpected winds, accidents that flew in the face of ordered cosmos were attributed to the whims of the gods. Simply put, there were regular occurrences and an ordered cosmos to an extent, but "the gods can never be counted on not to interrupt this order" (Jones, 4). Plus, Zeus, the supreme authority was impulsive in nature and likely to throw a monkey wrench in the plans of other gods and men.
Key to Homeric beliefs is the virtue of moderation and the vice of hübris. In Greek society, even when the king overrides the majority opinion, the men do not protest for they know that punishment will come down from above. While some of the irregularities in the natural order are caused by the gods' whims, mean-spirited nature and infighting, some are attributed to the gods' punishment of man's hübris.
The worship of the gods comes about not because the gods are inherently good and deserving of worship, but because the gods have power over men. Prayers and offerings are lifted up to the gods because it is expedient to do so. It's good to have a god on your side when you're out and about.
When the gods punish men it isn't because they've done something immoral or wrong. They punish because the man has annoyed the gods in some manner by violating the regulations of those gods. In Homer, the regulations that gods hand down to men are not to ensure good for man, but good for the gods.
In this way, the prayers and petitions of men to the gods functions like a tit-for-tat kind of thing. Prayers and sacrifices are offered to get a desired outcome. The gods accept it and should reward the man. If the gods fail to reward the man, then the man is justified in expressing his outrage.
Homer's gods are causal agents. They cause the regularly ordered cosmos and the interruptions of those ordered events. But, above the gods is fate, which even Zeus must yield to.
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Philosophy has murky beginnings, not because of lost records, but because by the very nature of philosophy as process and gradual change. There is a continuum; thus, no definitive beginning to western philosophy.
God & Nature in Homer
In Homer, Zeus is not an all-powerful god. He is beseeched by his children, prayed to by both other gods and men. The gods of Homer were a reflection of the Homeric state. "The Greek state, as Homer described it, was monarchial in principle, but the king was by no means an absolute monarch. Public opinion, as represented by the warriors and nobles - not the 'people', of course - clearly played a part in limiting the royal prerogative" (Jones, 4). But, this limited royal prerogative could be overridden by the ruler as there was no law checking the king/chieftain. [Side note, make this the government of the Future Modern Ancient Greeks].
Homer did not believe in a regularly ordered cosmos. The irregularities of nature like thunderstorms, severe winters, unexpected winds, accidents that flew in the face of ordered cosmos were attributed to the whims of the gods. Simply put, there were regular occurrences and an ordered cosmos to an extent, but "the gods can never be counted on not to interrupt this order" (Jones, 4). Plus, Zeus, the supreme authority was impulsive in nature and likely to throw a monkey wrench in the plans of other gods and men.
Key to Homeric beliefs is the virtue of moderation and the vice of hübris. In Greek society, even when the king overrides the majority opinion, the men do not protest for they know that punishment will come down from above. While some of the irregularities in the natural order are caused by the gods' whims, mean-spirited nature and infighting, some are attributed to the gods' punishment of man's hübris.
The worship of the gods comes about not because the gods are inherently good and deserving of worship, but because the gods have power over men. Prayers and offerings are lifted up to the gods because it is expedient to do so. It's good to have a god on your side when you're out and about.
When the gods punish men it isn't because they've done something immoral or wrong. They punish because the man has annoyed the gods in some manner by violating the regulations of those gods. In Homer, the regulations that gods hand down to men are not to ensure good for man, but good for the gods.
In this way, the prayers and petitions of men to the gods functions like a tit-for-tat kind of thing. Prayers and sacrifices are offered to get a desired outcome. The gods accept it and should reward the man. If the gods fail to reward the man, then the man is justified in expressing his outrage.
Homer's gods are causal agents. They cause the regularly ordered cosmos and the interruptions of those ordered events. But, above the gods is fate, which even Zeus must yield to.
Notes on Early Greek Philosophy (Precursors)
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Thales, though considered the first philosopher, did not operate from an absolute starting point. Instead he drew on two primary sources that influenced his philosophy. The first was his pre-philosophic Greek writers, mainly poets. Two of these were most definitely Homer and Hesiod. Especially in Hesiod's Theogony you see an order forming.
Hesiod claims that the 'race of immortals who exist forever' came from first the Expanse. Expanse bore Darkness and Night. Night bore Ether and Day by joining with Love. Earth and Heaven and Mountains and Sea and Ocean were born as well as other gods. The account of the origins of the earth by Hesiod wasn't scientific, but a scientific story as many of the gods are personifications of naturally occurring phenomena.
What is interesting about Hesiod's origin of the gods poem is that later philosophers used the problem of infinite regress to refute him. Diogenes Laeritus, writing in the 5th century BC basically asks, if Expanse came first How could that be? He had nothing to come from and nowhere to go in the beginning so Expanse couldn't have come first. Therefore, "These things existed always" (Barnes, 5). Likewise Sextus Empiricus (circa 160-210 AD) recounts how Epicurus turned to philosophy. When Epicurus asked the schoolmaster what Expanse came from if it came first, the teacher replied it wasn't his job to explain that, it was the job of the philosopher. From that moment Epicurus took up the mantle of philosophy.
Many of the later ancient Greeks seemed to think think that the early Pre-Socratics got their philosophy going when they visited eastern lands like Assyria and Egypt. In fact there are some resemblances between Hesiod's cosmology and that of the Babylonian Epic the Enuma Elishu and that of the Egyptian Creation Myth.
