Goodreads:
Days of Reading
Marcel Proust
I have not read Proust since my first try at college (roughly twenty years ago). I remember being overwhelmed by him. Part of that is the time constraints of a college semester. That meant we had two weeks to read In Search of Lost Time in a span of about two and a half weeks. Proust had, as indicated in Days of Reading, a much larger love of reading than I did at 17/18. I still struggle with all the many things that pull me in thousands of directions and won't allow me the time to read as much as I would like. If I tried to read that single novel in seven volumes in the span of two and a half weeks I would undoubtedly resort to what made the endeavor successful the last time - Cliff Notes. It's funny though that Proust explains, both explicitly and implicitly, why his masterpiece is so long.
Explicitly, he notes the length of his novel is long because he doesn't conceive of the novel as a succinct plot with a few characters. Days of Reading began as a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity". This is the implicit reason for the lengthy novel. We know that this essay was supposed to be a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity" because Proust tells us at the very end that is what he had initially set out to write. He was completely unsuccessful and instead wrote something completely different and promised to give the article at a later date.
I was expecting a short story when I picked this book up. I didn't read the cover and was struck unawares when it turned out to be a couple essays on literary criticism, art, aesthetics and the nature of truth. I'll have to reread this with a notebook some time later to grasp everything, but Proust has such a beautiful and flowing style that one can't help but admire his writing. If Proust is correct what draws me to him in his style is my recognition of his quality of vision and his role as the doorman, welcoming all readers into his own private universe.
Proust compares readings to an number of things: loving relationships, religious experience, friendships, telephone calls and more. He tends to elevate reading above all the comparisons he makes, but he still subordinates it to truth and creating. Reading is a form of friendship, a pure form. If we spend an evening with a book we do so because we choose to, not because it is imposed on us. "Reading is on the threshold of the spiritual life; it can introduce us to it: it does not constitute it" (Proust, 72). "Reading is for us the instigator whose magic keys have opened the odor to those dwelling places deep within us that we would not have known how to enter" (Proust, 75). For Proust, the truth is something that is deeply buried on the inside of the individual. The only way to make truth real is to create something out of that internal truth. Reading allows us to dig in there; but, it is a means and not an end.
There are two other quotes i underlined in the book that I'll add here so I don't forget them that aren't really relevant to the review. I just thought the were interesting and masterful sentences. "Love-affairs with living people may sometimes have a sordid origin which is later purified" (Proust, 39). "And so this voluntary servitude is the beginning of freedom" (Proust, 42). Two contradictory realities brought into harmony in such a short space of words: Proust was capable of succinctness! I think though, Proust very much enjoyed the sound of his own voice on the page. However, I type this in the complete knowledge, having brought to the cusp of this truth by reading this book, that I enjoy the sound of my voice at least as much as he enjoyed his.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Saturday, September 28, 2019
The Twelfth Century
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XI The Twelfth Century
Let me start by saying that I find the word, "Twelfth" to be one of the strangest in the English language. It takes a lot of concentration for me to say it without sounding a lot younger than I was on my twelfth birthday.
Four aspects of the 12th century that are especially interesting
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
The papacy continued to grow stronger in the 12th century, generally defeating the emperor and the kings of England and France and also having more strength over bishops, who were on the whole, more virtuous than prior to the reforms of the 11th.
The Italian, Lomabard cities of Northern Italy were able to fight off the Emperor. Their independence allowed the papacy to grow stronger as well as there was a buffer between Rome and the Germans.
The power of the popes was increased by the religious zeal and propaganda of the Crusades.
The first scholastic philosopher was Roscelin, born around 1050. He disappeared around 1120.
Abelard is a more well known scholastic whose writings have survived more in tact than the barely knowable Roscelin.
Abelard's most famous works, "Yes and No" show he loved disputation itself as he gave dialectical arguments for and against a variety of topics. His works being regarded as heretical might have arisen from his love of disputation as he was generally hostile to a lot of other thinkers. His lapses into actual heretical doctrine were fixed in his lifetime.
In addition to the rise of scholasticism there was a rise in mystical expressions as evident by the rise of Bernard of Clairvaux.
"The whole of early scholasticism may be viewed, politically, as an offshoot of the Church's struggle for power" (Russell, 441). The earliest scholastics were primarily French, which the papacy used as a counterbalance to the power of the Emperor.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XI The Twelfth Century
Let me start by saying that I find the word, "Twelfth" to be one of the strangest in the English language. It takes a lot of concentration for me to say it without sounding a lot younger than I was on my twelfth birthday.
