(Originally written November 24, 2016 in Book 26)
Ion (Continued)
Plato
Socrates claims Ion has not mastered Homer, but is guided by a divine power. He is like a stone moved by a magnet.
Socrates compares the good poets to the Corybantes - priests of Cybele whom they worshipped with wild music and dancers.
A poet "is not able to make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind and his intellect is no longer in him" (Plato, 26). Those operating from the intellect cannot write poetry.
Ion is a rahsode. Homer is a poet. Homer is used by a god to speak poetry. Thus, Homer is a representative. Ion is a representative of a representative.
Ion - "You see I must keep my wits and pay close attention to them: if I start them crying I will laugh as I take their money, bit if they laugh, I shall cry at having lost money" (Plato, 27).
The god is the magnet. He moves the first stone Homer. In doing so, Homer becomes like the magnet and moves the second stone, Ion. Ion then becomes like Homer and moves the audience. "The god pulls people's souls through all those wherever he wants" (Plato, 28).
Socrates ends the dialogue by forcing Ion to admit that it is preferable to to be thought of as someone having something to do with the divine than someone who does wrong. Because Ion would be one of the two in teaching Homer and not being a master of the profession called poetry.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Ion (A)
(Originally Written November 23, 2016 in Book 26)
Two Comic Dialogues:
Ion and Hippias Major
Plato (Hackett, 1983)
Both Ion and Hippias Major are important early works dealing with Plato's ideas of poetry and beauty.
Ion is a raphsodie - a reciter of epic poems who performed at festivals and private events for hire. Ion recited the poems, but also explained them and in so doing proclaimed himself an expert in the knowledge they possess. This makes him a likely target for Socrates who goes around showing those who proclaim to be wise that they are unwise.
"Homer was revered in antiquity not merely as a maker of beautiful poems, but as a source of information (Woodruff, 6).
Socrates has very high standards for knowledge.
Knowledge is differentiated however by the Greek term techne - knowledge in a craft or professional knowledge.
Greek poetry claims to come from inspiration from the gods (muses). Both Homer and Hesiod claim inspiration in their works.
In the Greek mind, for a man to be successful he must have divine inspiration. That there were successful men proved inspiration. It is common place in the Greek world. "Inspiration is neither extraordinary nor supernatural in Homer's world" (Woodruff, 7).
Plato sees the poet's inspiration as the gods using the pet as a mere vessel. Poetry comes from a madness brought about by an interaction with the divine.
The man who tries to master poetry by techne alone will be out shined by "the poetry of madness".
But the idea of poetry coming from a divinely induced madness is false. Those who are mad cannot speak coherently, let alone produce poetry.
Why did Plato then put forth this theory? Possible reasons:
1. He is really trying to make an argument for its case.
2. He is attacking poetry
3. He is claiming that poets do not have knowledge when they produce poetry but that philosophers can translate the truth from poetic utterances to the public like priests can translate prophetic utterances made by the oracles who are possessed by the gods when they make said utterances.
Goethe thought Plato attacked poetry. The Renaissance thinkers preferred option one. Most modern scholars believe the third option is likely the best.
Plato does attack poetry, but he also enjoyed it, "we must not forget that the poetry Plato rejected in the Republic was something he deeply loved" (Woodruff, 9).
To possess Techne one must possess a mastery of all knowledge within a field. Ion knows Homer but does not have techne because he knows nothing but techne. Ion knows only through inspiration.
Ion is unable to distinguish between well made verses that are good because they are pleasing to the ear an well made verses because they are true.
Ion
Socrates calls Homer the best poet and the most divine.
Ion claims to be an expert on Homer, but not on the other poets.
Ion claims that while the poets discuss the some topics, Homer does it best.
Socrates forces Ion to admit that there is an art to poetry as a whole and because Ion cannot speak to it as a whole he speaks on Homer not from techne.
Two Comic Dialogues:
Ion and Hippias Major
Plato (Hackett, 1983)
Both Ion and Hippias Major are important early works dealing with Plato's ideas of poetry and beauty.
Ion is a raphsodie - a reciter of epic poems who performed at festivals and private events for hire. Ion recited the poems, but also explained them and in so doing proclaimed himself an expert in the knowledge they possess. This makes him a likely target for Socrates who goes around showing those who proclaim to be wise that they are unwise.
"Homer was revered in antiquity not merely as a maker of beautiful poems, but as a source of information (Woodruff, 6).
Socrates has very high standards for knowledge.
Knowledge is differentiated however by the Greek term techne - knowledge in a craft or professional knowledge.
Greek poetry claims to come from inspiration from the gods (muses). Both Homer and Hesiod claim inspiration in their works.
In the Greek mind, for a man to be successful he must have divine inspiration. That there were successful men proved inspiration. It is common place in the Greek world. "Inspiration is neither extraordinary nor supernatural in Homer's world" (Woodruff, 7).
Plato sees the poet's inspiration as the gods using the pet as a mere vessel. Poetry comes from a madness brought about by an interaction with the divine.
The man who tries to master poetry by techne alone will be out shined by "the poetry of madness".
But the idea of poetry coming from a divinely induced madness is false. Those who are mad cannot speak coherently, let alone produce poetry.
Why did Plato then put forth this theory? Possible reasons:
1. He is really trying to make an argument for its case.
2. He is attacking poetry
3. He is claiming that poets do not have knowledge when they produce poetry but that philosophers can translate the truth from poetic utterances to the public like priests can translate prophetic utterances made by the oracles who are possessed by the gods when they make said utterances.
Goethe thought Plato attacked poetry. The Renaissance thinkers preferred option one. Most modern scholars believe the third option is likely the best.
Plato does attack poetry, but he also enjoyed it, "we must not forget that the poetry Plato rejected in the Republic was something he deeply loved" (Woodruff, 9).
To possess Techne one must possess a mastery of all knowledge within a field. Ion knows Homer but does not have techne because he knows nothing but techne. Ion knows only through inspiration.
Ion is unable to distinguish between well made verses that are good because they are pleasing to the ear an well made verses because they are true.
Ion
Socrates calls Homer the best poet and the most divine.
Ion claims to be an expert on Homer, but not on the other poets.
Ion claims that while the poets discuss the some topics, Homer does it best.
Socrates forces Ion to admit that there is an art to poetry as a whole and because Ion cannot speak to it as a whole he speaks on Homer not from techne.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Apology (B)
(Originally written November 22, 2016 in Book 26)
Apology (Continued)
Plato
Socrates maintains that he has wronged no one and will not start now by wronging himself by offering a less evil penalty for his conviction that Meletus has (and is the customary practice of the court). Besides, he still isn't convinced death is a wrong at all. "Am I then to choose in preference to this something that I know very well to be an evil...?" (Plato, 39).
"The unexamined life is not worth living for men" (Plato, 39).
He sets his penalty at that which will not hurt him. Since he is poor he sets it at one mina of silver. But than sets it at 30 minas.
Socrates addresses those who sentenced him to death, stating that he would rather die after offering his manly and virtuous defense than survive by debasing himself and offering a defense that is full of emotive qualities.
He thinks it's wrong to avoid death in war or at trial at all costs.
It is easier to avoid death then wickedness: Socrates has caught by death but his accusers have been caught by wickedness. "They are condemned by truth to wickedness and injustice" (Plato, 40).
Socrates prophesies that by killing him they will not be able to live life unchallenged but will face more men like Socrates, and younger ones at that! They will test the men. "To escape such tests is neither possible nor good, but it is best and easiest not to discredit it others but to prepare oneself to be as good as possible" (Plato, 41).
Socrates tells the jurors who voted for his acquittal that death is not an evil; for if it was an evil the god who prevented Socrates from doing evil would have prevented him from saying that which got him sentenced to death.
Death is either nothingness or a relocating process where the soul goes to another place where he could converse and test good men and wise men.
"A good man cannot be harmed in life or in death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods" (Plato, 42).
The jurors who voted for death are only doing the will of the divine which is good; but, they are to be blamed because they intended harm.
Socrates' parting words to the jurymen who voted for acquittal: "I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, except the god" (Plato, 42).
Apology (Continued)
Plato
Socrates maintains that he has wronged no one and will not start now by wronging himself by offering a less evil penalty for his conviction that Meletus has (and is the customary practice of the court). Besides, he still isn't convinced death is a wrong at all. "Am I then to choose in preference to this something that I know very well to be an evil...?" (Plato, 39).
"The unexamined life is not worth living for men" (Plato, 39).
He sets his penalty at that which will not hurt him. Since he is poor he sets it at one mina of silver. But than sets it at 30 minas.
Socrates addresses those who sentenced him to death, stating that he would rather die after offering his manly and virtuous defense than survive by debasing himself and offering a defense that is full of emotive qualities.
He thinks it's wrong to avoid death in war or at trial at all costs.
It is easier to avoid death then wickedness: Socrates has caught by death but his accusers have been caught by wickedness. "They are condemned by truth to wickedness and injustice" (Plato, 40).
Socrates prophesies that by killing him they will not be able to live life unchallenged but will face more men like Socrates, and younger ones at that! They will test the men. "To escape such tests is neither possible nor good, but it is best and easiest not to discredit it others but to prepare oneself to be as good as possible" (Plato, 41).
Socrates tells the jurors who voted for his acquittal that death is not an evil; for if it was an evil the god who prevented Socrates from doing evil would have prevented him from saying that which got him sentenced to death.
Death is either nothingness or a relocating process where the soul goes to another place where he could converse and test good men and wise men.
"A good man cannot be harmed in life or in death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods" (Plato, 42).
The jurors who voted for death are only doing the will of the divine which is good; but, they are to be blamed because they intended harm.
Socrates' parting words to the jurymen who voted for acquittal: "I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, except the god" (Plato, 42).
Notes on Phaedo
(Originally written November 22, 2016 in Book 26)
Phaedo
Plato
(Death Scene)
A man can be confident in the state of his immortal soul as he approaches death if he has lived a life full of "moderation, righteousness, courage, freedom and truth"
Socrates does not care how they bury him for he will not be the corpse, but be somewhere else - a blessed place.
The man who delivered the poison to Socrates wept. Socrates remarked what a pleasant man his guard was.
All of Socrates' friends broke down when he took the poison, but Socrates chided them for being like the women he sent away.
Socrates' last words were a jest: "we owe a cock to Asclepius". Asclepius was the god who sick people offered a sacrifice of a cock to gain cures for ailments. Socrates was indicating that he owed Asclepius a cock for the curing of his ailment. Socrates was cured by death of his illness, life.
Phaedo
Plato
(Death Scene)
A man can be confident in the state of his immortal soul as he approaches death if he has lived a life full of "moderation, righteousness, courage, freedom and truth"
Socrates does not care how they bury him for he will not be the corpse, but be somewhere else - a blessed place.
The man who delivered the poison to Socrates wept. Socrates remarked what a pleasant man his guard was.
All of Socrates' friends broke down when he took the poison, but Socrates chided them for being like the women he sent away.
Socrates' last words were a jest: "we owe a cock to Asclepius". Asclepius was the god who sick people offered a sacrifice of a cock to gain cures for ailments. Socrates was indicating that he owed Asclepius a cock for the curing of his ailment. Socrates was cured by death of his illness, life.
Notes on Crito
(Originally written November 22, 2016 in Book 26)
Crito
Crito (Socrates' friend) is desperately trying to convince Socrates to escape to exile and save his life.
Crito claims Socrates' death will be a double misfortune for him. He will lose a friend that he cannot replace and people will think Crito did not want to spend the money to save him because no one will believe that Socrates wanted to die. Socrates chides him for coming for the opinion of the unruly masses.
Crito tells Socrates he can escape using his money or if he doesn't want to impose many others have money for him to escape.
Crito calls Socrates unjust for not saving his life when he can. He claims Socrates is betraying his sons.
Socrates says the truth remains the truth; the right thing remains the right thing, regardless of what the masses say.
One must never do wrong. Even if one is wronged, one must not wrong another for being wronged. Socrates says that the few who truly believe this will always be at odds with those who do not truly believe it.
Socrates then states the State is more important to a man than even his own father. As it is wrong to disobey one's ancestor, it is even more wrong to disobey one's country. "Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father, and all your ancestors, that it is to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it, and placate its anger more than your fathers? You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure" (Plato, 51)
Socrates argues the State gives people two options: leave in peace with your possessions or stay and abide by the State's laws. As a citizen you can persuade the State; but, if it is not persuaded then one must abide by its laws and rulings. By stayion one enters voluntarily into an agreement with the State.
If Socrates were to flee now he would be doing wrong to Athens when he could have done right by choosing exile in court.
If Socrates flees unjustly he will justifty the unjust ruling of the court.
Socrates says by escaping he will be acting in a way to kill the laws of Athens and will thus recieve hostile reception whereever he goes that has laws, whether Greek or foreign city or even the underworld which has laws too.
Crito
Crito (Socrates' friend) is desperately trying to convince Socrates to escape to exile and save his life.
Crito claims Socrates' death will be a double misfortune for him. He will lose a friend that he cannot replace and people will think Crito did not want to spend the money to save him because no one will believe that Socrates wanted to die. Socrates chides him for coming for the opinion of the unruly masses.
Crito tells Socrates he can escape using his money or if he doesn't want to impose many others have money for him to escape.
Crito calls Socrates unjust for not saving his life when he can. He claims Socrates is betraying his sons.
Socrates says the truth remains the truth; the right thing remains the right thing, regardless of what the masses say.
One must never do wrong. Even if one is wronged, one must not wrong another for being wronged. Socrates says that the few who truly believe this will always be at odds with those who do not truly believe it.
Socrates then states the State is more important to a man than even his own father. As it is wrong to disobey one's ancestor, it is even more wrong to disobey one's country. "Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father, and all your ancestors, that it is to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it, and placate its anger more than your fathers? You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure" (Plato, 51)
Socrates argues the State gives people two options: leave in peace with your possessions or stay and abide by the State's laws. As a citizen you can persuade the State; but, if it is not persuaded then one must abide by its laws and rulings. By stayion one enters voluntarily into an agreement with the State.
If Socrates were to flee now he would be doing wrong to Athens when he could have done right by choosing exile in court.