For Barnes though, "Both the Babylonian and the Egyptian stories bear comparison with Hesiod as examples of mythical cosmogony. Many scholars compare stories more directly with Greek philosophy, suggesting (for example) that Thales' ideas about the importance of water may derive from the primordial significance of Mummu-Tiamat and Nun. To me Thales seems to live in a different and a more luminous world" (Barnes, 8). In other words, while there are superficial resemblances to the precursors to the Pre-Socratics and the creation myths of the Ancient Near East, Thales seems to be a break from those in a more philosophical/scientific way of thinking than the much earlier mythical cosmologies.
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Thales, though considered the first philosopher, did not operate from an absolute starting point. Instead he drew on two primary sources that influenced his philosophy. The first was his pre-philosophic Greek writers, mainly poets. Two of these were most definitely Homer and Hesiod. Especially in Hesiod's Theogony you see an order forming.
Hesiod claims that the 'race of immortals who exist forever' came from first the Expanse. Expanse bore Darkness and Night. Night bore Ether and Day by joining with Love. Earth and Heaven and Mountains and Sea and Ocean were born as well as other gods. The account of the origins of the earth by Hesiod wasn't scientific, but a scientific story as many of the gods are personifications of naturally occurring phenomena.
What is interesting about Hesiod's origin of the gods poem is that later philosophers used the problem of infinite regress to refute him. Diogenes Laeritus, writing in the 5th century BC basically asks, if Expanse came first How could that be? He had nothing to come from and nowhere to go in the beginning so Expanse couldn't have come first. Therefore, "These things existed always" (Barnes, 5). Likewise Sextus Empiricus (circa 160-210 AD) recounts how Epicurus turned to philosophy. When Epicurus asked the schoolmaster what Expanse came from if it came first, the teacher replied it wasn't his job to explain that, it was the job of the philosopher. From that moment Epicurus took up the mantle of philosophy.
Many of the later ancient Greeks seemed to think think that the early Pre-Socratics got their philosophy going when they visited eastern lands like Assyria and Egypt. In fact there are some resemblances between Hesiod's cosmology and that of the Babylonian Epic the Enuma Elishu and that of the Egyptian Creation Myth.
For Barnes though, "Both the Babylonian and the Egyptian stories bear comparison with Hesiod as examples of mythical cosmogony. Many scholars compare stories more directly with Greek philosophy, suggesting (for example) that Thales' ideas about the importance of water may derive from the primordial significance of Mummu-Tiamat and Nun. To me Thales seems to live in a different and a more luminous world" (Barnes, 8). In other words, while there are superficial resemblances to the precursors to the Pre-Socratics and the creation myths of the Ancient Near East, Thales seems to be a break from those in a more philosophical/scientific way of thinking than the much earlier mythical cosmologies.
Portland - Day 6
After that we did a little window shopping on Hawthorne street before going to Echo Theater to see "Let's Play", a local version of something akin to Cirque Du Soleil. The show however began with a puppet show aimed at many of the children in the audience and I began to scowl at spending our last night like this. Phil and Erin conspired with the performers to get me onto the stage to sing "Bom Bom", as pictured to the left. But, after the children's show ended their ten minute performance the rest of the show was populated by acrobatics and a bit of comedy. While the comedy was aimed at the many children in the audience, the show was very enjoyable to watch. After the show we headed home and hung out for a bit before going to bed as our flight demanded we leave Phil's house at 5 the next morning. Erin and I woke up at 5 and nearly missed our flight! All in all, the trip to Portland was fun, but the best part was finally to get to see my brother in where he has chosen to live after many years of not getting out there.
Portland - Day 5
After we dropped my mom off at the airport we went to Mount Saint Helens and stopped at numerous points on the way to see the volcano from all different vantage points. It was truly spectacular and even the learning center we went to was fun and informative. We debated taking a helicopter ride over the mountain, but not too seriously as the cost was a bit prohibitive for us on our budget. Maybe the next time we will take this adventure.
After driving back we stopped in downtown Portland at Powell's Bookstore. It's size was almost overbearing. I could have spent a full day here, but spared my companions of that boredom. I picked up a couple of books after speed visiting the sections of this goliath. From there we went to another record shop and went up to Mount Tabor to watch the sunset. Unfortunately, we arrived hours before the sunset and unruly teenagers just let out from the last day of school made staying up there seem untenable for hours. We went to a food cart pod where we ate Poutine, a sweet crepe and oddly fascinating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. They were not just any sandwiches, the two we had were as follows: first, there was the peanut butter with spicy thai chicken, basil, sriracha and jelly. Second, there was the peanut butter, homemade pickles and shredded pork with jelly. On top of the poutine it was impossible to finish the second sandwich and it served as my breakfast the next morning.
Portland - Day 4
This, little tidbit was only interesting because they day we had gone to Multnomah Falls my three companions freaked out when they discovered that the trunk to our rental car was open. But, it was only open because we had a rental car and I, being the primary driver, had approached another red car that I assumed was ours from a distance and popped the trunk. When I saw that a red car a few spaces down had its trunk opened by my command I realized my error and changed course. All three of my companions by this point had become aware of the open trunk and ran to check that nothing had been stolen and each scolded me for leaving the trunk open. I laughed at their reaction and told them what had happened and they responded in turn. When then, I discovered they had left not one, but two car doors completely ajar at the berry picking farm their responses were much more muted. "No big deal". "Stop freaking out". Oh, the irony! The light-hearted hypocrisy!