Four aspects of the 12th century that are especially interesting
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
The papacy continued to grow stronger in the 12th century, generally defeating the emperor and the kings of England and France and also having more strength over bishops, who were on the whole, more virtuous than prior to the reforms of the 11th.
The Italian, Lomabard cities of Northern Italy were able to fight off the Emperor. Their independence allowed the papacy to grow stronger as well as there was a buffer between Rome and the Germans.
The power of the popes was increased by the religious zeal and propaganda of the Crusades.
The first scholastic philosopher was Roscelin, born around 1050. He disappeared around 1120.
Abelard is a more well known scholastic whose writings have survived more in tact than the barely knowable Roscelin.
Abelard's most famous works, "Yes and No" show he loved disputation itself as he gave dialectical arguments for and against a variety of topics. His works being regarded as heretical might have arisen from his love of disputation as he was generally hostile to a lot of other thinkers. His lapses into actual heretical doctrine were fixed in his lifetime.
In addition to the rise of scholasticism there was a rise in mystical expressions as evident by the rise of Bernard of Clairvaux.
"The whole of early scholasticism may be viewed, politically, as an offshoot of the Church's struggle for power" (Russell, 441). The earliest scholastics were primarily French, which the papacy used as a counterbalance to the power of the Emperor.
Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Goodreads: The Song of Roland
This is another book that I've rated a bit lower than I probably should have because of the lack of half stars on Goodreads. Can we please get halfstars?
The Song of Roland is great epic poetry, a wonderfully simple story with blood and guts, extreme violence and a great victory. It's also good propaganda. In that way, The Song of Roland is extremely successful. But, much of the complaining about it from modern readers is that it is overly simple and it depicts a very black and white morality: What is Christian is right and what is pagan/Islamic is not. There aren't too many complex characters in the story, which for epic poetry is ok. Charlemagne is the archetype for the godly, good, strong king. King Marsile, his opposite is weak, duplicitous and an archetype for a bad king. Baligant the emir, is a noble enemy worthy of Charlemagne. If Charlemagne only defeated King Marsile, the victory wouldn't have been good enough to write home about. It's like when Alabama beats Alabama A&M. It's supposed to happen. But, when Alabama beats somebody real, the two times a season they are faced with that situation, Alabama gets epics written about it that can reach an audience beyond the sycophantic south. But, I digress.
Roland is the perfect Medieval knight, brave yet pious. His death happens valiantly, but he still has time to get one last kill, pray to God for forgiveness of his sins, and die facing the country he is conquering in his death. I think the most modern character in the sense that he is the most complex is Ganelon, the traitor.
Ganelon, like Roland, has issues with pride. While Roland overcomes his pride to die a noble death, Ganelon succumbs to it and betrays his king for the sake of his own pride. He argues that his actions weren't driven treason but a personal feud with Roland. The fact that he isn't just killed upon returning to the capital, but is forced to undergo a trial by his peers that is decided in a personal combat between one of his liegeman and one that is personally loyal to Charlemagne is the scene I found the most compelling. Pinabel, the noble fighting for Ganelon is seen as good liegeman and because of it only God's intervention in the combat saves his opponent Theirry. Theirry has to win because he is the representative of the righteous Charlemagne and because treachery not only sinks the traitor, but those around him: "He who betrayeth, aye he slayeth himself and other men."
The other figure that I'm all of a sudden intrigued by is Turpin, the warrior archbishop. The Middle Ages is full of holy men doing war and I wouldn't have thought much of it until recently reading a book on Byzantine history. The idea of a warrior priest was rejected by the East. How different would have history been if the whole of the old Roman Empire had embraced the marriage between warriors and priests? How different would it have been if the West had shared the East's natural abhorrence to the concept of a priest carrying a sword? It's interesting how a story can change each time your read it.
The Song of Roland is great epic poetry, a wonderfully simple story with blood and guts, extreme violence and a great victory. It's also good propaganda. In that way, The Song of Roland is extremely successful. But, much of the complaining about it from modern readers is that it is overly simple and it depicts a very black and white morality: What is Christian is right and what is pagan/Islamic is not. There aren't too many complex characters in the story, which for epic poetry is ok. Charlemagne is the archetype for the godly, good, strong king. King Marsile, his opposite is weak, duplicitous and an archetype for a bad king. Baligant the emir, is a noble enemy worthy of Charlemagne. If Charlemagne only defeated King Marsile, the victory wouldn't have been good enough to write home about. It's like when Alabama beats Alabama A&M. It's supposed to happen. But, when Alabama beats somebody real, the two times a season they are faced with that situation, Alabama gets epics written about it that can reach an audience beyond the sycophantic south. But, I digress.