If Socrates flees unjustly he will justifty the unjust ruling of the court.
Socrates says by escaping he will be acting in a way to kill the laws of Athens and will thus recieve hostile reception whereever he goes that has laws, whether Greek or foreign city or even the underworld which has laws too.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Apology (A)
(Originally written November 21, 2016 in Book 26)
Apology
Plato
Athenian juries were large. The jury was 501 strong for the trial of Socrates. Athenian juries acted as judge and jury.
However, sentencing was done uniquely. The prosecutor would suggest one and the defendant (found guilty) would give a counter offer. "This procedure generally made for moderation on both sides" (Plato, 20).
Socrates condemns the sophistry of his accuser who tells beautiful lies. He implores the jury to judge content, not style: "concentrate your attention on whether what I say is just or not, for the excellence of a judge lies in this, as that of a speaker lies in telling the truth" (Plato, 21).
Socrates values truth above all else: "let the matter proceed as the god may wish, but I must obey the law and make my defense" (Plato, 22).
Socrates says the rumors about him, which are false, stem from a certain type wisdom. "Human wisdom, perhaps. It may be that I really possess this, while those whom I mentioned are wise with a wisdom more than human; else I cannot explain it, for whoever says I do is lying and speaks to slander me" (Plato, 24).
Socrates' wisdom was thus, "I thought that he appeared wise to many people and especially to himself, but he was not. I tried to show him that he thought himself wise, but that he was not. As a result he came to dislike me, and so did many bystanders. So I withdrew and thought to myself: 'I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know" (Plato, 25).
Socrates then went about showing those thought to be wise that they were not in fact, wise. Thus, he came to be disliked by many others.
Socrates learned that he was the wisest man from the oracle at Delphi. Thus, his actions to prove others unwise was a divine mandate. It was his "investigation in the service of the god".
In this investigation he found those highly revered to be the most lacking and those thought to be deficient to be the most knowledgeable.
"I soon realized that poets do not compose their poems with knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets" (Plato, 25).
Socrates claims the meaning of the oracle's pronouncement is that human wisdom is not worth much and that Socrates is wise to realize this.
Socrates says it is his mission to "come to the assistance of the god" and show men that they are not wise. This activity has attracted the youth who have luxury and leisure to imitate him and do so. This is why the accusers claim Socrates is corrupting the youth. They are merely angry at being proved unwise.
Socrates claims that the great anger in the men who accuse him is validation that he is telling the truth about what it is he has actually done.
Socrates, satisfied that he has answered the service changes against him from his old accusers goes on the attack and counter accuses Meletus. "You have made it sufficiently obvious, Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subjects about which you bring me to trial" (Plato, 28).
Meletus contends that Socrates is an atheist, teaching that the sun and moon are not gods, but the sun is stone and the moon is earth. Socrates then ridicules him because this was the teaching of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae and these teachings can be learned for cheap from any book store.
He pins Meletus into a corner showing that he accuses Socrates of both being an atheist and believing and teaching a new spiritual teaching. "You must have made this deposition, Meletus, either to test us or because you were at a loss to find any true wrongdoing of which to accuse me" (Plato, 30).
Socrates is satisfied with his defense against Meletus at this point; but, he recognizes his unpopularity on account of embarassing the self-proclaimed wise of Athens. "I am very unpopular with many people. This will be my undoing, if I am undone, not Meletus..." (Plato, 31).
Despite his knowledge of his unpopularity Socrates is undeterred: "This [slander] has destroyed many other good men and will, I think, continue to do so. There is no danger that it will stop with me" (Plato, 31).
Socrates claims doing right actions is the only thing that matters, not the danger or harm that might come about from acting rightly.
"To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they know that it is the greatest of evil" (Plato, 31).
Wickedness - to do wrong, to disobey one's superior, whether he be god or man.
Socrates says it is better to care for the best possible state of one's soul rather than to care for wealth or bodily health.
"Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for me, both individuality and collectively" (Plato, 33).
Socrates again bashes Meletus claiming that a better man (Socrates) cannot be harmed by a lesser. True, Socrates may die because of Meletus' charge but Meletus will ultimately be harmed by this transaction, by executing a man unjustly.
"I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company" (Plato, 33).
Socrates states his death will do more harm to the city because he is there as a father or elder brother "to persuade you to care for virtue" (Plato, 34).
Socrates claims that because he does not charge for his service and lives in poverty proves his good intentions.
"A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not public, life if he is to survive for even a short time" (Plato, 34).
"Death is something I couldn't care less about, but my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious" (Plato, 35).
Socrates utters that he doesn't bring his sons to trial because he does not want to be acquitted because of pity. That would be both shameful to him and to the jury.
Once convicted Socrates again states what he has done he had done to fulfill a purpose to teach men to care more for virtue then worldly/bodily possessions. But here he equates virtue with happiness: "I make you be happy".
He counters Meletus' death sentence with his sentence: five meals in the Prytaneum.
Apology
Plato
Athenian juries were large. The jury was 501 strong for the trial of Socrates. Athenian juries acted as judge and jury.
However, sentencing was done uniquely. The prosecutor would suggest one and the defendant (found guilty) would give a counter offer. "This procedure generally made for moderation on both sides" (Plato, 20).
Socrates condemns the sophistry of his accuser who tells beautiful lies. He implores the jury to judge content, not style: "concentrate your attention on whether what I say is just or not, for the excellence of a judge lies in this, as that of a speaker lies in telling the truth" (Plato, 21).
Socrates values truth above all else: "let the matter proceed as the god may wish, but I must obey the law and make my defense" (Plato, 22).
Socrates says the rumors about him, which are false, stem from a certain type wisdom. "Human wisdom, perhaps. It may be that I really possess this, while those whom I mentioned are wise with a wisdom more than human; else I cannot explain it, for whoever says I do is lying and speaks to slander me" (Plato, 24).
Socrates' wisdom was thus, "I thought that he appeared wise to many people and especially to himself, but he was not. I tried to show him that he thought himself wise, but that he was not. As a result he came to dislike me, and so did many bystanders. So I withdrew and thought to myself: 'I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know" (Plato, 25).
Socrates then went about showing those thought to be wise that they were not in fact, wise. Thus, he came to be disliked by many others.
Socrates learned that he was the wisest man from the oracle at Delphi. Thus, his actions to prove others unwise was a divine mandate. It was his "investigation in the service of the god".
In this investigation he found those highly revered to be the most lacking and those thought to be deficient to be the most knowledgeable.
"I soon realized that poets do not compose their poems with knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets" (Plato, 25).
Socrates claims the meaning of the oracle's pronouncement is that human wisdom is not worth much and that Socrates is wise to realize this.
Socrates says it is his mission to "come to the assistance of the god" and show men that they are not wise. This activity has attracted the youth who have luxury and leisure to imitate him and do so. This is why the accusers claim Socrates is corrupting the youth. They are merely angry at being proved unwise.
Socrates claims that the great anger in the men who accuse him is validation that he is telling the truth about what it is he has actually done.
Socrates, satisfied that he has answered the service changes against him from his old accusers goes on the attack and counter accuses Meletus. "You have made it sufficiently obvious, Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subjects about which you bring me to trial" (Plato, 28).
Meletus contends that Socrates is an atheist, teaching that the sun and moon are not gods, but the sun is stone and the moon is earth. Socrates then ridicules him because this was the teaching of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae and these teachings can be learned for cheap from any book store.
He pins Meletus into a corner showing that he accuses Socrates of both being an atheist and believing and teaching a new spiritual teaching. "You must have made this deposition, Meletus, either to test us or because you were at a loss to find any true wrongdoing of which to accuse me" (Plato, 30).
Socrates is satisfied with his defense against Meletus at this point; but, he recognizes his unpopularity on account of embarassing the self-proclaimed wise of Athens. "I am very unpopular with many people. This will be my undoing, if I am undone, not Meletus..." (Plato, 31).
Despite his knowledge of his unpopularity Socrates is undeterred: "This [slander] has destroyed many other good men and will, I think, continue to do so. There is no danger that it will stop with me" (Plato, 31).
Socrates claims doing right actions is the only thing that matters, not the danger or harm that might come about from acting rightly.
"To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they know that it is the greatest of evil" (Plato, 31).
Wickedness - to do wrong, to disobey one's superior, whether he be god or man.
Socrates says it is better to care for the best possible state of one's soul rather than to care for wealth or bodily health.
"Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for me, both individuality and collectively" (Plato, 33).
Socrates again bashes Meletus claiming that a better man (Socrates) cannot be harmed by a lesser. True, Socrates may die because of Meletus' charge but Meletus will ultimately be harmed by this transaction, by executing a man unjustly.
"I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company" (Plato, 33).
Socrates states his death will do more harm to the city because he is there as a father or elder brother "to persuade you to care for virtue" (Plato, 34).
Socrates claims that because he does not charge for his service and lives in poverty proves his good intentions.
"A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not public, life if he is to survive for even a short time" (Plato, 34).
"Death is something I couldn't care less about, but my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious" (Plato, 35).
Socrates utters that he doesn't bring his sons to trial because he does not want to be acquitted because of pity. That would be both shameful to him and to the jury.
Once convicted Socrates again states what he has done he had done to fulfill a purpose to teach men to care more for virtue then worldly/bodily possessions. But here he equates virtue with happiness: "I make you be happy".
He counters Meletus' death sentence with his sentence: five meals in the Prytaneum.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Euthyphro
(Originally written November 16, 2016 in Book 26)
The Trial and Death of Socrates
3rd Edition
Plato
Hackett, 2000
Introduction
Socrates was 70 in 399 BC, the date of his trial and execultion.
- Lived through the Periclean age of Athens at its pinnacle of power
- But saw the Peloponnesian War and the defeat of Athens in 404 BC
Taught philosophy like a street preacher, exposing the ignorance of any self-proclaimed wise men
Euthyphro
This dialogue concerns the nature of piety. It is one of Socrates' searches for the universal definition of an ethical term.
Euthyphro appears to be a professional priest who "considers himself an expert on ritual and on piety generally, and, it seems, is generally so considered" (Plato, 1).
Meletus has indicted Socrates; but, of what, Euthyphro asks: "Strange things". Socrates is a maker of gods (he worships these new gods while neglecting belief in the old ones).
Euthyphro figures Meletus has brought the charge out of envy of Socrates.
Eurthyphro is prosecuting his father for murder. He must do it and distance himself from his father because "the pollution is the same if you knowingly keep company with such a man and do not cleanse yourself and him by bringing him to justice" (Plato, 4).
The notion of bringing one to justice as a way to cleanse the wrong-doer is an interesting one.
Euthyphro has a high view of himself: "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things" (Plato, 5).
All such things: what is pious and what is pious.
Socrates: What is pious?
To prosecute the wrong-doer, whether he is a relative or a stranger is the pious. To not prosecute is impious.
Euthyphro claims his prosecution of his father is pious because Zeus prosecuted his father piously.
Socrates doesn't accept this initial definition because it is just one description of one pious action.
"What is dear to the gods is pious; what is not is impious" (Plato, 7).
Socrates then points out that the gods are, at various times, at war with one another so a thing can be both god-loved and god-hated. Thus, a thing can be both pious and impious.
Socrates points out that Euthyphro's prosecution may be pleasing to Zeus but displeasing to Cronus and Uranus.
Euthyphro agrees to a narrowing definition of piety and its opposite: "the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all gods hate, is the impious" (Plato, 11).
Euthyphro - "the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice" (Plato, 15).
The Trial and Death of Socrates
3rd Edition
Plato
Hackett, 2000
Introduction
Socrates was 70 in 399 BC, the date of his trial and execultion.
- Lived through the Periclean age of Athens at its pinnacle of power
- But saw the Peloponnesian War and the defeat of Athens in 404 BC
Taught philosophy like a street preacher, exposing the ignorance of any self-proclaimed wise men
Euthyphro
This dialogue concerns the nature of piety. It is one of Socrates' searches for the universal definition of an ethical term.
Euthyphro appears to be a professional priest who "considers himself an expert on ritual and on piety generally, and, it seems, is generally so considered" (Plato, 1).
Meletus has indicted Socrates; but, of what, Euthyphro asks: "Strange things". Socrates is a maker of gods (he worships these new gods while neglecting belief in the old ones).
Euthyphro figures Meletus has brought the charge out of envy of Socrates.
Eurthyphro is prosecuting his father for murder. He must do it and distance himself from his father because "the pollution is the same if you knowingly keep company with such a man and do not cleanse yourself and him by bringing him to justice" (Plato, 4).
The notion of bringing one to justice as a way to cleanse the wrong-doer is an interesting one.
Euthyphro has a high view of himself: "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things" (Plato, 5).
All such things: what is pious and what is pious.
Socrates: What is pious?
To prosecute the wrong-doer, whether he is a relative or a stranger is the pious. To not prosecute is impious.
Euthyphro claims his prosecution of his father is pious because Zeus prosecuted his father piously.
Socrates doesn't accept this initial definition because it is just one description of one pious action.
"What is dear to the gods is pious; what is not is impious" (Plato, 7).
Socrates then points out that the gods are, at various times, at war with one another so a thing can be both god-loved and god-hated. Thus, a thing can be both pious and impious.
Socrates points out that Euthyphro's prosecution may be pleasing to Zeus but displeasing to Cronus and Uranus.
Euthyphro agrees to a narrowing definition of piety and its opposite: "the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all gods hate, is the impious" (Plato, 11).
Euthyphro - "the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice" (Plato, 15).
Introducing Plato (D)
(Originally written November 16, 2016 in Book 26)
Introducing Plato
D. Robinson
Particulars are contingent
Universals are the properties that particulars share with one another.
Plato was the first philosopher to see that universals were problematic.
Plato tried to explain it with a two-world system. A perfect world of universals and an imperfect world of copies (particulars).
The world of forms/ideas is never quite explained perfectly.
Forms exist in their own world and can only be "recollected only in the minds of a few talented and well-trained individuals" (Robinson, 65).
Plato's epistemology is difficult because it is mystical and therefore, not directly communicable.