After berry picking we stayed on the Columbia River and had intentions of going in for a quick swim. But, it wasn't as hot after the drive so Phil and I barely waded in and we instead sipped on ales and read on the shore. We returned to Phil's home in Portland and showered and readied ourselves for Pizza at Ken's Artisan Pizza where my brother works. Delicious pizza. It is truly some of the best pizza I've had outside of Rome. After pizza we stepped into a pool hall for a game and Phil explained that he had shown some of his artwork here before.
Portland - Day 3
Portland - Day 2
Notes on Jason & Medea
Once again I've finished a Penguin 80p book. I love these because they're usually excerpts of good books, but since they are contained within their own binding I can count them as a book on my yearly goal. Maybe that's cheating; maybe it isn't. But, I only set the goal in June, so I needed to get a boost to hit 50 by the end of the year. So, these classics are helping out a bit.
This story of Jason and Medea comes from Apollonius of Rhodes in the form of his epic poem The Voyage of Argo. As stated in previous posts, I love ancient history and have since an early age. Much of that is because my parents made me read a lot as a young child and much of that is because of classic epic movies from the fifties and sixties (and earlier). This myth was no exception.
I had some abridged version for young readers in my recent memory when I first saw the 1963 film, Jason and the Argonauts. The story was good; the acting was hammy and perfect; but, the film came alive to me because of the claymation. Oddly enough, the stop-animation director, Ray Harryhausen retired after making my favorite 'epic' movie of my childhood, the 1981 Clash of the Titans. The modern remake of Jason and the Argonauts was everything that the old film was not. Good graphics and terrible. I actually enjoyed the remake of Clash of the Titans, but missed the claymation owl. That is neither here nor there, however.
This excerpt from the longer epic poem deals with Jason arriving at Colchis and the goddesses conspiring to help him attain the Golden Fleece. Jason does his bit with the fire breathing bulls plough and teeth seeds and proceeds to slaughter the crop much to the chagrin of King Aetes and the delight/agony of his daughter Medea. The story is well known, but there were a couple of things that stuck out to me on this reading.
First, was the interesting death ritual of the Colchians. "They never bury them or raise a mound above them, but wrap them in untanned oxhide and hang them up on trees at a distance from the town. Thus, since it is their custom to bury women, earth and air play equal parts in the disposal of their dead" (Apollonius, 8-9). I happen to be doing a preliminary study on Pre-Socratic at the moment I think this statement stuck out because of that little study and because the imagery of the dead being hung in trees as ritual, not punitive was an interesting image in my head. But, because of the Greek sense of justice being balance the fact that earth and air play equal parts in their death ritual makes sense, so that neither air nor earth would overstep its bounds.
Another interesting point came to me in the inequality and equality given to male and female characters. Medea is a rock star in the book, but the male characters aren't super keen on giving her that status. The author has no problem with it, but Jason states, "But oh, how bleak the prospect is, with our one hope of seeing home again in women's hands" (Apollonius, 18).
Mopsus reads a sign and declares, "May all turn out as I foresee, reading the omens with my inward eye" (Apollonius, 21). I like the imagery of a mystical reading using the 'inward eye'.
I also enjoyed the description of Medea and her pains and love for Jason. "Tears of pity ran down her cheeks and her whole body was possessed by agony, a searing pain which shot along her nerves and deep into the nape of her neck, that vulnerable spot where the relentless archery of Love causes the keenest pangs" (Apollonius, 28). I'm not really sure why I liked it so much, but the description stuck with me.
This story of Jason and Medea comes from Apollonius of Rhodes in the form of his epic poem The Voyage of Argo. As stated in previous posts, I love ancient history and have since an early age. Much of that is because my parents made me read a lot as a young child and much of that is because of classic epic movies from the fifties and sixties (and earlier). This myth was no exception.
I had some abridged version for young readers in my recent memory when I first saw the 1963 film, Jason and the Argonauts. The story was good; the acting was hammy and perfect; but, the film came alive to me because of the claymation. Oddly enough, the stop-animation director, Ray Harryhausen retired after making my favorite 'epic' movie of my childhood, the 1981 Clash of the Titans. The modern remake of Jason and the Argonauts was everything that the old film was not. Good graphics and terrible. I actually enjoyed the remake of Clash of the Titans, but missed the claymation owl. That is neither here nor there, however.
This excerpt from the longer epic poem deals with Jason arriving at Colchis and the goddesses conspiring to help him attain the Golden Fleece. Jason does his bit with the fire breathing bulls plough and teeth seeds and proceeds to slaughter the crop much to the chagrin of King Aetes and the delight/agony of his daughter Medea. The story is well known, but there were a couple of things that stuck out to me on this reading.
First, was the interesting death ritual of the Colchians. "They never bury them or raise a mound above them, but wrap them in untanned oxhide and hang them up on trees at a distance from the town. Thus, since it is their custom to bury women, earth and air play equal parts in the disposal of their dead" (Apollonius, 8-9). I happen to be doing a preliminary study on Pre-Socratic at the moment I think this statement stuck out because of that little study and because the imagery of the dead being hung in trees as ritual, not punitive was an interesting image in my head. But, because of the Greek sense of justice being balance the fact that earth and air play equal parts in their death ritual makes sense, so that neither air nor earth would overstep its bounds.
Another interesting point came to me in the inequality and equality given to male and female characters. Medea is a rock star in the book, but the male characters aren't super keen on giving her that status. The author has no problem with it, but Jason states, "But oh, how bleak the prospect is, with our one hope of seeing home again in women's hands" (Apollonius, 18).