Roland is the perfect Medieval knight, brave yet pious. His death happens valiantly, but he still has time to get one last kill, pray to God for forgiveness of his sins, and die facing the country he is conquering in his death. I think the most modern character in the sense that he is the most complex is Ganelon, the traitor.
Ganelon, like Roland, has issues with pride. While Roland overcomes his pride to die a noble death, Ganelon succumbs to it and betrays his king for the sake of his own pride. He argues that his actions weren't driven treason but a personal feud with Roland. The fact that he isn't just killed upon returning to the capital, but is forced to undergo a trial by his peers that is decided in a personal combat between one of his liegeman and one that is personally loyal to Charlemagne is the scene I found the most compelling. Pinabel, the noble fighting for Ganelon is seen as good liegeman and because of it only God's intervention in the combat saves his opponent Theirry. Theirry has to win because he is the representative of the righteous Charlemagne and because treachery not only sinks the traitor, but those around him: "He who betrayeth, aye he slayeth himself and other men."
The other figure that I'm all of a sudden intrigued by is Turpin, the warrior archbishop. The Middle Ages is full of holy men doing war and I wouldn't have thought much of it until recently reading a book on Byzantine history. The idea of a warrior priest was rejected by the East. How different would have history been if the whole of the old Roman Empire had embraced the marriage between warriors and priests? How different would it have been if the West had shared the East's natural abhorrence to the concept of a priest carrying a sword? It's interesting how a story can change each time your read it.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
John the Scot
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VIII John the Scot
John the Scot or Johannes Scotus or Johannes Scotus Erigena was an Irishman, a Neoplatonist, a Greek scholar, a Pelagian and a pantheist. He is out of place in the 9th century and would have fit better in the 5th or 15th century.
"He set reason above faith, and cared nothing for the authority of ecclesiastics; yet his arbitrament was invoked to settle their controversies" (Russell, 400).
The Irish seem to have carried some Latin classics, knowledge of Greek and other knowledge throughout the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries when it was disappearing from the Continent.
Irish learning being monastic and not ecclesiastical shaped the Irish thought. There was less effort in administration and high theology than on the Continent.
Being isolated from the Pope both by distance and by not recognizing the pope's growing power, things lingered on in Ireland that disappeared elsewhere. The continuing presence of Pelagianism is borne out in some of John the Scot's ideas.
John went to France on the invitation by Charles the Bald around 843.
He kicked off a firestorm by placing the authority of philosophy on equal terms (or even higher than) with revelation. "He contended that reason and revelation are both sources of truth, and therefore cannot conflict; but if they ever seem to conflict, reason is to be preferred. True religion, he said, is true philosophy; but, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (Russell, 403).
John the Scot also translated the PseudoDionysius, a work that reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. While Pope Nicholas was not pleased that John had undertaken the work without his permission and blessing, he could not fault the translation from Greek to Latin.
John divides nature into four classes:
1) what creates and is not created
2) what creates and is created
3) what is created but does not create
4) what neither creates nor is created
For John the first was God, the second were the Platonic forms, the third was things in space and time. "The fourth, surprisingly, is again God, not as Creator, but as the End and Purpose of all things. Everything that emanates from God strives to return to Him; thus the end of all such things is the same as their beginning." (Russell, 404).
Sin was for John, the loss of the divine pattern.
The total of the Platonic Ideas is the Logos.
When God created things out of nothing, that nothing is understood by John to be himself. (Pantheism)
Creation is an eternal process in John. Created things are not distinct from God in John. "The creature subsists in God, and God manifests Himself in the creature in an ineffable manner" (Russell, 405).
"Sin has its source in freedom: it arose because man turned towards himself instead of towards
God. Evil does not have its ground in God, for in God there is no idea of evil. Evil is not-being
and has no ground, for if it had a ground it would be necessary. Evil is a privation of good." (Russell, 405).