Plato needed the forms to deal with the problem of Heraclitus' flux.
"Forms are more 'real' than particulars, because, unlike particulars, they are eternal and unchanging. Authentic philosophical knowledge can only ever be of these 'forms'" (Robinson, 74).
Everyone is born with the knowledge of the forms because everyone encounters them in earlier lives.
Some of the reason why Plato thought this way about particulars and universals was an account of the Greek language. It was a sort of linguistic determinism. It equates "meeting" and "knowing".
Heidegger was similar in his thinking as German is similar to Greek in how it deals with nouns. It precedes nouns with either masculine, feminine and neuter articles, allowing Heidegger to think about "the nothingness" rather than nothingness.
The forms suffer from an infinite regress, or third man argument.
Plato was also unsure if all man-made objects had forms or not.
The forms have weird ontological problems as well. How can the forms have more reality than particulars? Can reality have degrees?
Plato, because of the notion that meeting and knowing are the same thing, "Maintaining that real knowledge has to be a kind of personal and mystical encounter" (Robinson, 84).
What about universals?
Aristotle - universals are real, but don't exist separately
British Empiricists - universals are a mental image arrived at by abstraction.
"Wittgenstein suggested that our craving for definitive generalities can never be ultimately satisfied, and it is rather unhealthy" (Robinson, 87).
Plato introduced a problem that has not been satisfactorily solved.
Political Philosophy
Plato's view of society is communitarian, emphasizing the social nature of individuals. "Individuals can therefore be judged primarily in terms of their contribution to the State" (Robinson, 88).
The formation of the State came from humans developing a taste for luxury. Divisions of labor is then necessary to provide the luxuries.
Plato would turn the education over to the State (away from the hands of the dangerous Sophists). His educational system is roughly based on the Spartan system which produced a strong army and a stable society.
Plato wanted his society to have experts in every profession. The experts in ruling would get the guardian status and guardian education.
Plato would teach the myth that each man was born of a certain type of metal, thus predetermining every man's status in life.
The myth of the Cave allegory illustrates the ability and the duty of the guardian class.
Those who exit the cave know true knowledge comes from thinking, not seeing.
Plato's ideal republic is hierarchical but because of the myth of the four metals it will function well because everyone will know and accept their place in society (like a beehive).
"By the second generation, everyone will believe this myth of hierarchical castes to be natural and inevitable. Plato is quite content to admit that his hierarchical society must be based on a lie" (Robinson, 101).
Marx inverted the term "ideology" to explain how Plato's big lie works in reality.
The Guardian life is extremely rigorously controlled:
- lived coed in the barracks
- own no property
- breed only with one another by lot
- children are not left with their parents
"Plato's guardians are allowed no individuality or personal freedom" (Robinson, 103).
The social system Plato advocates is severe but it is meritocratic and is not sexist.
"Socrates maintained that morality is a special kind of knowledge which, once known, would always be chosen. Plato seems to have agreed, but argued that this knowledge must be restricted to Guardian experts who will always know the 'correct' answers to all moral problems" (Robinson, 106).
Plato had no time for art in the ideal republic. Only art as propaganda would be admitted. (This art foreshadowed the propagandist art of the Nazis and Soviets).
Plato's moral geometry is often rejected for being inflexible and for reason linking morality and knowledge.
Plato was anti-democratic because democrats have to resort to populism to stay in power. Populist policies are thus favored over wise ones.
"Democratic politicians are merely the slaves of those they pretend to rule, and ordinary people are volatile, violent and bestial" (Robinson, 114).
Popper argued against Plato for his utopianism.
Utopianists often advocate for wiping the slate clean which entails the destruction of society to build a new one.
"The Laws makes a disappointing ending to a philosophical body of work that began with a total commitment to Socrates' own freedom of speech and thought" (Robinson, 131).
"Because Plato cannot have perfect people, he insists on perfect laws which must be obeyed because they are perfect" (Robinson, 131).
The Symposium
Plato seems convinced that homosexual love could be transformed into something spiritually transcendental.
What is love?
Phaedrus: a good thing that instills honor and self-sacrifice
Pausanias: love is sensual gratification but is somehow purer when directed at young men rather than young women
Eryximachus: "love is the cosmic force that constitutes the universe itself" (Robinson, 134).
Aristophanes: Everyone was originally male, female and hermaphrodite. Love is the quest to find the lost part of one's soul. (Zeus punished humanity by splitting everyone into single genders).
Agathon - love is a yearning towards some object of beauty which is not yet possessed.
Diotima - love is the link between sensible and spiritual worlds. "If love is that which moves towards what is beautiful, and wisdom is beautiful, then love is the manifestation of the human soul seeking out the true wisdom of the forms" (Robinson, 136).
The Timaeus
Presents a cosmological account of creation.
"Time is simply a series of numbers that measure how the sub-standard cosmos is always changing" (Robinson, 142).
Plato follows Empedocles' view that all matter is various combinations of the four elements.
Humans are different because of their soul. The soul will return to its star after death if the owner of the soul lived a deserving life.
Plato also advocated metempsychosis (reincarnation) for those souls who aren't worthy of returning to its home star.
Plato's cosmology is similar to M-theory and other string theories that rely on mathematics.
Plato vacillates in the Thaetetus on his theories of perception. Sometimes he is a phenomenalist (we perceive mental images of the world, not the world itself). Sometimes he is a naive realist.
Despite his waffling on the notion of perception he remains staunchly a rationalist - all permanent knowledge comes through thought.
Being a rationalist, Plato had to come up with reasons for error. He claimed that errors arose from memory misapplication.
Knowledge - that which we believe, that which is true and that which we can clearly identify.
The Phaedrus condemns writing because writing is complete. Philosophy is always a process and therefore never complete. As such, dialoge is the best tool for philosophical discovery.
Plato had a long and varied influence:
- Origen developed a neo-platonic theology
- Galileo embraced Plato in his anti-Aristotelian view
- Hegel's dialectical philosophy
Introducing Plato
D. Robinson
Particulars are contingent
Universals are the properties that particulars share with one another.
Plato was the first philosopher to see that universals were problematic.
Plato tried to explain it with a two-world system. A perfect world of universals and an imperfect world of copies (particulars).
The world of forms/ideas is never quite explained perfectly.
Forms exist in their own world and can only be "recollected only in the minds of a few talented and well-trained individuals" (Robinson, 65).
Plato's epistemology is difficult because it is mystical and therefore, not directly communicable.
Plato needed the forms to deal with the problem of Heraclitus' flux.
"Forms are more 'real' than particulars, because, unlike particulars, they are eternal and unchanging. Authentic philosophical knowledge can only ever be of these 'forms'" (Robinson, 74).
Everyone is born with the knowledge of the forms because everyone encounters them in earlier lives.
Some of the reason why Plato thought this way about particulars and universals was an account of the Greek language. It was a sort of linguistic determinism. It equates "meeting" and "knowing".
Heidegger was similar in his thinking as German is similar to Greek in how it deals with nouns. It precedes nouns with either masculine, feminine and neuter articles, allowing Heidegger to think about "the nothingness" rather than nothingness.
The forms suffer from an infinite regress, or third man argument.
Plato was also unsure if all man-made objects had forms or not.
The forms have weird ontological problems as well. How can the forms have more reality than particulars? Can reality have degrees?
Plato, because of the notion that meeting and knowing are the same thing, "Maintaining that real knowledge has to be a kind of personal and mystical encounter" (Robinson, 84).
What about universals?
Aristotle - universals are real, but don't exist separately
British Empiricists - universals are a mental image arrived at by abstraction.
"Wittgenstein suggested that our craving for definitive generalities can never be ultimately satisfied, and it is rather unhealthy" (Robinson, 87).
Plato introduced a problem that has not been satisfactorily solved.
Political Philosophy
Plato's view of society is communitarian, emphasizing the social nature of individuals. "Individuals can therefore be judged primarily in terms of their contribution to the State" (Robinson, 88).
The formation of the State came from humans developing a taste for luxury. Divisions of labor is then necessary to provide the luxuries.
Plato would turn the education over to the State (away from the hands of the dangerous Sophists). His educational system is roughly based on the Spartan system which produced a strong army and a stable society.
Plato wanted his society to have experts in every profession. The experts in ruling would get the guardian status and guardian education.
Plato would teach the myth that each man was born of a certain type of metal, thus predetermining every man's status in life.
The myth of the Cave allegory illustrates the ability and the duty of the guardian class.
Those who exit the cave know true knowledge comes from thinking, not seeing.
Plato's ideal republic is hierarchical but because of the myth of the four metals it will function well because everyone will know and accept their place in society (like a beehive).
"By the second generation, everyone will believe this myth of hierarchical castes to be natural and inevitable. Plato is quite content to admit that his hierarchical society must be based on a lie" (Robinson, 101).
Marx inverted the term "ideology" to explain how Plato's big lie works in reality.
The Guardian life is extremely rigorously controlled:
- lived coed in the barracks
- own no property
- breed only with one another by lot
- children are not left with their parents
"Plato's guardians are allowed no individuality or personal freedom" (Robinson, 103).
The social system Plato advocates is severe but it is meritocratic and is not sexist.
"Socrates maintained that morality is a special kind of knowledge which, once known, would always be chosen. Plato seems to have agreed, but argued that this knowledge must be restricted to Guardian experts who will always know the 'correct' answers to all moral problems" (Robinson, 106).
Plato had no time for art in the ideal republic. Only art as propaganda would be admitted. (This art foreshadowed the propagandist art of the Nazis and Soviets).
Plato's moral geometry is often rejected for being inflexible and for reason linking morality and knowledge.
Plato was anti-democratic because democrats have to resort to populism to stay in power. Populist policies are thus favored over wise ones.
"Democratic politicians are merely the slaves of those they pretend to rule, and ordinary people are volatile, violent and bestial" (Robinson, 114).
Popper argued against Plato for his utopianism.
Utopianists often advocate for wiping the slate clean which entails the destruction of society to build a new one.
"The Laws makes a disappointing ending to a philosophical body of work that began with a total commitment to Socrates' own freedom of speech and thought" (Robinson, 131).
"Because Plato cannot have perfect people, he insists on perfect laws which must be obeyed because they are perfect" (Robinson, 131).
The Symposium
Plato seems convinced that homosexual love could be transformed into something spiritually transcendental.
What is love?
Phaedrus: a good thing that instills honor and self-sacrifice
Pausanias: love is sensual gratification but is somehow purer when directed at young men rather than young women
Eryximachus: "love is the cosmic force that constitutes the universe itself" (Robinson, 134).
Aristophanes: Everyone was originally male, female and hermaphrodite. Love is the quest to find the lost part of one's soul. (Zeus punished humanity by splitting everyone into single genders).
Agathon - love is a yearning towards some object of beauty which is not yet possessed.
Diotima - love is the link between sensible and spiritual worlds. "If love is that which moves towards what is beautiful, and wisdom is beautiful, then love is the manifestation of the human soul seeking out the true wisdom of the forms" (Robinson, 136).
The Timaeus
Presents a cosmological account of creation.
"Time is simply a series of numbers that measure how the sub-standard cosmos is always changing" (Robinson, 142).
Plato follows Empedocles' view that all matter is various combinations of the four elements.
Humans are different because of their soul. The soul will return to its star after death if the owner of the soul lived a deserving life.
Plato also advocated metempsychosis (reincarnation) for those souls who aren't worthy of returning to its home star.
Plato's cosmology is similar to M-theory and other string theories that rely on mathematics.
Plato vacillates in the Thaetetus on his theories of perception. Sometimes he is a phenomenalist (we perceive mental images of the world, not the world itself). Sometimes he is a naive realist.
Despite his waffling on the notion of perception he remains staunchly a rationalist - all permanent knowledge comes through thought.
Being a rationalist, Plato had to come up with reasons for error. He claimed that errors arose from memory misapplication.
Knowledge - that which we believe, that which is true and that which we can clearly identify.
The Phaedrus condemns writing because writing is complete. Philosophy is always a process and therefore never complete. As such, dialoge is the best tool for philosophical discovery.
Plato had a long and varied influence:
- Origen developed a neo-platonic theology
- Galileo embraced Plato in his anti-Aristotelian view
- Hegel's dialectical philosophy
Monday, November 14, 2016
Introducing Plato (C)
(Originally written November 14, 2016 in Book 26)
Introducing Plato
Dave Robinson
All of Plato's theories stem from his epistemology. "Plato's theory of knowledge is really what made him famous, even though no one fully understands it and Plato himself eventually had grave reservations about it" (Robinson, 61).
2 Types of knowledge:
1) Empirical - derived from the senses. But this isn't good because the empirical world was a sort of illusion. It is empirically different for each observer. Thus, one can only have an opinion of the sensible world.
Introducing Plato
Dave Robinson
All of Plato's theories stem from his epistemology. "Plato's theory of knowledge is really what made him famous, even though no one fully understands it and Plato himself eventually had grave reservations about it" (Robinson, 61).
2 Types of knowledge:
1) Empirical - derived from the senses. But this isn't good because the empirical world was a sort of illusion. It is empirically different for each observer. Thus, one can only have an opinion of the sensible world.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Introducing Plato (B)
(Originally written November 13, 2016 in Book 26)
Introducing Plato
D. Robinson & J. Groves
The Sophists sold their wisdom for profit. They treated philosophy as a self-help method to earn political position.
Plato & Socrates were hostile to the Sophists for two reasons:
1. The Sophists debased philosophy
2. The Sophists sold their teaching to whoever could pay, not just the Aristocracy
Sophists were on a sliding scale, but preached cultural and ethical relativism and ethical skepticism. The worst held ethical nihilism as a viewpoint.
Protagoras (490-420 BC)
- Agnostic
- Ethical relativist
While Protagoras was a relativist and Sophist he did garner some respect from Plato and Socrates, which is more than the cynical Callicles in the Gorgias got.
The Meno:
Concludes that virtue cannot be taught, it must be recalled.
"For Plato, knowledge is something we are already born with, and so 'learning' is simply forcing this knowledge to resurface into our conscious minds" (Robinson, 44).
Learning is anamnesis - recalling something imparted from the divine to the pre-existant souls of men.