Mopsus reads a sign and declares, "May all turn out as I foresee, reading the omens with my inward eye" (Apollonius, 21). I like the imagery of a mystical reading using the 'inward eye'.
I also enjoyed the description of Medea and her pains and love for Jason. "Tears of pity ran down her cheeks and her whole body was possessed by agony, a searing pain which shot along her nerves and deep into the nape of her neck, that vulnerable spot where the relentless archery of Love causes the keenest pangs" (Apollonius, 28). I'm not really sure why I liked it so much, but the description stuck with me.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Notes on Caligula
Suetonius wrote the Twelve Caesars and I think at some point in my pre Egg to the Apples life I read it, or listened to it. But, it's not the largest book if I remember correctly, but when I came across these 80p books in England I had to snatch them up. 'Caligula' is the excerpt from Suetonius' Twelve Caesars' dealing only with the reign of Caligula. It's short, concise and moves quickly as a read.
The story of Caligula is a pretty famous one, as he is somewhat famous for being somewhat notorious, to put it mildly. I've always enjoyed Roman History, but when I discovered Mike Duncan's now (sadly) finished podcast when I was living in the Dominican Republic some seven or eight years ago (I don't remember when I started listening, but it wasn't at the beginning of his run, but it was before Julius Caesar appeared on the scene) it rekindled an early childhood fascination with all things Roman. If you haven't checked out that podcast or his newer one and like history than you don't know anything about podcasts. Figure out what a podcast is and go check it out. But, after that incredible turn to the left let's try and steer back on to the matter at hand - Caligula.
Suetonius didn't paint a very good picture of Caligula in the little book as most of it is negative. But, if I didn't have any knowledge of Caligula prior to reading it I wouldn't have really expected it to have gone so badly. There's a lot of nice things about him and his father Germanicus in the first little bit, but then Suetonius slides in this nugget of a sentence: "So much for Gaius the Emperor; the rest of this history must needs deal with Gaius the Monster" (Suetonius, 21). Ouch! Must Needs. Must.
Right after Suetonius takes this must needs turn he reveals that Caligula has some of the better statues of all the famous gods in Greece brought to Rome where he has their heads removed and busts of his own as their replacement. I would condemn this behavior, but if you've ever been on my Instagram feed you may have seen this:
That's my head on a god statue in the Parthenon. (Unfortunately, its the lifesize replica in Tennessee). SO, I say we go ahead and give Caligula a pass on that one - agreed?
Caligula might have been a madman, egotistical, debauched and petulantly cruel, but he had a pretty astute sense of politics going on for awhile. "He often quoted the tragic line 'Let them hate me, so long as they fear me'" (Suetonius, 32). If you're not going to be loved as a despotic ruler, which most times you aren't, you might as well go whole hog on it and strike fear in the hearts of everyone. Sometimes, as with the case of Caligula, it doesn't pan out in the long-run. But there have been a whole bunch of vicious despots that died peacefully in their bed.
The problem with Caligula (aside from the obvious awfulness of his soul) was that as a despotic tyrant one must needs be paranoid because even if every one is deathly afraid of you, if the right opportunity presents itself somebody is going to take it, but Caligula took the paranoia to a whole new kind of crazy level. And he didn't have the foresight to let some people have small victories here and there to ensure loyalty. "In short, however low anyone's fortune or condition might be, Gaius always found some cause for envy" (Suetonius, 37).
But you can't blame the guy for being that way totally. Nature dealt him a pretty rough hand, even if fortune did not. He got to be the most powerful man in the Roman world on the merits of his dad. But, then his dad died. So fortune favored him. Nature wasn't so kind as he ended up turning out to be bald and hairy. It made him insecure and when naturally inclined guys get insecure they tend to lash out. Most don't end up becoming as bad as Caligula; but, I believe that is solely because they don't have the tools to lash out properly like Caligula had. But, Caligula was so insecure about this unfortunate mix up of where his hair ought to have been, "he announced that it was a capital offence for anyone to look down on him as he passed or to mention goats in any context" (Suetonius, 50-51). That's pretty insecure.
The story of Caligula is a pretty famous one, as he is somewhat famous for being somewhat notorious, to put it mildly. I've always enjoyed Roman History, but when I discovered Mike Duncan's now (sadly) finished podcast when I was living in the Dominican Republic some seven or eight years ago (I don't remember when I started listening, but it wasn't at the beginning of his run, but it was before Julius Caesar appeared on the scene) it rekindled an early childhood fascination with all things Roman. If you haven't checked out that podcast or his newer one and like history than you don't know anything about podcasts. Figure out what a podcast is and go check it out. But, after that incredible turn to the left let's try and steer back on to the matter at hand - Caligula.
Suetonius didn't paint a very good picture of Caligula in the little book as most of it is negative. But, if I didn't have any knowledge of Caligula prior to reading it I wouldn't have really expected it to have gone so badly. There's a lot of nice things about him and his father Germanicus in the first little bit, but then Suetonius slides in this nugget of a sentence: "So much for Gaius the Emperor; the rest of this history must needs deal with Gaius the Monster" (Suetonius, 21). Ouch! Must Needs. Must.
Right after Suetonius takes this must needs turn he reveals that Caligula has some of the better statues of all the famous gods in Greece brought to Rome where he has their heads removed and busts of his own as their replacement. I would condemn this behavior, but if you've ever been on my Instagram feed you may have seen this:
That's my head on a god statue in the Parthenon. (Unfortunately, its the lifesize replica in Tennessee). SO, I say we go ahead and give Caligula a pass on that one - agreed?