"His independence of mind is shown by these heresies, and is astonishing in the ninth century. His Neoplatonic outlook may perhaps have been common in Ireland, as it was among the Greek Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It may be that, if we knew more about Irish Christianity from the fifth to the ninth century, we should find him less surprising. On the other hand, it may be that most of what is heretical in him is to be attributed to the influence of the pseudo-Dionysius, who, because of his supposed connection with Saint Paul, was mistakenly believed to be orthodox." (Russell, 406).
Sin was a consequence of a misdirected will, falsely assuming something is good that is not. It is punished, but like Origen, John holds a universal salvation platform.
Sin was problematic for John because of his pantheism. He also had some strange heretical views on women and viewed creation and the Fall as allegory and not literal.
John had a major impact on Medieval thought by translating the Pseudo-Dionysius but his great work, On the Division of Nature was constantly being condemned as heretical. In 1225 Pope Honorius III ordered all copies to be burnt, but many survived.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VIII John the Scot
John the Scot or Johannes Scotus or Johannes Scotus Erigena was an Irishman, a Neoplatonist, a Greek scholar, a Pelagian and a pantheist. He is out of place in the 9th century and would have fit better in the 5th or 15th century.
"He set reason above faith, and cared nothing for the authority of ecclesiastics; yet his arbitrament was invoked to settle their controversies" (Russell, 400).
The Irish seem to have carried some Latin classics, knowledge of Greek and other knowledge throughout the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries when it was disappearing from the Continent.
Irish learning being monastic and not ecclesiastical shaped the Irish thought. There was less effort in administration and high theology than on the Continent.
Being isolated from the Pope both by distance and by not recognizing the pope's growing power, things lingered on in Ireland that disappeared elsewhere. The continuing presence of Pelagianism is borne out in some of John the Scot's ideas.
John went to France on the invitation by Charles the Bald around 843.
He kicked off a firestorm by placing the authority of philosophy on equal terms (or even higher than) with revelation. "He contended that reason and revelation are both sources of truth, and therefore cannot conflict; but if they ever seem to conflict, reason is to be preferred. True religion, he said, is true philosophy; but, conversely, true philosophy is true religion" (Russell, 403).
John the Scot also translated the PseudoDionysius, a work that reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. While Pope Nicholas was not pleased that John had undertaken the work without his permission and blessing, he could not fault the translation from Greek to Latin.
John divides nature into four classes:
1) what creates and is not created
2) what creates and is created
3) what is created but does not create
4) what neither creates nor is created
For John the first was God, the second were the Platonic forms, the third was things in space and time. "The fourth, surprisingly, is again God, not as Creator, but as the End and Purpose of all things. Everything that emanates from God strives to return to Him; thus the end of all such things is the same as their beginning." (Russell, 404).
Sin was for John, the loss of the divine pattern.
The total of the Platonic Ideas is the Logos.
When God created things out of nothing, that nothing is understood by John to be himself. (Pantheism)
Creation is an eternal process in John. Created things are not distinct from God in John. "The creature subsists in God, and God manifests Himself in the creature in an ineffable manner" (Russell, 405).
"Sin has its source in freedom: it arose because man turned towards himself instead of towards
God. Evil does not have its ground in God, for in God there is no idea of evil. Evil is not-being
and has no ground, for if it had a ground it would be necessary. Evil is a privation of good." (Russell, 405).
"His independence of mind is shown by these heresies, and is astonishing in the ninth century. His Neoplatonic outlook may perhaps have been common in Ireland, as it was among the Greek Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It may be that, if we knew more about Irish Christianity from the fifth to the ninth century, we should find him less surprising. On the other hand, it may be that most of what is heretical in him is to be attributed to the influence of the pseudo-Dionysius, who, because of his supposed connection with Saint Paul, was mistakenly believed to be orthodox." (Russell, 406).
Sin was a consequence of a misdirected will, falsely assuming something is good that is not. It is punished, but like Origen, John holds a universal salvation platform.
Sin was problematic for John because of his pantheism. He also had some strange heretical views on women and viewed creation and the Fall as allegory and not literal.
John had a major impact on Medieval thought by translating the Pseudo-Dionysius but his great work, On the Division of Nature was constantly being condemned as heretical. In 1225 Pope Honorius III ordered all copies to be burnt, but many survived.
The Papacy in the Dark Ages
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VII The Papacy in the Dark Ages
What the popes from 600 to 1000 did are vital to understanding the relation of Church and State during the Medieval period.