The Republic:
Thrasymachus argues that society and the state are artificial constructs to limit the natural state of men.
Thrasymachus' views on morality predicted the views of Nietzsche and Marx.
Glaucon has a very negative view of humanity and posits a psychological egoist viewpoint. Humans are vicious, predatory beasts. Thomas Hobbes adopted this view and advocated strong governments to enforce morality.
Plato chooses not to argue against this as "psychological egoist explanations of all human behavior usually tend to be self-confirming and difficult to refute (Robinson, 60).
Introducing Plato
D. Robinson & J. Groves
The Sophists sold their wisdom for profit. They treated philosophy as a self-help method to earn political position.
Plato & Socrates were hostile to the Sophists for two reasons:
1. The Sophists debased philosophy
2. The Sophists sold their teaching to whoever could pay, not just the Aristocracy
Sophists were on a sliding scale, but preached cultural and ethical relativism and ethical skepticism. The worst held ethical nihilism as a viewpoint.
Protagoras (490-420 BC)
- Agnostic
- Ethical relativist
While Protagoras was a relativist and Sophist he did garner some respect from Plato and Socrates, which is more than the cynical Callicles in the Gorgias got.
The Meno:
Concludes that virtue cannot be taught, it must be recalled.
"For Plato, knowledge is something we are already born with, and so 'learning' is simply forcing this knowledge to resurface into our conscious minds" (Robinson, 44).
Learning is anamnesis - recalling something imparted from the divine to the pre-existant souls of men.
The Republic:
Thrasymachus argues that society and the state are artificial constructs to limit the natural state of men.
Thrasymachus' views on morality predicted the views of Nietzsche and Marx.
Glaucon has a very negative view of humanity and posits a psychological egoist viewpoint. Humans are vicious, predatory beasts. Thomas Hobbes adopted this view and advocated strong governments to enforce morality.
Plato chooses not to argue against this as "psychological egoist explanations of all human behavior usually tend to be self-confirming and difficult to refute (Robinson, 60).
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Cuckoldage - Book Report
Cuckoldage
-Dates from 1715
So if the dating by the Penguin authors and commentators is correct, Voltaire was roughly 21 years old when he wrote this really short fiction. The commentators note that it shows the authors gift for parody even when he was young. In this work Voltaire turns a fairly conventional story about the gods into something very unconventional. Its sacrilegious nature demonstrates what the commentators state as a bit of a shot across the brow towards Christianity, "Already, if only by implication, Christian values are dismissed in favour of a pagan world of free love" (ix)
The Literary Stuffs I like:
When talking about Vulcan (the blacksmith of the gods), Voltaire pens the line, "He filled the house with his din; cares and sorrows racked his spirit, jealous suspicions hammered at his brain" (Voltaire, 3).
The jealous of Vulcan drove his brain to give birth to Cuckoldage. Cuckoldage then goes about seducing married men's wives. As such, men must give devotion to this god: "whether from necessity or prudence, we must offer him our devotions, our incense and our candles. Married or unmarried, whether one acts or lives in fear, one must ever court his favors" (Voltaire, 4).
Voltaire expresses his love for Iris, the goddess of the rainbow. But, he decries that love now that she has been enslaved by a contract (God's covenant to Noah). Prior to that enslavement he only invoked the god of love. But now, because contracts lock up everything, Hymen is in charge of love. (Hymen presided over weddings). Now, Voltaire must invoke Cuckoldage "because he is the only god in whom I can believe" (Voltaire, 4).
That's some pretty dark humor on marriage and faithfulness.
-Dates from 1715
So if the dating by the Penguin authors and commentators is correct, Voltaire was roughly 21 years old when he wrote this really short fiction. The commentators note that it shows the authors gift for parody even when he was young. In this work Voltaire turns a fairly conventional story about the gods into something very unconventional. Its sacrilegious nature demonstrates what the commentators state as a bit of a shot across the brow towards Christianity, "Already, if only by implication, Christian values are dismissed in favour of a pagan world of free love" (ix)
The Literary Stuffs I like:
When talking about Vulcan (the blacksmith of the gods), Voltaire pens the line, "He filled the house with his din; cares and sorrows racked his spirit, jealous suspicions hammered at his brain" (Voltaire, 3).
The jealous of Vulcan drove his brain to give birth to Cuckoldage. Cuckoldage then goes about seducing married men's wives. As such, men must give devotion to this god: "whether from necessity or prudence, we must offer him our devotions, our incense and our candles. Married or unmarried, whether one acts or lives in fear, one must ever court his favors" (Voltaire, 4).
Voltaire expresses his love for Iris, the goddess of the rainbow. But, he decries that love now that she has been enslaved by a contract (God's covenant to Noah). Prior to that enslavement he only invoked the god of love. But now, because contracts lock up everything, Hymen is in charge of love. (Hymen presided over weddings). Now, Voltaire must invoke Cuckoldage "because he is the only god in whom I can believe" (Voltaire, 4).
That's some pretty dark humor on marriage and faithfulness.
Micromegas & Other Short Fictions Assessment
I finished Micromégas and Other Short Fictions by Voltaire about five days ago. Generally my assessments on this blog about books I have finished have been mercifully brief. But, my obsession with Voltaire demands something a bit more.
I rated this book (a Penguin) with three stars. I noted on my review that "Some people on this app labeled Candide as dated and thus, out of touch with the current character of this age. I wholeheartedly disagreed and argued the timeless nature of the work. Had they argued that some of the fictions in this book were the case I would have still argued agains them, but not as wholeheartedly. As an anthology this book is great. Voltaire is incredibly easy to read, profound and cuts to the bone. But because it is an anthology there are better and worse stories in it. Some of the stories demand you read the footnotes, while others can be simply enjoyed free of historical context.
Pot-Poori and the Account of the illness, confession, death and apparition of the Jesuit Breathier necessitate a glance back at the footnotes. Without reading the footnotes Pot-Pouri reads a bit like surrealist fiction (I'm not entirely convince it isn't). Micromégas and The History of the Travels of Scarmentado can just stand alone as humorous satire without demanding one know exactly what is being satirized. If you like Candide, you'll enjoy this. If you love Candide (as I do), you'll really enjoy this. If you don't like Candide, you're wrong."
This would be about the end of most of my assessments. Then I would write a few quotes that I found interesting or highlight some passages that I think would be useful later in my studies. But, since I want to really get to know Voltaire, I'm going to a story-by-story assessment. So, I'll be posting over and over on this book. But, it won't be a back-to-back-to-back sort of endeavor. I'll be doing it to break up the dry copying of my notes on Chalmer's What is this thing called science? Based on my handwriting and notes from 2006 I enjoyed the work. But, at the moment I'm not reliving my excitement...
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Introducing Plato (A)
(Originally written November 10, 2016 in Book 26)
Introducing Plato
Dave Robinson & Judy Groves
- Born in 427 in Athens, "Probably the most civilized place in the world" (Robinson, 4). The actual city of Athens was small enough for everyone to know everyone.
"Socrates maintained that philosophy couldn't be taught, because it was really an attitude of mind rather than a body of knowledge" (Robinson, 8).
Plato left Athens in disgust when Socrates was executed, traveling around the Mediterranean before settling in Sicily where he met Dion. Dion would eventually get Plato locked up in Syracuse for being his advocate. After Dion was assassinated during a coup attempt Plato gave up actual politics.
Ancient Greeks laid the foundations for Western society; but, were very different to modern Westerners in a few aspects:
1) They were much more tribal than individualistic
2) Teleological viewpoint: "Everything in the world aimed towards an ultimate purpose or design" (Robinson, 15).
3) Religion - the Greek gods were not very worship worthy. Sacrifices were made to appease them. Ethics and political values were held from outside sources rather than religious ones.
What makes the ancient Greeks modern is that they had a critical and investigative mind.
Plato was worried about the survival of Athens as an independent city-state in the post-Peloponnesian War system. Of course, there were the outside threats (Sparta and Persia). But there was an internal threat as well - the Sophists. Plato's Republic was a warning against this danger.
Plato was primarily influenced by Pythagoras, Socrates and Heraclitus.
Pythagoras was a monist of sorts, only his underlying substance was mathematics: everything was numbers.
Pythagoras was responsible for the Greek belief that knowledge had to be universal, permanent, obtained by reason and uncorrupted by the senses.
Heraclitus stated everything changes. The world is in eternal process. Heraclitus' skepticism about empirical knowledge reinforced the rationalism of Pythagoras.
Socrates was different though. He was more interested in how man should act rather than the heady investigations of the underlying stuffs of the natural world.
For Socrates, "the teleological purpose of human beings is to question everything and join in debate with others, in order to get as close as possible to the truth" (Robinson, 23).
Socrates was cautious, but not a skeptic.
For Socrates, "goodness was a kind of knowledge somehow encoded into the structure of the universe itself - there were moral facts. Once these were known, it would be impossible for anyone to do bad things. This means that a wicked man is merely one who is ignorant" (Robinson, 25).
The difference between the acutal Socrates and the Platonic Socrates is difficult to know because Socrates didn't write. It is assumed that the early Platonic dialogues were Socrates' actual thoughts while the middle and later dialogues were more of Plato's individual ideas.
The Euthyphro:
A discussion in the distinction between morality based on religious belief and morality based on philosophical reasoning.
"Only when people turn away from the dogmatism and irrationality of religion can true moral philosophy begin" (Robinson, 29).
The Apology:
An account of Socrates' speeches at his trial.
Socrates claims it is his duty as a man to consider what he is doing, is he acting rightly or wrongly; is he behaving morally?
The Crito:
An account of Socrates' refusal to escape his death sentence for ethical/political reasons.
The Phaedo:
An account of Socrates' death.
Arguments for the immortality of the soul.
"He ironically points out that philosophers have always been an ascetic bunch, uninterested in bodily pleasures, and so, 'half-dead' anyway. Philosophical thinking is a process of freeing the soul from the body: death is merely further separation" (Robinson, 34).
Death comes from life; thus, life must come from death.
Knowledge, for Plato, had to be stable like mathematics to evade the Heraclitian flux and the relativism of the skeptic. Plato acknowledged that truth existed, but knew it was hard to get as humans.
Introducing Plato
Dave Robinson & Judy Groves
- Born in 427 in Athens, "Probably the most civilized place in the world" (Robinson, 4). The actual city of Athens was small enough for everyone to know everyone.
"Socrates maintained that philosophy couldn't be taught, because it was really an attitude of mind rather than a body of knowledge" (Robinson, 8).
Plato left Athens in disgust when Socrates was executed, traveling around the Mediterranean before settling in Sicily where he met Dion. Dion would eventually get Plato locked up in Syracuse for being his advocate. After Dion was assassinated during a coup attempt Plato gave up actual politics.
Ancient Greeks laid the foundations for Western society; but, were very different to modern Westerners in a few aspects:
1) They were much more tribal than individualistic
2) Teleological viewpoint: "Everything in the world aimed towards an ultimate purpose or design" (Robinson, 15).
3) Religion - the Greek gods were not very worship worthy. Sacrifices were made to appease them. Ethics and political values were held from outside sources rather than religious ones.
What makes the ancient Greeks modern is that they had a critical and investigative mind.
Plato was worried about the survival of Athens as an independent city-state in the post-Peloponnesian War system. Of course, there were the outside threats (Sparta and Persia). But there was an internal threat as well - the Sophists. Plato's Republic was a warning against this danger.
Plato was primarily influenced by Pythagoras, Socrates and Heraclitus.
Pythagoras was a monist of sorts, only his underlying substance was mathematics: everything was numbers.
Pythagoras was responsible for the Greek belief that knowledge had to be universal, permanent, obtained by reason and uncorrupted by the senses.
Heraclitus stated everything changes. The world is in eternal process. Heraclitus' skepticism about empirical knowledge reinforced the rationalism of Pythagoras.
Socrates was different though. He was more interested in how man should act rather than the heady investigations of the underlying stuffs of the natural world.
For Socrates, "the teleological purpose of human beings is to question everything and join in debate with others, in order to get as close as possible to the truth" (Robinson, 23).
Socrates was cautious, but not a skeptic.
For Socrates, "goodness was a kind of knowledge somehow encoded into the structure of the universe itself - there were moral facts. Once these were known, it would be impossible for anyone to do bad things. This means that a wicked man is merely one who is ignorant" (Robinson, 25).
The difference between the acutal Socrates and the Platonic Socrates is difficult to know because Socrates didn't write. It is assumed that the early Platonic dialogues were Socrates' actual thoughts while the middle and later dialogues were more of Plato's individual ideas.
The Euthyphro:
A discussion in the distinction between morality based on religious belief and morality based on philosophical reasoning.
"Only when people turn away from the dogmatism and irrationality of religion can true moral philosophy begin" (Robinson, 29).
The Apology:
An account of Socrates' speeches at his trial.
Socrates claims it is his duty as a man to consider what he is doing, is he acting rightly or wrongly; is he behaving morally?
The Crito:
An account of Socrates' refusal to escape his death sentence for ethical/political reasons.
The Phaedo:
An account of Socrates' death.
Arguments for the immortality of the soul.
"He ironically points out that philosophers have always been an ascetic bunch, uninterested in bodily pleasures, and so, 'half-dead' anyway. Philosophical thinking is a process of freeing the soul from the body: death is merely further separation" (Robinson, 34).
Death comes from life; thus, life must come from death.
Knowledge, for Plato, had to be stable like mathematics to evade the Heraclitian flux and the relativism of the skeptic. Plato acknowledged that truth existed, but knew it was hard to get as humans.
Criticism of the Forms
(Originally written November 10, 2016 in Book 26)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Criticism of the Theory of Forms
The problem is how things of this world interact with the eternal forms to gain reality. It is difficult to see how Plato's spatio-temporal world is not just mere appearance.
Plato even suggests in the Parmenides that the notion of participation is confused.
Plato's attack on the theory of forms in Parmenides shows just how intellectually honest Plato was.
"He believed that the truth, insofar as men can attain it, emerges in the thrust and counter-thrust of argument conducted jointly by truth seekers" (Jones, 207). Plato's whole career through the dialogues was an exercise in truth-seeking.