Caligula might have been a madman, egotistical, debauched and petulantly cruel, but he had a pretty astute sense of politics going on for awhile. "He often quoted the tragic line 'Let them hate me, so long as they fear me'" (Suetonius, 32). If you're not going to be loved as a despotic ruler, which most times you aren't, you might as well go whole hog on it and strike fear in the hearts of everyone. Sometimes, as with the case of Caligula, it doesn't pan out in the long-run. But there have been a whole bunch of vicious despots that died peacefully in their bed.
The problem with Caligula (aside from the obvious awfulness of his soul) was that as a despotic tyrant one must needs be paranoid because even if every one is deathly afraid of you, if the right opportunity presents itself somebody is going to take it, but Caligula took the paranoia to a whole new kind of crazy level. And he didn't have the foresight to let some people have small victories here and there to ensure loyalty. "In short, however low anyone's fortune or condition might be, Gaius always found some cause for envy" (Suetonius, 37).
But you can't blame the guy for being that way totally. Nature dealt him a pretty rough hand, even if fortune did not. He got to be the most powerful man in the Roman world on the merits of his dad. But, then his dad died. So fortune favored him. Nature wasn't so kind as he ended up turning out to be bald and hairy. It made him insecure and when naturally inclined guys get insecure they tend to lash out. Most don't end up becoming as bad as Caligula; but, I believe that is solely because they don't have the tools to lash out properly like Caligula had. But, Caligula was so insecure about this unfortunate mix up of where his hair ought to have been, "he announced that it was a capital offence for anyone to look down on him as he passed or to mention goats in any context" (Suetonius, 50-51). That's pretty insecure.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Portland - Day 1
After a long flight and layover we made it to Portland, OR!! It's a long way out, but we made it. Our first night was spent with my brother and mom. My guide (my brother) took us to a vegan place for dinner. Being someone who has no dietary restrictions to be spoke of and a bit of predilection for mocking those that have, I was nonplussed to say the least to end up at a vegan restaurant. That said, I had the best Bahn Mi sandwich in the world. Afterwards we went to a grocery store to buy wine for the night. I made a giant mess...
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Notes on Early Greek Philosophy (Introduction)
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
Penguin, 2001
Introduction
Greek Philosophy began on May 28, 585 BC when Thales of Miletus, predicted an eclipse of the sun and ended in 529 A.D. When Emperor Justinian outlawed pagan philosophy. But, this is a traditional dates because Thales observed a solar eclipse and even if Justinian wanted to stamp out the pagan philosophy and install Christianity as the sole authority, it wasn't a successful endeavor. But, these eleven centuries can be safely called the era of Ancient Philosophy.
3 Periods of Ancient Philosophy
1) 585-400 BC, the formative years (Pre-Socratic)
2) 400-100 BC, the years of the Schools, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, Stoics, Sceptics
3) 100 BC - 529 AD, the years when everyone studied the prior period, systematized it and took "all that was best in the earlier doctrines of the Schools" (Barnes, xi).
Ironically the Pre-Socratic period isn't actually pre-Socrates because Socrates lived from 470 - 399 BC, so many of the pre-Socratic philosophers were his contemporaries.
The word 'philosophy' comes from the Greek philosophia, meaning literally 'love of wisdom'. The ancient Greeks however used this word very broadly and much of the sciences and the liberal arts were included in this wisdom. "The 'wisdom' which a philosopher loves is 'knowledge of things human and things divine'" (Barnes, xiv).
The philosophers that came after the Pre-Socratics divided philosophy into three major branches: logic (including the study of language), ethics (moral and political theory) and physics (which was a broad sense of the science, concerning itself with all the phenomena of the natural world). The Pre-Socratics were primarily concerned with this definition of physics.
"The modern distincition between empirical science and a priori philosophy had no importance in the earliest phase of Western thought, when wisdom was not yet distributed among departments and thinkers were innocent of specialization" (Barnes, XV).
Three things really demarcated the Pre-Socratic philosophers from earlier thinkers, mythologists, poets and rhetoricians.
1) "The Presocratics invented the very idea of science and philosophy" (Barnes, XVIII). The looked at the world in a scientific and/or rational way. They saw the world as something that can be explained and something that was ordered, not something arbitrary or random.
2) The Presocratics accepted the world as something orderly and explicable, but not something that was absolutely willed to be so by gods or subject to their whims. While maintaining some theism, they removed most of the traditional functions of gods and assigned the processes of the world to natural phenomena.
3) The Presocratics explained everything in as little terms as possible. The variety of life is always reduced to some underlying principle that explains the whole mess of things with one fundamental.
The Greek word kosmos (from which comes our cosmos & cosmology) was used a lot by the Presocratics. It means "the world as a whole" on the lips of the Presocratic philosophers. A kosmos is an orderly and beautiful arrangement of the totality of the universe. It is not only beautiful, but pleasant to contemplate. Thus, if the cosmos is the totality of things, and beautiful, and ordered, then it must, at least in principle, be abled to be explained.
There is a great distinction between the natural world (things that occur in nature) and the artefacts (things that are man-made, physical like arts and plows, and non-physical like laws, societies and governments). These artefacts were artificial and non-natural; thus, they had no nature. When the Presocratics studied the natural world, the studied also the nature of those things in the natural world. It was assumed that every natural thing, everything that grows, had its own nature. This also tied into the Presocratic desire to explain things: the nature of any object explains why it behaves in its own unique way.