The western part of the church deferred to the Pope. The patriarchs in the east however were not willing to put up with papal authority. The emperor would sometimes favor the pope when he got into a tight spot with the patriarch, but the patriarchs generally acquiesced to the authority of the emperor.
The Pope's ties to Byzantine Emperors was severed when Pope Stephen III, in 754, made a deal with Pepin to replace the Merovingian king in France. Pepin got control of the French crown and the Pope got political power over much of what used to be Byzantine Italy.
The Papal break with the Byzantine Emperor allowed for the west and the east Church to develop completely differently. In the West the Pope became the ultimate authority, even higher than secular kings. In the East, the Emperor remained the ultimate seat of power.
The basis of secular power the Medieval Popes built on was a forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". It stated that when Constantine built New Rome, power over old Rome and Italy was transferred to the Pope.
The defeat of the Lombards was slow and took the emergence of Charlemagne to complete. In AD 800 on Christmas day, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
The relationship between pope and holy roman emperor was a rocky one that couldn't be avoided because the two were mutually dependent. The popes needed the military muscle of the would be emperor and the would be emperor required the pope to crown him. This made for an uneasy relationship.
"Charlemagne was a vigorous barbarian, politically in alliance with the Church, but not unduly
burdened with personal piety. He could not read or write, but he inaugurated a literary
renaissance. He was dissolute in his life, and unduly fond of his daughters, but he did all in his
power to promote holy living among his subjects." (Russell, 393).
Only the theories inaugurated during the reign of Charlemagne survived him. His line turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
Germany was converted mainly under St. Boniface (680 - 754). It is owing to his missionary work in Germany that the converts were papal supporters. Had they been more aligned to the Irish it would have been very different as the Irish had some autonomy from Rome.
The collapse of the Carolingian power after Charlemagne was seen as an opportunity for the papacy and the popes took more power. Pope Nicholas I (858 - 867) took the power of the pope to new heights as he battled with virtually everyone and was victorious.
The church had power over the kings because they controlled who could get married and how a marriage could be dissolved. Without the church's backing succession crisis and dynastic struggles were sure to follow.
Nicholas I even did battle with the Emperor Michael III over the deposing of Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas was victorious as Ignatius was restored after the emperor was murdered. But, in the long run when Ignatius passed away the schism between East and West grew broader.
The papacy was dominated by the Roman aristocracy in the 10th century leading to bad and morally corrupt popes. Their corruption saw them lose all power in the east and they struggled to maintain control over the bishops north of the Alps.
As 1000 dawned the lowest point of European Christendom seems to have passed. The Church would continue to struggle with rulers and priests who were worldly, but reform movements, often beginning in monastic circles would occasionally correct the Church's direction.
After 1000 the migrations of barbarians also seemed to stop for a bit in the west. Especially important was the Norman conquest of Sicily away from the Saracens and the Norman conquest of England away from the Danes.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VII The Papacy in the Dark Ages
What the popes from 600 to 1000 did are vital to understanding the relation of Church and State during the Medieval period.
The western part of the church deferred to the Pope. The patriarchs in the east however were not willing to put up with papal authority. The emperor would sometimes favor the pope when he got into a tight spot with the patriarch, but the patriarchs generally acquiesced to the authority of the emperor.
The Pope's ties to Byzantine Emperors was severed when Pope Stephen III, in 754, made a deal with Pepin to replace the Merovingian king in France. Pepin got control of the French crown and the Pope got political power over much of what used to be Byzantine Italy.
The Papal break with the Byzantine Emperor allowed for the west and the east Church to develop completely differently. In the West the Pope became the ultimate authority, even higher than secular kings. In the East, the Emperor remained the ultimate seat of power.
The basis of secular power the Medieval Popes built on was a forgery called the "Donation of Constantine". It stated that when Constantine built New Rome, power over old Rome and Italy was transferred to the Pope.
The defeat of the Lombards was slow and took the emergence of Charlemagne to complete. In AD 800 on Christmas day, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
The relationship between pope and holy roman emperor was a rocky one that couldn't be avoided because the two were mutually dependent. The popes needed the military muscle of the would be emperor and the would be emperor required the pope to crown him. This made for an uneasy relationship.
"Charlemagne was a vigorous barbarian, politically in alliance with the Church, but not unduly
burdened with personal piety. He could not read or write, but he inaugurated a literary
renaissance. He was dissolute in his life, and unduly fond of his daughters, but he did all in his
power to promote holy living among his subjects." (Russell, 393).