Platonism moves on the assumption (according to Platonic Physics) that everything corporeal is a combination of the elements (fire, earth, water and air). Thus, there doesn't need to be a form for "mud" or "hair". Hair exists as a combination of the elements which are participating in the eternal form of each element.
Participation is the big hole in Plato's theory. He described participation as being akin to an object and its shadow. But this analogy breaks down because the relationship between an object is spatiotemporal and forms exist outside of time and space.
The problem for Plato is how to bridge the gap between the physical world which would be unknowable if they are not objects of the form (because of the problem of permanence) and the form world, which is knowable; but, if there is no participation then it too is unintelligible.
Plato bridged this gap with his notion of "psyche". The "psyche" (soul) was capable of knowing the eternal forms. Psyche contained the mind, which can knwo forms. Psyche also contained the passions (emotions) which are in tune with the physical world. Hence the psyche, contained in every man was the bridge between the form world and the sensible one.
But this creates only a complicating duality in the psyche itself.
He held that knowledge, at its best, trancends the conceptual communication modes.
Plato, in his work, was not totally systematic. But he provided a framework for Aristotle to work in a more unified way.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Criticism of the Theory of Forms
The problem is how things of this world interact with the eternal forms to gain reality. It is difficult to see how Plato's spatio-temporal world is not just mere appearance.
Plato even suggests in the Parmenides that the notion of participation is confused.
Plato's attack on the theory of forms in Parmenides shows just how intellectually honest Plato was.
"He believed that the truth, insofar as men can attain it, emerges in the thrust and counter-thrust of argument conducted jointly by truth seekers" (Jones, 207). Plato's whole career through the dialogues was an exercise in truth-seeking.
Platonism moves on the assumption (according to Platonic Physics) that everything corporeal is a combination of the elements (fire, earth, water and air). Thus, there doesn't need to be a form for "mud" or "hair". Hair exists as a combination of the elements which are participating in the eternal form of each element.
Participation is the big hole in Plato's theory. He described participation as being akin to an object and its shadow. But this analogy breaks down because the relationship between an object is spatiotemporal and forms exist outside of time and space.
The problem for Plato is how to bridge the gap between the physical world which would be unknowable if they are not objects of the form (because of the problem of permanence) and the form world, which is knowable; but, if there is no participation then it too is unintelligible.
Plato bridged this gap with his notion of "psyche". The "psyche" (soul) was capable of knowing the eternal forms. Psyche contained the mind, which can knwo forms. Psyche also contained the passions (emotions) which are in tune with the physical world. Hence the psyche, contained in every man was the bridge between the form world and the sensible one.
But this creates only a complicating duality in the psyche itself.
He held that knowledge, at its best, trancends the conceptual communication modes.
Plato, in his work, was not totally systematic. But he provided a framework for Aristotle to work in a more unified way.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Notes from Tao Te Ching
I finished Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching the other day and given that I'd never had any experience with the work before I was a bit befuddled. The commentary and notes in the Penguin edition were enlightening in that they stated that some of the sections were intentionally vague to allow for interpretation. That said, I probably need quite a bit more commentary reading to get me to any level of competency with the text. That said, there were a few passages that really stood out to me.
The first one that stood out to me is ironic given that it is the night of the election. The rhetoric of Trump resounding in my ears regardless of my wishes might have made this one stand out to me.
From IX -
"There may be gold and jade to fill a hall
But there is none who can keep them.
To be overbearing when one has wealth and position
Is to bring calamity upon oneself" (Tzu, 13).
Firstly, it mirrors the Biblical passage Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal". It would seem that the wisdom of ancient China and the wisdom of Jesus have a bit of universality of it. But this reflection came later, initially I thought of Trump. As Trump seems to be coming in with a bunch of surprising victories it seems that wisdom might not always be factually based...
From XIII - Taoism seems to have a dualistic philosophy
"The reason I have great trouble is that I have a body. When I no longer have a body, what trouble have I?" (Tzu, 17).
From XVIII - Again, my reading might have been shaded by current events, particularly the election of 2016 when this passage stuck out to me.
"When cleverness emerges
There is great hypocrisy" (Tzu, 22).
Frankly, the overbearingness of wealth and power seemed perfectly suited to Trump, but this passage seems to fit both Clinton and Trump perfectly.
From XXIII - It seems that Lao Tzu has a bit of nominative determinism about him as well in his philosophy.
"A man of the way conforms to the way; a man of virtue conforms to virtue; a man of loss conforms to loss. He who conforms to the way is gladly accepted by the way; he who conforms to virtue is gladly accepted by virtue; he who conforms to loss is gladly accepted by loss" (Tzu, 28).
From XLII - Addition by subtraction - a bit of wisdom from ancient minimalists?
"Thus a thing is sometimes added to by being diminished and diminished by being added to" (Tzu, 49).
From XLIV - Again some mirroring of Jesus' words in Matthew 6
"Know contentment
And you will suffer no disgrace" (Tzu, 51).
Matthew 6:28-34 has a bit of contentment and a lack of disgrace in it.
Paul talks about contentment in Philippians 4:12-13
Hebrews 13:5 also preaches contentment.
From XLVI - Contentment is preached again. This was a very good saying/poem.
"There is no disaster greater than not being content" (Tzu, 53).
From LVI - Just a good thought
"One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know" (Tzu, 63).
A lot of the sayings in this book are good, solid wisdom that is hard to argue against. The one that I found most foreign to my thinking and one that I couldn't quite get along with was the thought of following tradition and not breaking new ground. "Let your wheels move only along old ruts" (Tzu, 63). This thought was expressed numerous times in the book and I simply can't fit that into my thinking without fundamentally changing my thought process. That said, as I stated above, I'm so unfamiliar with this text I might be reading into it something that it wasn't intending.
From LXIII -
"Lay plans for the accomplishment of the difficult before it becomes difficult; make something big by starting with it when small. Difficult things in the world must needs have their beginnings in the easy; big things must needs have their beginnings in the small. Therefore it is because the sage never attempts to be great that he succeeds in becoming great" (Tzu, 70).
This is just sound, practical wisdom.
LXXIV seems to me (again pardon my misrepresentation if I'm reading it wrong) to be a questioning of capital punishment. "In chopping wood on behalf of the master carpenter, there are few who escape hurting their own hands instead" (Tzu, 81).
From LXXVII -
"It is the way of heaven to take from what has in excess in order to make good what is deficient. The way of man is otherwise. It takes from those who are in want in order to offer this to those who already have more than enough" (Tzu, 84).
This is a pretty damning indictment of the greediness of man.
From LXXVIII - That's just an example pretty excellent writing to end this part.
"Straightforward words
Seem paradoxical" (Tzu, 85).
From LXXXI - It seems that Lao Tzu could have easily stepped in to back Plato up against the Sophists...
"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good" (Tzu, 88).
The first one that stood out to me is ironic given that it is the night of the election. The rhetoric of Trump resounding in my ears regardless of my wishes might have made this one stand out to me.
From IX -
"There may be gold and jade to fill a hall
But there is none who can keep them.
To be overbearing when one has wealth and position
Is to bring calamity upon oneself" (Tzu, 13).
Firstly, it mirrors the Biblical passage Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal". It would seem that the wisdom of ancient China and the wisdom of Jesus have a bit of universality of it. But this reflection came later, initially I thought of Trump. As Trump seems to be coming in with a bunch of surprising victories it seems that wisdom might not always be factually based...
From XIII - Taoism seems to have a dualistic philosophy
"The reason I have great trouble is that I have a body. When I no longer have a body, what trouble have I?" (Tzu, 17).
From XVIII - Again, my reading might have been shaded by current events, particularly the election of 2016 when this passage stuck out to me.
"When cleverness emerges
There is great hypocrisy" (Tzu, 22).
Frankly, the overbearingness of wealth and power seemed perfectly suited to Trump, but this passage seems to fit both Clinton and Trump perfectly.
From XXIII - It seems that Lao Tzu has a bit of nominative determinism about him as well in his philosophy.
"A man of the way conforms to the way; a man of virtue conforms to virtue; a man of loss conforms to loss. He who conforms to the way is gladly accepted by the way; he who conforms to virtue is gladly accepted by virtue; he who conforms to loss is gladly accepted by loss" (Tzu, 28).
From XLII - Addition by subtraction - a bit of wisdom from ancient minimalists?
"Thus a thing is sometimes added to by being diminished and diminished by being added to" (Tzu, 49).
From XLIV - Again some mirroring of Jesus' words in Matthew 6
"Know contentment
And you will suffer no disgrace" (Tzu, 51).
Matthew 6:28-34 has a bit of contentment and a lack of disgrace in it.
Paul talks about contentment in Philippians 4:12-13
Hebrews 13:5 also preaches contentment.
From XLVI - Contentment is preached again. This was a very good saying/poem.
"There is no disaster greater than not being content" (Tzu, 53).
From LVI - Just a good thought
"One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know" (Tzu, 63).
A lot of the sayings in this book are good, solid wisdom that is hard to argue against. The one that I found most foreign to my thinking and one that I couldn't quite get along with was the thought of following tradition and not breaking new ground. "Let your wheels move only along old ruts" (Tzu, 63). This thought was expressed numerous times in the book and I simply can't fit that into my thinking without fundamentally changing my thought process. That said, as I stated above, I'm so unfamiliar with this text I might be reading into it something that it wasn't intending.
From LXIII -
"Lay plans for the accomplishment of the difficult before it becomes difficult; make something big by starting with it when small. Difficult things in the world must needs have their beginnings in the easy; big things must needs have their beginnings in the small. Therefore it is because the sage never attempts to be great that he succeeds in becoming great" (Tzu, 70).
This is just sound, practical wisdom.
LXXIV seems to me (again pardon my misrepresentation if I'm reading it wrong) to be a questioning of capital punishment. "In chopping wood on behalf of the master carpenter, there are few who escape hurting their own hands instead" (Tzu, 81).
From LXXVII -
"It is the way of heaven to take from what has in excess in order to make good what is deficient. The way of man is otherwise. It takes from those who are in want in order to offer this to those who already have more than enough" (Tzu, 84).
This is a pretty damning indictment of the greediness of man.
From LXXVIII - That's just an example pretty excellent writing to end this part.
"Straightforward words
Seem paradoxical" (Tzu, 85).
From LXXXI - It seems that Lao Tzu could have easily stepped in to back Plato up against the Sophists...
"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good" (Tzu, 88).
Who is Boris Pasternak?
I was at Goodwill and a little book was sitting, jutting out and it caught my eye. It's a basic little book with a sketch of a man's face on it entitled, "Poems" by Boris Pasternak. Not being much of a poetry reader I didn't think much of it, but the plainness of the sketch demanded that I opened it. It's a dual language book with Russian on the left hand side and English on the right. I was again intrigued by the peculiarity of this book and decided to read the first little poem. After reading it I decided it was worth the $1.99 price tag (much to my surprise, the color coordination of Goodwill meant that it was only $.99).
The lines that caught my eye:
"This close air is as flat as the boards
In the pond. The sky's flat on its face.
It would be fun if these stars guffawed-
But the universe is a dull place" (Pasternak, 113).
The bleakness spoke to me. But, who is Boris Pasternak? I don't really know. I found out from Wikipedia that he wrote Doctor Zhivago and this was unfortunately after I bought the book. My only experience with Doctor Zhivago was trying to watch it one time with Erin and falling asleep somewhere within the first third of the movie. But, I'm excited to see where Boris will take me when I pick it up.
The lines that caught my eye:
"This close air is as flat as the boards
In the pond. The sky's flat on its face.
It would be fun if these stars guffawed-
But the universe is a dull place" (Pasternak, 113).
The bleakness spoke to me. But, who is Boris Pasternak? I don't really know. I found out from Wikipedia that he wrote Doctor Zhivago and this was unfortunately after I bought the book. My only experience with Doctor Zhivago was trying to watch it one time with Erin and falling asleep somewhere within the first third of the movie. But, I'm excited to see where Boris will take me when I pick it up.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Plato's aesthetics and religion
(Originally written November 7, 2016 in Book 26)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Sciences
Theory of Art
There is an eternal form "Beauty". Things are beautiful in proportion to their participation in the form beauty.
For Plato, order was beauty. "To the degree that any physical object possess order, it is beautiful (Jones, 192).
Mathematics, because of its orderliness is more beautiful than any object.
Natural objects are more beautiful than objects of art because natural objects are copies of the eternal form and objects of art are copies of copies (shadows of shadows).
The artist is a liar and a deceiver.
Plato treated art cognitively, but recognized the emotive and conative aspects as well. Thus he treated artists as cognitively inferior to scientists, but dangerous magicians for the power they held over people's emotions.
"Meanings can be communicated without words, by a kind of intellectual osmosis. In fact, this is the way all really important things are in life are communicated - not formally via lectures or books, but gradually over long periods of time" (Jones, 194). Plato used myth as a short cut to convey deep knowledge that would otherwise require a long-term relationship between teacher and pupil.
Art stands between two types of knowledge - the direct experiential knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
Religion
Plato often used myth to convey the deep truths of religion as they shortcut to teaching.
Plato argues certain aspects of the nature of God can be discovered via natural theology.
1. God is good and thus not the author of hurtful things
2. God is not the author of all things, not even the author of many things experienced by man because man experiences more evil than good
3. God does punish the wicked
4. God is unchangeable
5. God does not lie or make false representations of himself
Plato advocated a first-cause movement argument. This first cause is a self-mover. This self-mover is soul. The soul is more ancient than all other motions.
"The gods are good, yea, exceeding good" (Jones, 198).
"The gods exist, and that they are careful and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice" (Jones, 199).
Plato housed his religious views in the language of myth which he intended for readers to take seriously, but not literally.
Timaeus -
God is a creator
What God creates is the cosmos
Plato believed the universe is a purposive whole. The universe is well ordered and ordered for the best. It satisfied not merely our intellectual curiosity but also our moral demands.
Plato (opposite of Christianity) is more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theology served two purposes:
1) The discoverable attributes of god shed light on the nature of the cosmos
2) A reminder of our limitations concerning our finite understandings
Plato's religion compared to Christianity
Plato had a profound impact on Christian theology because of similarities with Christianity.