Arche was another fundamental principle in Presocratic thought. It is a beginning or origin and also a rule or ruling principle.
Presocratics often asked questions like, if nature is growth "what, then does growth start from? What are the principles of growth, the origins of natural phenomena?..."How did [the cosmos] begin? What are its first principles? What are the fundamental elements from which it is made and the fundamental operations which determine its structure and career?" (Barnes, XXII).
The Presocratics, in their desire to explain the natural world in the most simplest of terms then boiled everything in the cosmos down into the first stuff or stuffs. Questions then pertaining to the principles of the cosmos is a question as to what those first stuff or stuffs are.
Another fundamental term for the Presocratics was the Greek logos, a notoriously tricky word to translate. It means to say or state, but entails more. To give a logos or an account of something is to both describe what it is but also explain why it is what it is. Logos also implies reason and logic. It is possible to contrast the logos of a situation with the perception of a situation. It marks a distinction between how things appear and the way things are, which might not necessarily be the same.
The Presocratics emphasized the use of reason and rationality. They were not, generally speaking, dogmatic in their thinking. Even in some things that seem blatantly crazy, like Thales assertion that everything has a soul were supported by logical and rational thinking. Thales claimed that a magnet, though a stone, has a soul because it causes motion in other things. While this might not be exactly true, the use of reason versus declaring something dogmatically shows the change in thinking that the Presocratics had.
"Parmenides urged his readers to test with their reason what he had said: his urgings went unanswered" (Barnes, XXV). That's funny and could be worked into the Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
What we know about the Presocratics is not usually from surviving works of their own, which exist only in fragmentary form. Quotes from later writers harkening back to these thinkers' now lost works give light on their otherwise lost thought. Other sources are much later thinkers writing and using the Presocratics as examplars or something to be renounced. The latter is less reliable as a source to what the Presocratics actually thought for a variety of reasons.
Jonathan Barnes
Penguin, 2001
Introduction
Greek Philosophy began on May 28, 585 BC when Thales of Miletus, predicted an eclipse of the sun and ended in 529 A.D. When Emperor Justinian outlawed pagan philosophy. But, this is a traditional dates because Thales observed a solar eclipse and even if Justinian wanted to stamp out the pagan philosophy and install Christianity as the sole authority, it wasn't a successful endeavor. But, these eleven centuries can be safely called the era of Ancient Philosophy.
3 Periods of Ancient Philosophy
1) 585-400 BC, the formative years (Pre-Socratic)
2) 400-100 BC, the years of the Schools, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, Stoics, Sceptics
3) 100 BC - 529 AD, the years when everyone studied the prior period, systematized it and took "all that was best in the earlier doctrines of the Schools" (Barnes, xi).
Ironically the Pre-Socratic period isn't actually pre-Socrates because Socrates lived from 470 - 399 BC, so many of the pre-Socratic philosophers were his contemporaries.
The word 'philosophy' comes from the Greek philosophia, meaning literally 'love of wisdom'. The ancient Greeks however used this word very broadly and much of the sciences and the liberal arts were included in this wisdom. "The 'wisdom' which a philosopher loves is 'knowledge of things human and things divine'" (Barnes, xiv).
The philosophers that came after the Pre-Socratics divided philosophy into three major branches: logic (including the study of language), ethics (moral and political theory) and physics (which was a broad sense of the science, concerning itself with all the phenomena of the natural world). The Pre-Socratics were primarily concerned with this definition of physics.
"The modern distincition between empirical science and a priori philosophy had no importance in the earliest phase of Western thought, when wisdom was not yet distributed among departments and thinkers were innocent of specialization" (Barnes, XV).
Three things really demarcated the Pre-Socratic philosophers from earlier thinkers, mythologists, poets and rhetoricians.
1) "The Presocratics invented the very idea of science and philosophy" (Barnes, XVIII). The looked at the world in a scientific and/or rational way. They saw the world as something that can be explained and something that was ordered, not something arbitrary or random.
2) The Presocratics accepted the world as something orderly and explicable, but not something that was absolutely willed to be so by gods or subject to their whims. While maintaining some theism, they removed most of the traditional functions of gods and assigned the processes of the world to natural phenomena.
3) The Presocratics explained everything in as little terms as possible. The variety of life is always reduced to some underlying principle that explains the whole mess of things with one fundamental.
The Greek word kosmos (from which comes our cosmos & cosmology) was used a lot by the Presocratics. It means "the world as a whole" on the lips of the Presocratic philosophers. A kosmos is an orderly and beautiful arrangement of the totality of the universe. It is not only beautiful, but pleasant to contemplate. Thus, if the cosmos is the totality of things, and beautiful, and ordered, then it must, at least in principle, be abled to be explained.
There is a great distinction between the natural world (things that occur in nature) and the artefacts (things that are man-made, physical like arts and plows, and non-physical like laws, societies and governments). These artefacts were artificial and non-natural; thus, they had no nature. When the Presocratics studied the natural world, the studied also the nature of those things in the natural world. It was assumed that every natural thing, everything that grows, had its own nature. This also tied into the Presocratic desire to explain things: the nature of any object explains why it behaves in its own unique way.
Arche was another fundamental principle in Presocratic thought. It is a beginning or origin and also a rule or ruling principle.
Presocratics often asked questions like, if nature is growth "what, then does growth start from? What are the principles of growth, the origins of natural phenomena?..."How did [the cosmos] begin? What are its first principles? What are the fundamental elements from which it is made and the fundamental operations which determine its structure and career?" (Barnes, XXII).