Only the theories inaugurated during the reign of Charlemagne survived him. His line turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
Germany was converted mainly under St. Boniface (680 - 754). It is owing to his missionary work in Germany that the converts were papal supporters. Had they been more aligned to the Irish it would have been very different as the Irish had some autonomy from Rome.
The collapse of the Carolingian power after Charlemagne was seen as an opportunity for the papacy and the popes took more power. Pope Nicholas I (858 - 867) took the power of the pope to new heights as he battled with virtually everyone and was victorious.
The church had power over the kings because they controlled who could get married and how a marriage could be dissolved. Without the church's backing succession crisis and dynastic struggles were sure to follow.
Nicholas I even did battle with the Emperor Michael III over the deposing of Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople. Nicholas was victorious as Ignatius was restored after the emperor was murdered. But, in the long run when Ignatius passed away the schism between East and West grew broader.
The papacy was dominated by the Roman aristocracy in the 10th century leading to bad and morally corrupt popes. Their corruption saw them lose all power in the east and they struggled to maintain control over the bishops north of the Alps.
As 1000 dawned the lowest point of European Christendom seems to have passed. The Church would continue to struggle with rulers and priests who were worldly, but reform movements, often beginning in monastic circles would occasionally correct the Church's direction.
After 1000 the migrations of barbarians also seemed to stop for a bit in the west. Especially important was the Norman conquest of Sicily away from the Saracens and the Norman conquest of England away from the Danes.
Saint Benedict & Gregory the Great
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VI Saint Benedict and Gregory the Great
In the chaos of the wars in the sixth and succeeding centuries it was the Church that preserved what was left of the Roman culture.
Monasticism began in Egypt and Syria in the fourth centuries. St. Anthony, the first of the hermits was born in Egypt in 250 AD. His rigorous asceticism was popular and attracted many copycats.
Monasticism sprang up in Syria around the same time and the Greek speaking world saw monastic organizations flourish because of St. Basil (circa 360 AD).
Monasticism began outside of the Church hierarchy and the work of St. Athanasius was what reconciled the clergy to the monks. St. Jerome promoted the movement and St. Augustine introduced it to Africa. St Martin of Tours set it up in Gaul and St. Patrick set everything up in Ireland. St. Columba founded the monastery of Iona in 566.
"There seem to have been nuns before there were monks - as early as the middle of the third century. Some shut themselves up in tombs" (Russell, 377).
The Western tradition of monasticism owes much to St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictine Order. In 520 AD he founded the monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict brought order to the ascetic way of life.
Benedict died in 543 and his monastery was sacked by the Lombards, but afterwards the monks returned and Monte Cassino became a place of scholarship that greatly aided the West in later years.
Benedict has been described as a miracle worker and that he wounded his body so he could cure the wounds of his soul.
"His fame being spread abroad, the monks of a certain monastery, whose abbot had lately died,
besought him to accept the succession. He did so, and insisted upon observance of strict virtue, so
that the monks, in a rage, decided to poison him with a glass of poisoned wine. He, however,
made the sign of the cross over the glass, whereupon it broke in pieces. So he returned to the
wilderness" (Russell, 379).
Benedict also faced an assassination attempt from a wicked priest. When the poisoned loaf he sent to Benedict was taken away by a crow at Benedict's command the priest sent seven naked women to tempt Benedict. For fear of the temptation being too much for the younger monks Benedict left the monastery. When news that the wicked priest had died a jubilant young monk went and told Benedict the news and said it was safe to come back. Benedict went back but mourned for the dead priest and imposed a penance on the monk who had gleefully related the news.
Gregory the Great, the powerful pope was born in Rome around 540 to a rich, noble family. After a bright start to a political career Gregory turned himself over to God and became a Benedictine monk.
"Gregory, owing partly to his personal qualities and partly to the prevailing anarchy, was able to assert successfully an authority which was admitted by ecclesiastics throughout the West, and even, to a lesser degree, in the East. He exerted this authority chiefly by means of letters to bishops and secular rulers in all parts of the Roman world" (Russell, 382).
Gregory also wrote Book of Pastoral Rule that gave practical advice to Bishops and elevated the papacy to authority and the church in authority over the state.
Gregory was hostile to secular learning and the Church retained that hostility until the 11th century under Pope Sylvester II.