But Plato's god is not an object of worship. His god is good, but not a loving Father.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Sciences
Theory of Art
There is an eternal form "Beauty". Things are beautiful in proportion to their participation in the form beauty.
For Plato, order was beauty. "To the degree that any physical object possess order, it is beautiful (Jones, 192).
Mathematics, because of its orderliness is more beautiful than any object.
Natural objects are more beautiful than objects of art because natural objects are copies of the eternal form and objects of art are copies of copies (shadows of shadows).
The artist is a liar and a deceiver.
Plato treated art cognitively, but recognized the emotive and conative aspects as well. Thus he treated artists as cognitively inferior to scientists, but dangerous magicians for the power they held over people's emotions.
"Meanings can be communicated without words, by a kind of intellectual osmosis. In fact, this is the way all really important things are in life are communicated - not formally via lectures or books, but gradually over long periods of time" (Jones, 194). Plato used myth as a short cut to convey deep knowledge that would otherwise require a long-term relationship between teacher and pupil.
Art stands between two types of knowledge - the direct experiential knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
Religion
Plato often used myth to convey the deep truths of religion as they shortcut to teaching.
Plato argues certain aspects of the nature of God can be discovered via natural theology.
1. God is good and thus not the author of hurtful things
2. God is not the author of all things, not even the author of many things experienced by man because man experiences more evil than good
3. God does punish the wicked
4. God is unchangeable
5. God does not lie or make false representations of himself
Plato advocated a first-cause movement argument. This first cause is a self-mover. This self-mover is soul. The soul is more ancient than all other motions.
"The gods are good, yea, exceeding good" (Jones, 198).
"The gods exist, and that they are careful and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice" (Jones, 199).
Plato housed his religious views in the language of myth which he intended for readers to take seriously, but not literally.
Timaeus -
God is a creator
What God creates is the cosmos
Plato believed the universe is a purposive whole. The universe is well ordered and ordered for the best. It satisfied not merely our intellectual curiosity but also our moral demands.
Plato (opposite of Christianity) is more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theology served two purposes:
1) The discoverable attributes of god shed light on the nature of the cosmos
2) A reminder of our limitations concerning our finite understandings
Plato's religion compared to Christianity
Plato had a profound impact on Christian theology because of similarities with Christianity.
But Plato's god is not an object of worship. His god is good, but not a loving Father.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Plato's Ethics and Politics
(Originally written November 6, 2016 in Book 26)
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Assessment of the Chronicles of Narnia
October was an especially fruitful month for my reading challenge. I finished thirteen books after completing only two in September. Among them were the seven books of the Chronicles of Narnia. I loved C.S. Lewis' works as a young child and decided to reread them as an adult and was not disappointed. I gave them all three stars on Goodreads other than Prince Caspian, which I gave four stars. Honestly, the best part of this series is that Lewis is such a great storyteller, you feel right in the middle of the story. I really enjoy how he weaves non-Christian myths into his allegorical telling of Christianity.
As far as ranking the books, currently from favorite to least I give this order:
Prince Caspian
The Horse and His Boy
The Last Battle
The Silver Chair
As far as ranking the books, currently from favorite to least I give this order:
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the WardrobeThe Horse and His Boy
The Last Battle
The Silver Chair
I think I enjoyed Prince Caspian the best because it was interesting to think of the four children, who had once been the Kings and Queens of Narnia, returning to the land they ruled in the golden age as children again, far into the Narnian future. I enjoyed the time differential in our world and in Narnia and how it was utilized. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader came next simply because it was such an interesting story on going to the edge of the world. The Magician's Nephew I enjoyed only slightly more than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe simply because I remembered the latter more clearly than the former and it was like reading The Magician's Nephew for the first time again. The Horse and His Boy is an excellent one too and I would consider the five I mentioned above as considerably more enjoyable to me than the last two. The Silver Chair I enjoyed the least simply because I found Eustace less interesting as a character than the other four children, and I felt that it was aimed at slightly younger readings and thus lost some of its universality.
The Last Battle has some interesting theological points in the follower of Tash coming to the final Narnia. I won't go to far into it, but there is an interesting idea of grace that I get from it. Personally, I think that the way to Heaven is laid out scripturally, no one comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ the Son. I don't think doctrinally or theologically a Christian can stray too far from this to embrace any kind of universal salvation for mankind, but I do think there is something to be said of admitting that the grace of God is larger than our ability to understand it. It's not something I would want to build a system of theology on, but something I would offer about any theory of God I would offer. It's good to admit one's limitations when describing God without limiting Him.
Assessment of The Kreutzer Sonata - Tolstoy
I finished The Kreutzer Sonata a few days ago and really enjoyed the book. It's a small, cheap edition of three of Tolstoy's stories: How Much Land Does a Man Need?, The Death of Ivan Ilych, & The Kreutzer Sonata. Firstly, I had never read any of these short stories and enjoyed them quite a bit. I especially liked How Much Land Does a Man Need? While, the ending might have been a bit predictable, the wording and the meaning is quite excellent. It's a very short tale that slams the greediness inherent to human beings and serves as a warning against the pains that greediness will bring.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Notes on Les Chants De Maldoror
Well. What can I say about Les Chants De Maldoror by Comte de Lautreamont? It is a book. It is a good book. It is a difficult book to read. And honestly, I wouldn't have wanted to be caught in flagrante delicato reading it. It's about as beautiful as a chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table. Honestly, it's a rough read. It's a celebration of evil and besides that it's way out there. Much of it is incredibly dark. But, I can understand why the surrealists held it up as the godfather of their artistic movement.
While I'd probably need to read it more thoroughly to fully grasp everything that was said in it, there were some points in it that really stuck out to me. In talking about man he writes, "As for me, I presume that he believes in his beauty only from pride, but that he is not really beautiful and that he suspects this, for why does he contemplate the countenance of his fellow man with so much scorn?" (Lautreamont, 18). It's a damning indictment and one that sticks well.
"Legislators of stupid institutions, inventors of narrow morality, keep your distance from me, for I have an impartial mind" (Lautreamont, 231). He celebrates the pride he has, but it is a wicked pride. Although it is truly reprehensible, he does it is an amazing and captivating style. He may be bad but he's perfectly good at it... Again he celebrates his pride. "Human justice has not yet surprised me in flagrante delicatu, despite the incontestable skill of its agents" (Lautreamont, 234).
"The theatre of war is nothing but a vast field of carnage when night reveals her presence and the silent moon appears between the rags of a cloud" (Lautreamont, 236). A pretty, but sad sentence.
"It is possible that in this manner you will succeed in rejoicing extremely the soul of the dead person who is about to take refuge from life in a grave" (Lautreamont, 237). A very pretty way to describe death - a refuge from life in the grave.
There are also fairly funny sentences that are truly surreal in nature. For example, "I began the preceding sentence, I calculate mentally that it would not be useless here to construct the complete avowal of my basic impotence, when it is especially a matter, as at present, of this imposing and unapproachable question" (Lautreamont, 239). "But there will be no more anathemas, possessing the specialty of provoking laughter; fictitious personalities who would have done better to remain in the author's brain" (Lautreamont, 256). And then he made me laugh, in public, caught in the act (in flagrante delicatu). "I no longer recall what I was intending to say, for I do not remember the beginning of the sentence" (Lautreamont, 261).
On a personal note I understood a short tale he told within the story. "He had contracted the habit of getting drunk; during the moments when he returned to the house after having visited the cabaret bars, his madness would become almost immeasurable, and he would strike out indiscriminately at any object that came in sight. But soon, under the protests of his friends, he reformed completely, and sank into a taciturn frame of mind. No one could come near him, not even our mother. He nursed a secret resentment against the idea of duty, which prevented him from having his own way" (Lautreamont, 282). I understand that resentment better than I wish I did.
In the Poésies he writes, "Judgments on poetry have more value than poetry. They are the philosophy of poetry. Philosophy, thus understood, comprises poetry. Poetry cannot do without philosophy. Philosophy can do without poetry." (Lautreamont, 330).
"We must not believe that what Nature has made friendly should be vicious. There has not been a century or a people that has not established imaginary virtues and vices" (Lautreamont, 340).
I think I'd like to reread this, but with a commentary. Or a couple of commentaries. But, as for why the surrealists and why they held it up as a precursor for them, I understand. Breton was amazed when he found the sentence, "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table ". He held it up as the beginning of the surrealist aesthetic. Max Ernst used this imagery to define the structure of a surrealist painting. He said that it linked two realities that have nothing to link them in a setting that shouldn't be linked with either of them. That is the essence of surrealism.
While I'd probably need to read it more thoroughly to fully grasp everything that was said in it, there were some points in it that really stuck out to me. In talking about man he writes, "As for me, I presume that he believes in his beauty only from pride, but that he is not really beautiful and that he suspects this, for why does he contemplate the countenance of his fellow man with so much scorn?" (Lautreamont, 18). It's a damning indictment and one that sticks well.
"Legislators of stupid institutions, inventors of narrow morality, keep your distance from me, for I have an impartial mind" (Lautreamont, 231). He celebrates the pride he has, but it is a wicked pride. Although it is truly reprehensible, he does it is an amazing and captivating style. He may be bad but he's perfectly good at it... Again he celebrates his pride. "Human justice has not yet surprised me in flagrante delicatu, despite the incontestable skill of its agents" (Lautreamont, 234).
"The theatre of war is nothing but a vast field of carnage when night reveals her presence and the silent moon appears between the rags of a cloud" (Lautreamont, 236). A pretty, but sad sentence.
"It is possible that in this manner you will succeed in rejoicing extremely the soul of the dead person who is about to take refuge from life in a grave" (Lautreamont, 237). A very pretty way to describe death - a refuge from life in the grave.
There are also fairly funny sentences that are truly surreal in nature. For example, "I began the preceding sentence, I calculate mentally that it would not be useless here to construct the complete avowal of my basic impotence, when it is especially a matter, as at present, of this imposing and unapproachable question" (Lautreamont, 239). "But there will be no more anathemas, possessing the specialty of provoking laughter; fictitious personalities who would have done better to remain in the author's brain" (Lautreamont, 256). And then he made me laugh, in public, caught in the act (in flagrante delicatu). "I no longer recall what I was intending to say, for I do not remember the beginning of the sentence" (Lautreamont, 261).
On a personal note I understood a short tale he told within the story. "He had contracted the habit of getting drunk; during the moments when he returned to the house after having visited the cabaret bars, his madness would become almost immeasurable, and he would strike out indiscriminately at any object that came in sight. But soon, under the protests of his friends, he reformed completely, and sank into a taciturn frame of mind. No one could come near him, not even our mother. He nursed a secret resentment against the idea of duty, which prevented him from having his own way" (Lautreamont, 282). I understand that resentment better than I wish I did.
In the Poésies he writes, "Judgments on poetry have more value than poetry. They are the philosophy of poetry. Philosophy, thus understood, comprises poetry. Poetry cannot do without philosophy. Philosophy can do without poetry." (Lautreamont, 330).
"We must not believe that what Nature has made friendly should be vicious. There has not been a century or a people that has not established imaginary virtues and vices" (Lautreamont, 340).
I think I'd like to reread this, but with a commentary. Or a couple of commentaries. But, as for why the surrealists and why they held it up as a precursor for them, I understand. Breton was amazed when he found the sentence, "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table ". He held it up as the beginning of the surrealist aesthetic. Max Ernst used this imagery to define the structure of a surrealist painting. He said that it linked two realities that have nothing to link them in a setting that shouldn't be linked with either of them. That is the essence of surrealism.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Assessment of Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad
I finished Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad yesterday after a month long struggle. It's not that I didn't enjoy the book because I did, it's just that as an anthology I think I found myself bored with some of the repetitive nature of the stories. I think I would have enjoyed them better in isolation. This particular book included the stories An Outpost of Progress, The Lagoon, The Nigger of the Narcissus, Youth, Heart of Darkness, Typhoon and The Secret Sharer. Youth and Typhoon were my favorites.
An Outpost of Progress was the first ever story I've read of Joseph Conrad. It was in my opinion, better than Heart of Darkness; but, as I stated above, I think that I would have enjoyed reading Heart of Darkness if I hadn't read four other short stories by Conrad right before. I was surprised by Outpost in what it was. I was assuming that Conrad was going to be a bit more, how can I put it, burden-of-the-white-man friendly. While there are some elements of his time that we might find distasteful in a 21st century context, he wasn't as Colonialist or Imperialist in his perspective as I had preconceived. Outpost is the prime example of this as he is much more introspective and questions the morality of colonialism by showing the two white characters as a bit stupid.
I found Youth and Typhoon the most entertaining because of the subject matter. Generally speaking, I like to have a book take me outside of the norms of my everyday life. Conrad was writing about everyday life, but I am removed enough from the seafaring days of the late 19th century, early 20th century that it might he might as well have been writing a fantasy novel for me. Youth and Typhoon were the most fantastic. The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting tale as it took a classical myth and turned it into a dark play on the story set in contemporary times. Heart of Darkness was slow-going for me because I was getting restless with reading Conrad stories. It is on my list of things to read still because I have a stand-alone copy. I was about to take it off that list and realized that I should read it in isolation to get a better understanding of it and to take it on its own footing. The Secret Sharer was rather bland for me. The Lagoon was good, but nothing overly remarkable.
The Preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting read because it covers Conrad's theory on Aesthetics and Art. He describes art as "a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying in its every aspect. It is an attempt to find in its forms, in its colors, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life, what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential - their one illuminating and convincing quality - the very truth of their existence" (Conrad, 57). For Conrad, then art is the attempt at discovering truth. He contrasts artists with scientists and thinkers. The scientists and thinkers speak to man's common sense, to his intellect and to his desire of peace. They speak to man's desire to believe. Artists however appeal to man's sense of wonder. Artists appeal to the parts of man that are hidden behind their appeal for order and facts.