The Presocratics, in their desire to explain the natural world in the most simplest of terms then boiled everything in the cosmos down into the first stuff or stuffs. Questions then pertaining to the principles of the cosmos is a question as to what those first stuff or stuffs are.
Another fundamental term for the Presocratics was the Greek logos, a notoriously tricky word to translate. It means to say or state, but entails more. To give a logos or an account of something is to both describe what it is but also explain why it is what it is. Logos also implies reason and logic. It is possible to contrast the logos of a situation with the perception of a situation. It marks a distinction between how things appear and the way things are, which might not necessarily be the same.
The Presocratics emphasized the use of reason and rationality. They were not, generally speaking, dogmatic in their thinking. Even in some things that seem blatantly crazy, like Thales assertion that everything has a soul were supported by logical and rational thinking. Thales claimed that a magnet, though a stone, has a soul because it causes motion in other things. While this might not be exactly true, the use of reason versus declaring something dogmatically shows the change in thinking that the Presocratics had.
"Parmenides urged his readers to test with their reason what he had said: his urgings went unanswered" (Barnes, XXV). That's funny and could be worked into the Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
What we know about the Presocratics is not usually from surviving works of their own, which exist only in fragmentary form. Quotes from later writers harkening back to these thinkers' now lost works give light on their otherwise lost thought. Other sources are much later thinkers writing and using the Presocratics as examplars or something to be renounced. The latter is less reliable as a source to what the Presocratics actually thought for a variety of reasons.
Some things I liked stylistically in Hopscotch
As I've stated earlier in this blog, reading Hopscotch was quite difficult and since I've only read it in the 'traditional' way and still have to hopscotch through it, I'm withholding my final judgment until then. After hopscotching through it I'm also going to do some research to help me understand some of the more difficult parts. Some of it is lost on me. For instance, I'm really unsure of how baby Rocamador died and am hoping that some of the 'extra chapters' reveal the answer. Second, chapter 34 was the most insanely frustrating chapter of a book I've ever read, but after the fourth reading I sort of figured it out.
But, here are some of the things I really liked from a pure style standpoint in the book. The following short list has just some of the things I labeled as "Good Imagery, Wording & Style". There is a whole lot more that could be added but these stood out to me at the time of reading.
1) [We] "used to get together to talk to a blind seer, a stimulating paradox" (Cortázar, 6). I just liked the 'blind seer' paradox and it being pointed out. Somehow the pointing out of the paradoxical nature of it wasn't overkill or stating the obvious.
2) Those that search, those “who go out at night with noting in mind, the motives of a destroyer of compasses” (Cortázar, 7). I like the idea of those who are searching with an openness in their head aren't really searching in the normal sense, but looking to smash the conventional ways of searching for that which I know not what.
3) “As if it were some sort of mean and sticky vengeance” (Cortázar, 10). I just really liked the sentence a lot. 'Mean and sticky vengeance' just hopped off the page and gave me a visual and tactile image in my head.
4) “Happiness must have been something else, something sadder perhaps than this peace, this pleasure, a mood of unicorn…” (Cortázar, 13). Again, I just really enjoyed this phrase, 'a mood of unicorn' denotes something like a childlike happiness, but also the realization that it, like the unicorn was a myth.
5) In my own writing, I've often had characters or scenarios where alcohol has played a part. I've always struggled with writing that because I don't want to give it a technical feel or a celebratory feel unless it's right for the current story. But in a couple of passages, Cortázar was able to once again make a great visual in my head that connected the story with some experiences that I'd like to incorporate into my own work:
[Gregorovius] “was at that vodka level where the night began to become magnanimous and everything promised him fidelity and hope… With his wits ajar Gregorovius managed to make out the corner where Ronald and Wong were selecting and passing records” (Cortázar, 43-44). I really liked that first sentence and how it showed what alcohol can do. Of course the night did not turn out how Gregorovius thought it would, as is often the case when vodka levels get to that point because the vodka level often rises and surpasses that point too and begins to careen downwards in spiral fashion rather quickly in the opposite direction of hope.
Then later, towards Babs: “Sh, darling, stop crying, the girl has really tied one on, even her soul smells of cognac” (Cortázar, 198). In this sentence, I'm not really sure who the narrator is, but 'even her soul smells of cognac' gave me as the reader, a knowledge of Babs' current state.
But, here are some of the things I really liked from a pure style standpoint in the book. The following short list has just some of the things I labeled as "Good Imagery, Wording & Style". There is a whole lot more that could be added but these stood out to me at the time of reading.
1) [We] "used to get together to talk to a blind seer, a stimulating paradox" (Cortázar, 6). I just liked the 'blind seer' paradox and it being pointed out. Somehow the pointing out of the paradoxical nature of it wasn't overkill or stating the obvious.
2) Those that search, those “who go out at night with noting in mind, the motives of a destroyer of compasses” (Cortázar, 7). I like the idea of those who are searching with an openness in their head aren't really searching in the normal sense, but looking to smash the conventional ways of searching for that which I know not what.
3) “As if it were some sort of mean and sticky vengeance” (Cortázar, 10). I just really liked the sentence a lot. 'Mean and sticky vengeance' just hopped off the page and gave me a visual and tactile image in my head.