"Fiction - if it at all aspires to be art - appeals to temperament. And in truth it must be, like painting, like music, like all art, the appeal of one temperament to all the other innumerable temperaments whose subtle and resistless power endows passing events with their true meaning, and creates the moral, the emotional atmosphere of the place and time. Such an appeal, to be effective, must be an impression conveyed through the senses; and, in fact, it cannot be made in any other way, because temperament, whether individual or collective, is not amenable to persuasion. All art, therefore, appeals primarily to the senses, and the artistic aim when expressing itself in written words must also make its appeal through the senses, if its high desire is to reach the secret spring of responsive emotions" (Conrad, 58). For Conrad then, writing is about eliciting an emotion from a reader. It has to appeal to the senses in order to reach that area where man hides his emotions. Interestingly, he states that writing must achieve the plasticity of sculpture, the color of painting and the magic suggestiveness of music. He calls music the "art of arts". I find that an author calling music the art of arts an interesting occurrence. It suggests a humility in Conrad. To achieve the aim of becoming art, Conrad demands that the form be perfect so that the end can be achieved. His chief aim is "to make you see" through his prose.
"Art is long and life is short, and success is very far off. And thus, doubtful of of strength to travel so far, we talk a little about the aim - the aim of art, which, like life itself, is inspiring, difficult - obscured by mists. It is not in the clear logic of a triumphant conclusion; it is not in the unveiling of one of those heartless secrets which are called the Laws of Nature. It is not less great, but only more difficult" (Conrad, 60). The aim of art is to arrest, however briefly, the busy workers of earth and compel them to glance a moment at the object of art, to make them smile. And while this is an intensely difficult task, when that smile, when that moment of pause does occur "behold! - all the truth of life is there: a moment of vision, a sigh, a smile - and the return to an eternal rest" (Conrad, 60). It's an interesting theory of aesthetics and one that demands a little more study from me.
The one part that I found incredibly interesting in Heart of Darkness is the Russian fellow who becomes enamored with Kurtz. This son of an Arch-Priest of the Government of Tambov is going to make an excellent short-story character. My aim will be to enlarge his mind further.
An Outpost of Progress was the first ever story I've read of Joseph Conrad. It was in my opinion, better than Heart of Darkness; but, as I stated above, I think that I would have enjoyed reading Heart of Darkness if I hadn't read four other short stories by Conrad right before. I was surprised by Outpost in what it was. I was assuming that Conrad was going to be a bit more, how can I put it, burden-of-the-white-man friendly. While there are some elements of his time that we might find distasteful in a 21st century context, he wasn't as Colonialist or Imperialist in his perspective as I had preconceived. Outpost is the prime example of this as he is much more introspective and questions the morality of colonialism by showing the two white characters as a bit stupid.
I found Youth and Typhoon the most entertaining because of the subject matter. Generally speaking, I like to have a book take me outside of the norms of my everyday life. Conrad was writing about everyday life, but I am removed enough from the seafaring days of the late 19th century, early 20th century that it might he might as well have been writing a fantasy novel for me. Youth and Typhoon were the most fantastic. The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting tale as it took a classical myth and turned it into a dark play on the story set in contemporary times. Heart of Darkness was slow-going for me because I was getting restless with reading Conrad stories. It is on my list of things to read still because I have a stand-alone copy. I was about to take it off that list and realized that I should read it in isolation to get a better understanding of it and to take it on its own footing. The Secret Sharer was rather bland for me. The Lagoon was good, but nothing overly remarkable.
The Preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting read because it covers Conrad's theory on Aesthetics and Art. He describes art as "a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying in its every aspect. It is an attempt to find in its forms, in its colors, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life, what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential - their one illuminating and convincing quality - the very truth of their existence" (Conrad, 57). For Conrad, then art is the attempt at discovering truth. He contrasts artists with scientists and thinkers. The scientists and thinkers speak to man's common sense, to his intellect and to his desire of peace. They speak to man's desire to believe. Artists however appeal to man's sense of wonder. Artists appeal to the parts of man that are hidden behind their appeal for order and facts.
"Fiction - if it at all aspires to be art - appeals to temperament. And in truth it must be, like painting, like music, like all art, the appeal of one temperament to all the other innumerable temperaments whose subtle and resistless power endows passing events with their true meaning, and creates the moral, the emotional atmosphere of the place and time. Such an appeal, to be effective, must be an impression conveyed through the senses; and, in fact, it cannot be made in any other way, because temperament, whether individual or collective, is not amenable to persuasion. All art, therefore, appeals primarily to the senses, and the artistic aim when expressing itself in written words must also make its appeal through the senses, if its high desire is to reach the secret spring of responsive emotions" (Conrad, 58). For Conrad then, writing is about eliciting an emotion from a reader. It has to appeal to the senses in order to reach that area where man hides his emotions. Interestingly, he states that writing must achieve the plasticity of sculpture, the color of painting and the magic suggestiveness of music. He calls music the "art of arts". I find that an author calling music the art of arts an interesting occurrence. It suggests a humility in Conrad. To achieve the aim of becoming art, Conrad demands that the form be perfect so that the end can be achieved. His chief aim is "to make you see" through his prose.
"Art is long and life is short, and success is very far off. And thus, doubtful of of strength to travel so far, we talk a little about the aim - the aim of art, which, like life itself, is inspiring, difficult - obscured by mists. It is not in the clear logic of a triumphant conclusion; it is not in the unveiling of one of those heartless secrets which are called the Laws of Nature. It is not less great, but only more difficult" (Conrad, 60). The aim of art is to arrest, however briefly, the busy workers of earth and compel them to glance a moment at the object of art, to make them smile. And while this is an intensely difficult task, when that smile, when that moment of pause does occur "behold! - all the truth of life is there: a moment of vision, a sigh, a smile - and the return to an eternal rest" (Conrad, 60). It's an interesting theory of aesthetics and one that demands a little more study from me.
The one part that I found incredibly interesting in Heart of Darkness is the Russian fellow who becomes enamored with Kurtz. This son of an Arch-Priest of the Government of Tambov is going to make an excellent short-story character. My aim will be to enlarge his mind further.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
The Form of Goodness and Plato's physics
(Originally written August 24, 2016 in Book 26)
The Form of Goodness gives the objects of knowledge (the forms) their truth. "It is the course of knowledge and truth; and so, while you may think of it as an object of knowledge, you will do well to regard it as something beyond truth and knowledge" (Jones, 133). The form of the good gives not only the other forms their truth and ability to be known, but their very being.
For Plato, all knowledge comes through the dialectic. Thus, one must live near and converse with a good-souled man to pick up knowledge. The truth of the forms comes not in tidy little maxims, but in conversation. A moral and intellectual osmosis occurs naturally over time between the two seekers. But, if not everyone can have this opportunity, Plato offers his myths (analogies) to give some light on the truth. These myths are not descriptions of reality, but imitations.
For Plato, man was not merely a curious observer of the universe. The forms (objects of knowledge) were not simple, brute facts to be acquired. Man is moral, aesthetic social and religious in nature. The forms are likewise such. "The world and man form an organic unity. The reality out there waiting to be known is somehow consonant with the moral knower" (Jones, 135).
The assent to learning the form of Goodness is difficult, painful and isolating. But it is worth the effort and trials. "Without having had a vision of this form no one can act with wisdom, either in his own life or in matters of state" (Jones, 137).
The assent to knowledge is isolating because the majority who have not yet ascended live in ignorance and prejudice without realizing they are living in that state and worse, one happy imn their ignorance.
One of Plato's central themes is the social nature of man. Being social he has moral obligations. Being social in nature, man is likewise obligated to his society. When he learns the form of the Good he is obligated to teach it to others and use it in his public affairs.
Man finds his life worth living as he contemplates absolute beauty, essential beauty.
For Plato, beauty is truth and truth is beauty.
Both The Republic and Symposium highlight the essential social aspect of man in ascending towards knowledge. "If one reaches the top it is only beacause of an opportunity for association with some initiate who has been willing to descend again into the cave" (Jones, 143).
The dialectic is essential to the acquisition of knowledge because knowledge of the truth (Beauty, the form of the good) is a cooperative advancement towards the good.
Plato believed that the knowledge of things like justice and equality could not come to man from empirical sources, but empirical sources show how equal things are not absolute equality, but fall short. He argues that we know absolute equality prior to birth because absolute equality is not physical.
1) Either we know something or nothing
2) We know at least one thing
3) There is at least one thing known
4) Knowledge is possible
5) "Forms exist, for only forms have the characteristics immutability, eternity, requisite for knowledge" (Jones, 145).
The proofs for forms from Plato are weak because instead of offering conclusive evidence of the forms it hangs on the inability of others to refute it. Problematically for Plato is that just because an arguer cannot refute the existence of forms doesn't mean that a refutation doesn't exist or that the arguer might not come up with one in the future.
Chapter 5 - Plato: the special sciences
Physics
Only Timaeus (of all Plato's dialogues) takes a deep interest in physics. Plato thought finding the truth about man, and politics more important than discovering the nature of the physical world. Besides that, he thought the effort futile because of the nature of the physical world and the failures of earlier philosophers to come to agreement on that nature.
The thesis of Timaeus, "if physics is about the phsycial world, it is not knowledge; if it is knowledge, it is not about the physical world (Jones, 148).
The physical world is merely a changing likeness of the eternal forms so any physics conclusion is a mere opinion.
Physics offers mechanistic descriptions, which are far less important to Plato than teleological explanations (causes).
Plato denied that colors are self-existent: the color anyone experiences is really just a change in the motion passing from the object and the observer's eye.
Everything sensible is an imitation of some form - the reflection of the corresponding form in some medium.
The medium for these imitations is space. Space is unintelligible and essentially resistant to rational analysis. The only analysis one can give about space (the medium by which all sensible objects appear to observers) is that it is, and that it must be.
The basic stuff of Plato's physical theory are the sensible images of the four forms earth, fire, water and air.
Plato concieved the physical world in geometrical principles and assumed that anlysis of the physical world could be done via geometry.
The geometry of physics can be further reduced to arithmetic because the geometrical nature of the four elements can be reduced to numbers. But in this reduction physics begins to cease being about the sensible world through rationalization and thus, ceases to be physics and becomes about the forms.
The Form of Goodness gives the objects of knowledge (the forms) their truth. "It is the course of knowledge and truth; and so, while you may think of it as an object of knowledge, you will do well to regard it as something beyond truth and knowledge" (Jones, 133). The form of the good gives not only the other forms their truth and ability to be known, but their very being.
For Plato, all knowledge comes through the dialectic. Thus, one must live near and converse with a good-souled man to pick up knowledge. The truth of the forms comes not in tidy little maxims, but in conversation. A moral and intellectual osmosis occurs naturally over time between the two seekers. But, if not everyone can have this opportunity, Plato offers his myths (analogies) to give some light on the truth. These myths are not descriptions of reality, but imitations.
For Plato, man was not merely a curious observer of the universe. The forms (objects of knowledge) were not simple, brute facts to be acquired. Man is moral, aesthetic social and religious in nature. The forms are likewise such. "The world and man form an organic unity. The reality out there waiting to be known is somehow consonant with the moral knower" (Jones, 135).
The assent to learning the form of Goodness is difficult, painful and isolating. But it is worth the effort and trials. "Without having had a vision of this form no one can act with wisdom, either in his own life or in matters of state" (Jones, 137).
The assent to knowledge is isolating because the majority who have not yet ascended live in ignorance and prejudice without realizing they are living in that state and worse, one happy imn their ignorance.
One of Plato's central themes is the social nature of man. Being social he has moral obligations. Being social in nature, man is likewise obligated to his society. When he learns the form of the Good he is obligated to teach it to others and use it in his public affairs.
Man finds his life worth living as he contemplates absolute beauty, essential beauty.
For Plato, beauty is truth and truth is beauty.
Both The Republic and Symposium highlight the essential social aspect of man in ascending towards knowledge. "If one reaches the top it is only beacause of an opportunity for association with some initiate who has been willing to descend again into the cave" (Jones, 143).
The dialectic is essential to the acquisition of knowledge because knowledge of the truth (Beauty, the form of the good) is a cooperative advancement towards the good.
Plato believed that the knowledge of things like justice and equality could not come to man from empirical sources, but empirical sources show how equal things are not absolute equality, but fall short. He argues that we know absolute equality prior to birth because absolute equality is not physical.
1) Either we know something or nothing
2) We know at least one thing
3) There is at least one thing known
4) Knowledge is possible
5) "Forms exist, for only forms have the characteristics immutability, eternity, requisite for knowledge" (Jones, 145).
The proofs for forms from Plato are weak because instead of offering conclusive evidence of the forms it hangs on the inability of others to refute it. Problematically for Plato is that just because an arguer cannot refute the existence of forms doesn't mean that a refutation doesn't exist or that the arguer might not come up with one in the future.
Chapter 5 - Plato: the special sciences
Physics
Only Timaeus (of all Plato's dialogues) takes a deep interest in physics. Plato thought finding the truth about man, and politics more important than discovering the nature of the physical world. Besides that, he thought the effort futile because of the nature of the physical world and the failures of earlier philosophers to come to agreement on that nature.
The thesis of Timaeus, "if physics is about the phsycial world, it is not knowledge; if it is knowledge, it is not about the physical world (Jones, 148).
The physical world is merely a changing likeness of the eternal forms so any physics conclusion is a mere opinion.
Physics offers mechanistic descriptions, which are far less important to Plato than teleological explanations (causes).
Plato denied that colors are self-existent: the color anyone experiences is really just a change in the motion passing from the object and the observer's eye.
Everything sensible is an imitation of some form - the reflection of the corresponding form in some medium.
The medium for these imitations is space. Space is unintelligible and essentially resistant to rational analysis. The only analysis one can give about space (the medium by which all sensible objects appear to observers) is that it is, and that it must be.
The basic stuff of Plato's physical theory are the sensible images of the four forms earth, fire, water and air.
Plato concieved the physical world in geometrical principles and assumed that anlysis of the physical world could be done via geometry.
The geometry of physics can be further reduced to arithmetic because the geometrical nature of the four elements can be reduced to numbers. But in this reduction physics begins to cease being about the sensible world through rationalization and thus, ceases to be physics and becomes about the forms.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Plato's theory of ideas
(Originally written August 10, 2016 in Book 26)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Ch. 4 - Plato: The theory of ideas (continued)
For Plato, a good state for good men to live in was only achievable when philosphers became kings or kings became philosophers. Democracy was a failure because it was ruled by many and the many were ignorant, emotionally unstable and selfish.
Plato was both mystical and rational in his teachings.
Plato's primary concern was to discover the basis for a good state where a good man can be moral and happy. In order to answer the questions like, "what is a good state?" or, "what is morality?" Plato had to show that these questions were answerable. He had to prove the existence of knowledge and the capacity to have it. "Plato realized that these problems about change, the one and the many, and appearance and reality had to be solved before he could satisfactorily answer the Sophists" (Jones, 122).
Plato solved the dilemma of Heraclitus' flux and Parmenides' nothing changes by claiming there are two worlds. The physical world is Heraclitus' perpetual flux. The world of ideas is however, like Parmenides' immutable, unchanging world. Unlike man's ideas which owe their reality to a particular man, the ideas of Plato's theory owed their own reality and it was more real than the physical world. These are the "forms".
The forms are non-physical, non-spatial and non-temporal. These forms cannot be known through perception. They are only objects of pure thought.
If for instance one is thinking about a triangle, he is thinking about the form triangle, not a particular triangle in the world; but, the universal one. The particular triangle he is seeing is an example that is participating in the universal triangle existing in the world of ideas.
The physical objects of this world aid man in thinking about the universal forms that those objects participate in (pertain to/resemble).
"In this physical world, then, everything is changing and nothing is ever exactly what it is; it is always becoming something different. In the world of forms, however, everything (as Bishop Butler said in another connection) is always that it is and not another thing" (Jones, 126). Because we think about the forms that are unchanging and not about the objects of this world that are changin, we can possess knowledge.
There are four states of mind: intelligence, thinking, belief and imagining. Intelligence is the highest state with the most larity and certainty. Imagining is the lowest.
Of the physical world one can have an opinion, not knowledge. He uses his imagination to percieve images, shadows and reflections. He may have beliefs about things or objects.
But, of the world of forms he may have knowledge. He thinks about the lower forms, the forms of things or objects in the physical world that participate in said form; i.e. He percieves a dog, Gallifrey, and has opinion of him but thinking, he thinks of dog, the universal form in which Gallifrey, a particular dog, participates in. Of the higher forms though, he uses intelligence or intuition to form knowledge. These higher forms are the ethereal forms.
Belief illuminates imagination. Knowledge illuminates belief and imagination. Intelligence illuminates all.
Each step up to the highest form illuminates everything beneath it. It frees the knower from conditions on his knowledge. If one were to get to the pinnacle of illumination he would intuitively know the form of the good.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Ch. 4 - Plato: The theory of ideas (continued)
For Plato, a good state for good men to live in was only achievable when philosphers became kings or kings became philosophers. Democracy was a failure because it was ruled by many and the many were ignorant, emotionally unstable and selfish.
Plato was both mystical and rational in his teachings.
Plato's primary concern was to discover the basis for a good state where a good man can be moral and happy. In order to answer the questions like, "what is a good state?" or, "what is morality?" Plato had to show that these questions were answerable. He had to prove the existence of knowledge and the capacity to have it. "Plato realized that these problems about change, the one and the many, and appearance and reality had to be solved before he could satisfactorily answer the Sophists" (Jones, 122).
Plato solved the dilemma of Heraclitus' flux and Parmenides' nothing changes by claiming there are two worlds. The physical world is Heraclitus' perpetual flux. The world of ideas is however, like Parmenides' immutable, unchanging world. Unlike man's ideas which owe their reality to a particular man, the ideas of Plato's theory owed their own reality and it was more real than the physical world. These are the "forms".
The forms are non-physical, non-spatial and non-temporal. These forms cannot be known through perception. They are only objects of pure thought.
If for instance one is thinking about a triangle, he is thinking about the form triangle, not a particular triangle in the world; but, the universal one. The particular triangle he is seeing is an example that is participating in the universal triangle existing in the world of ideas.
The physical objects of this world aid man in thinking about the universal forms that those objects participate in (pertain to/resemble).
"In this physical world, then, everything is changing and nothing is ever exactly what it is; it is always becoming something different. In the world of forms, however, everything (as Bishop Butler said in another connection) is always that it is and not another thing" (Jones, 126). Because we think about the forms that are unchanging and not about the objects of this world that are changin, we can possess knowledge.
There are four states of mind: intelligence, thinking, belief and imagining. Intelligence is the highest state with the most larity and certainty. Imagining is the lowest.
Of the physical world one can have an opinion, not knowledge. He uses his imagination to percieve images, shadows and reflections. He may have beliefs about things or objects.
But, of the world of forms he may have knowledge. He thinks about the lower forms, the forms of things or objects in the physical world that participate in said form; i.e. He percieves a dog, Gallifrey, and has opinion of him but thinking, he thinks of dog, the universal form in which Gallifrey, a particular dog, participates in. Of the higher forms though, he uses intelligence or intuition to form knowledge. These higher forms are the ethereal forms.
Belief illuminates imagination. Knowledge illuminates belief and imagination. Intelligence illuminates all.
Each step up to the highest form illuminates everything beneath it. It frees the knower from conditions on his knowledge. If one were to get to the pinnacle of illumination he would intuitively know the form of the good.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Two Short ideas concerning Socrates
1) Write a dialogue in Platonic style called Asclepius' Cock. Have him wonder why Socrates gave him the cock upon his death. The end of the story is that Socrates was giving him a cock, as is customary when one recovers from illness and the illness that Socrates has just recovered from was life.
2) Write a short story about the executioner of Socrates and his reaction to the whole mess.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Reaction to the previous blog post
Sarcasm. Sometimes I say things sarcastically and let it linger so that the other person doesn't know if I'm being sarcastic or not. Sometimes I do this unintentionally. I assume that they know me well enough to understand the intended sarcasm. I'll say something without the proper sarcastic voice tone and simply assume that they will understand that what I am saying is meant to be taken ironically because of the absurdity of the comment. The unfortunate thing is that the other person doesn't catch the sarcasm. Sometimes this is because they don't get it. Most of the times though it is because the person hearing my sarcasm does not know me well enough to get my irony. That happens often. I don't include enough back story for them to get my joke. But, that is often because my jokes are often meant to be self-amusement and if you happen to be in on it than you are fortunate to be on my level.
My wife does not often get my sarcasm. But, that is often for a different reason entirely. I say more ridiculous and outlandish things to her than I do to most people, other than to myself (which others often hear because most of the time that I am talking I am doing so to amuse myself rather than to convey information to another). However, even the amount of absurd claims and desires I profess to here are insignificant to the number of ideas that I keep locked away internally so that I am not locked away externally, literally or metaphorically speaking. But, I digress. The point is that often people don't get my sarcasm because I haven't given them enough space to understand that I'm being sarcastic. This is because I treat every sarcastic comment equally regardless of who happens to hear that comment. I assume they will understand the backstory. Often they don't because they have no possible way of knowing the backstory. This leads to awkward situations. I get some amusement out of the awkwardness.
If someone were to understand the entirety of my sarcasm they would have to know me very well, much better than the strangers I am often sarcastic with. Or, they would have to be with me at all points in my life to understand the necessary context into which my sarcastic jigsaw puzzle pieces often fit. Even then they would struggle to make the necessary connections because my mind works in ways that I can't always explain. The connections necessary to make sense of my sarcastic comments are often incongruous and illogical. But, they are my illogical, incongruous system. I understand it.
Other times I am vague in my declarations. This way if I see the conversation going sideways or slantways towards an avenue I don't have any intention of taking I can claim sarcasm and allow people into the context in which that comment can be taken sarcastically. Sometimes this is to allow myself to save face and shy away from the embarrassing words that have just come out of my mouth. Sometimes it is because the words have escaped my mouth before I have deemed them sarcastic or sincere. They float around in the ether as I ponder their meaning and tone. This leads to some uncomfortable and awkward silences. It produces a double laughter in me as I find amusement in awkwardness and I laugh when I am nervous. It is a vicious cycle because my nervous laughter often produces more awkwardness and the double laughter effect is amplified again and again until I am in the midst of a self-satisfying giggle fest.
I am however a relatively nice person. You simply need to understand the context and you'll agree that I'm relatively nice. However, I don't intend on giving you goal posts to measure my niceness so you'll have to come up with your own scale. Just remember, I'm relatively nice. What I'm trying to say in a long-winded way is that I'm vague only every so often and then not in a vicious way (mostly). Much of the lack of comprehension of my sarcasm comes because I, intentionally or otherwise, fail to provide enough context for someone to understand it as such. As I said before you would have to know me exceptionally well to catch all of my sarcasm because it is a bundle of innuendo and inside jokes. But even then you still might not catch all of my sarcasm. In fact, some times I'm not even sure if what I said was sarcastic or not.
Take for example the previous blog post. In it I was giving a play-by-play announcement of a classical concert. It is entirely possible that I was taking short-hand because I had to do an assignment for some class. It is also as likely that I was making a mockery of being forced to go to this concert by some person at the time. But, it is equally conceivable that I wasn't being sarcastic or forced to attend the concert for a school assignment. It is entirely possible that I was attempting to give an assessment of the concert using terrible cliches such as, "Triumphant. Exuberant, inspiring finale", and, "Masterful".
Who the hell does this 22 year-old, pretentious twat think he is? But if it was intended as sarcastic, I can picture that 22 year old kid laughing at his 32 year old counterpart hysterically. And then of course there is the option that the 22 year-old me was writing his opinions intentionally vague and experimenting with high-society language so that if he were to receive criticism he could claim sarcasm to save face. Or, if his silly language had been accepted he would have basked in the praise. And, if I had figured it out ten years ago I would have done both of these depending on whether the other party was laughing at or praising the words.
Alas, I find myself flummoxed. I don't know if it was sarcastic. The sentences and phrasing were rather awkward. Maybe that amused me at the time. Maybe it was just an experiment. It obviously wasn't an impactful one because I surely don't remember writing it. Maybe it was intentionally done that way so that the 22 year-old version of me could laugh at the 32 year-old version of me. I simply don't know. What I do know is that there is a story somewhere in all of this waiting to be carved out.
My wife does not often get my sarcasm. But, that is often for a different reason entirely. I say more ridiculous and outlandish things to her than I do to most people, other than to myself (which others often hear because most of the time that I am talking I am doing so to amuse myself rather than to convey information to another). However, even the amount of absurd claims and desires I profess to here are insignificant to the number of ideas that I keep locked away internally so that I am not locked away externally, literally or metaphorically speaking. But, I digress. The point is that often people don't get my sarcasm because I haven't given them enough space to understand that I'm being sarcastic. This is because I treat every sarcastic comment equally regardless of who happens to hear that comment. I assume they will understand the backstory. Often they don't because they have no possible way of knowing the backstory. This leads to awkward situations. I get some amusement out of the awkwardness.
If someone were to understand the entirety of my sarcasm they would have to know me very well, much better than the strangers I am often sarcastic with. Or, they would have to be with me at all points in my life to understand the necessary context into which my sarcastic jigsaw puzzle pieces often fit. Even then they would struggle to make the necessary connections because my mind works in ways that I can't always explain. The connections necessary to make sense of my sarcastic comments are often incongruous and illogical. But, they are my illogical, incongruous system. I understand it.
Other times I am vague in my declarations. This way if I see the conversation going sideways or slantways towards an avenue I don't have any intention of taking I can claim sarcasm and allow people into the context in which that comment can be taken sarcastically. Sometimes this is to allow myself to save face and shy away from the embarrassing words that have just come out of my mouth. Sometimes it is because the words have escaped my mouth before I have deemed them sarcastic or sincere. They float around in the ether as I ponder their meaning and tone. This leads to some uncomfortable and awkward silences. It produces a double laughter in me as I find amusement in awkwardness and I laugh when I am nervous. It is a vicious cycle because my nervous laughter often produces more awkwardness and the double laughter effect is amplified again and again until I am in the midst of a self-satisfying giggle fest.
I am however a relatively nice person. You simply need to understand the context and you'll agree that I'm relatively nice. However, I don't intend on giving you goal posts to measure my niceness so you'll have to come up with your own scale. Just remember, I'm relatively nice. What I'm trying to say in a long-winded way is that I'm vague only every so often and then not in a vicious way (mostly). Much of the lack of comprehension of my sarcasm comes because I, intentionally or otherwise, fail to provide enough context for someone to understand it as such. As I said before you would have to know me exceptionally well to catch all of my sarcasm because it is a bundle of innuendo and inside jokes. But even then you still might not catch all of my sarcasm. In fact, some times I'm not even sure if what I said was sarcastic or not.
Take for example the previous blog post. In it I was giving a play-by-play announcement of a classical concert. It is entirely possible that I was taking short-hand because I had to do an assignment for some class. It is also as likely that I was making a mockery of being forced to go to this concert by some person at the time. But, it is equally conceivable that I wasn't being sarcastic or forced to attend the concert for a school assignment. It is entirely possible that I was attempting to give an assessment of the concert using terrible cliches such as, "Triumphant. Exuberant, inspiring finale", and, "Masterful".
Who the hell does this 22 year-old, pretentious twat think he is? But if it was intended as sarcastic, I can picture that 22 year old kid laughing at his 32 year old counterpart hysterically. And then of course there is the option that the 22 year-old me was writing his opinions intentionally vague and experimenting with high-society language so that if he were to receive criticism he could claim sarcasm to save face. Or, if his silly language had been accepted he would have basked in the praise. And, if I had figured it out ten years ago I would have done both of these depending on whether the other party was laughing at or praising the words.
Alas, I find myself flummoxed. I don't know if it was sarcastic. The sentences and phrasing were rather awkward. Maybe that amused me at the time. Maybe it was just an experiment. It obviously wasn't an impactful one because I surely don't remember writing it. Maybe it was intentionally done that way so that the 22 year-old version of me could laugh at the 32 year-old version of me. I simply don't know. What I do know is that there is a story somewhere in all of this waiting to be carved out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)