4) “Happiness must have been something else, something sadder perhaps than this peace, this pleasure, a mood of unicorn…” (Cortázar, 13). Again, I just really enjoyed this phrase, 'a mood of unicorn' denotes something like a childlike happiness, but also the realization that it, like the unicorn was a myth.
5) In my own writing, I've often had characters or scenarios where alcohol has played a part. I've always struggled with writing that because I don't want to give it a technical feel or a celebratory feel unless it's right for the current story. But in a couple of passages, Cortázar was able to once again make a great visual in my head that connected the story with some experiences that I'd like to incorporate into my own work:
[Gregorovius] “was at that vodka level where the night began to become magnanimous and everything promised him fidelity and hope… With his wits ajar Gregorovius managed to make out the corner where Ronald and Wong were selecting and passing records” (Cortázar, 43-44). I really liked that first sentence and how it showed what alcohol can do. Of course the night did not turn out how Gregorovius thought it would, as is often the case when vodka levels get to that point because the vodka level often rises and surpasses that point too and begins to careen downwards in spiral fashion rather quickly in the opposite direction of hope.
Then later, towards Babs: “Sh, darling, stop crying, the girl has really tied one on, even her soul smells of cognac” (Cortázar, 198). In this sentence, I'm not really sure who the narrator is, but 'even her soul smells of cognac' gave me as the reader, a knowledge of Babs' current state.
6) When La Maga & Horacio parts ways he feels he cannot
chase back after her. He tells himself, “Go home and read Spinoza. La Maga
doesn’t know who Spinoza is…She will never suspect that she has condemned me to
read Spinoza” (Cortázar, 96). I loved this sentence so much because of my feelings on having to read Spinoza back in college. To be condemned to read Spinoza is a perfect way of putting what it was like to have to read Spinoza for me all those years ago.
Notes on Scottish Folk and Fairy Tales
After finishing the last book I read, I figured that it would be alright if I took an easier challenge. I picked up the Penguin Popular Classics' Scottish Folk & Fairy Tales edited by Gordon Jarvie. I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, somewhere between an Arthurian legend or The Mabinogion or even something like a Grimm's. It was nothing like the Mabinogion and had an element of Grimm folk tale to it, but it was a lot lighter. In the moments it was a bit sinister, it was done almost at a Classic Disney level - enough to frighten younger readers, but not enough to offend the sensibilities of said young readers' parents. That said, the book was a pretty good read. I think it should be something read to children to get them interested in good literature and plan on making a note of that for the future. Some of this criticism is probably unfair because it really felt like a children's book in the beginning and that sort of dissipated the further into the book you got. It was an anthology and the tone was set by the first seven little folk tales written by the same author. It was her stories that really made it feel younger reader oriented.
But, as is the case with all anthologies, a couple of the stories really stood out to me. The story of Tam Lin, the first traditional folk tale in the order, was the salvation that kept me going through as it was relatively close to the beginning of the book. Which I am glad because there were a couple of really good stories later on. Assipattle and the Mester Stoorworm was another one I enjoyed. Ever since I read the Orkneyinga Saga, I have found myself fascinated by Orkney and lo and behold, one of my favorite Scottish fairy tale comes from the Orkney Island. Plus, it was a genesis story of sorts and I always find those enthralling. The last big chunk of the Book was The Gold of Fairnilee, 'a classic victorian fairy tale'. Given that it was written by Andrew Lang, a specialist in Scottish folklore, it was probably the best story outside of Assipattle.
Lastly, the most intriguing story was by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. His Through the Veil was excellent. The writing was good and its colloquial, phonetic writing of the Scottish dialogue was nice, but what set the story apart was the intriguing subject matter. After finishing that one, I thought it would be a good idea to appropriate the concept and turn it into a different short story of my own.
But, as is the case with all anthologies, a couple of the stories really stood out to me. The story of Tam Lin, the first traditional folk tale in the order, was the salvation that kept me going through as it was relatively close to the beginning of the book. Which I am glad because there were a couple of really good stories later on. Assipattle and the Mester Stoorworm was another one I enjoyed. Ever since I read the Orkneyinga Saga, I have found myself fascinated by Orkney and lo and behold, one of my favorite Scottish fairy tale comes from the Orkney Island. Plus, it was a genesis story of sorts and I always find those enthralling. The last big chunk of the Book was The Gold of Fairnilee, 'a classic victorian fairy tale'. Given that it was written by Andrew Lang, a specialist in Scottish folklore, it was probably the best story outside of Assipattle.
Lastly, the most intriguing story was by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. His Through the Veil was excellent. The writing was good and its colloquial, phonetic writing of the Scottish dialogue was nice, but what set the story apart was the intriguing subject matter. After finishing that one, I thought it would be a good idea to appropriate the concept and turn it into a different short story of my own.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Brief thoughts on Hopscotch by Julio Cortázar
So, I finished Hopscotch a few days ago and I'm still a bit bemused. Finished might not be the proper word as I only read it in the 'normal fashion' and didn't hopscotch through the book. Also, I ignored the following chapters with a clean conscience, but a bit of residual puzzlement. On my Goodreads page I wrote, "I'm not sure of what I think of this book yet. It's clearly a well written book with a lot of good stuff in it and it's jam packed with insane literary style, but I've just finished reading it the traditional way and will withhold my final judgement until I have hopscotched my way through it. Since, I haven't read the "extra" chapters I find myself both enjoying and not enjoying this book. But, I will be re-reading it or reading it for the first time soon and hopscotching my way through." So I will revisit my assessment on the entirety of the book at a later date. I will say this, without giving away anything, the ending is confusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)