Gregory wrote many letters that show him stern with both secular authorities and other bishops. However, he was much more deferential when dealing with the Emperor, even in dealing with Phocas who murdered his way to power in a brutal way.
Missionary work was crucial at the time of Gregory and much of the barbarian population of the West either converted from paganism or from Arian Christianity during the time. Gregory was particularly concerned with re-Christianizing England that had been nominally Christian under the empire but was lately overrun by pagan Angles and Saxons.
"The period we have been considering is peculiar in the fact that, though its great men are inferior
to those of many other epochs, their influence on future ages has been greater. Roman law,
monasticism, and the papacy owe their long and profound influence very largely to Justinian,
Benedict, and Gregory. The men of the sixth century, though less civilized than their predecessors,
were much more civilized than the men of the next four centuries, and they succeeded in framing
institutions that ultimately tamed the barbarians. It is noteworthy that, of the above three men, two
were aristocratic natives of Rome, and the third was Roman Emperor. Gregory is in a very real
sense the last of the Romans. His tone of command, while justified by his office, has its instinctive
basis in Roman aristocratic pride. After him, for many ages, the city of Rome ceased to produce
great men. But in its downfall it succeeded in fettering the souls of its conquerors: the reverence
which they felt for the Chair of Peter was an outcome of the awe which they felt for the throne of
the Caesars.
In the East, the course of history was different. Mahomet was born when Gregory was about thirty
years old." (Russell, 387).
Bertrand Russell
Chapter VI Saint Benedict and Gregory the Great
In the chaos of the wars in the sixth and succeeding centuries it was the Church that preserved what was left of the Roman culture.
Monasticism began in Egypt and Syria in the fourth centuries. St. Anthony, the first of the hermits was born in Egypt in 250 AD. His rigorous asceticism was popular and attracted many copycats.
Monasticism sprang up in Syria around the same time and the Greek speaking world saw monastic organizations flourish because of St. Basil (circa 360 AD).
Monasticism began outside of the Church hierarchy and the work of St. Athanasius was what reconciled the clergy to the monks. St. Jerome promoted the movement and St. Augustine introduced it to Africa. St Martin of Tours set it up in Gaul and St. Patrick set everything up in Ireland. St. Columba founded the monastery of Iona in 566.
"There seem to have been nuns before there were monks - as early as the middle of the third century. Some shut themselves up in tombs" (Russell, 377).
The Western tradition of monasticism owes much to St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictine Order. In 520 AD he founded the monastery at Monte Cassino. Benedict brought order to the ascetic way of life.
Benedict died in 543 and his monastery was sacked by the Lombards, but afterwards the monks returned and Monte Cassino became a place of scholarship that greatly aided the West in later years.
Benedict has been described as a miracle worker and that he wounded his body so he could cure the wounds of his soul.
"His fame being spread abroad, the monks of a certain monastery, whose abbot had lately died,
besought him to accept the succession. He did so, and insisted upon observance of strict virtue, so
that the monks, in a rage, decided to poison him with a glass of poisoned wine. He, however,
made the sign of the cross over the glass, whereupon it broke in pieces. So he returned to the
wilderness" (Russell, 379).
Benedict also faced an assassination attempt from a wicked priest. When the poisoned loaf he sent to Benedict was taken away by a crow at Benedict's command the priest sent seven naked women to tempt Benedict. For fear of the temptation being too much for the younger monks Benedict left the monastery. When news that the wicked priest had died a jubilant young monk went and told Benedict the news and said it was safe to come back. Benedict went back but mourned for the dead priest and imposed a penance on the monk who had gleefully related the news.
Gregory the Great, the powerful pope was born in Rome around 540 to a rich, noble family. After a bright start to a political career Gregory turned himself over to God and became a Benedictine monk.
"Gregory, owing partly to his personal qualities and partly to the prevailing anarchy, was able to assert successfully an authority which was admitted by ecclesiastics throughout the West, and even, to a lesser degree, in the East. He exerted this authority chiefly by means of letters to bishops and secular rulers in all parts of the Roman world" (Russell, 382).
Gregory also wrote Book of Pastoral Rule that gave practical advice to Bishops and elevated the papacy to authority and the church in authority over the state.
Gregory was hostile to secular learning and the Church retained that hostility until the 11th century under Pope Sylvester II.
Gregory wrote many letters that show him stern with both secular authorities and other bishops. However, he was much more deferential when dealing with the Emperor, even in dealing with Phocas who murdered his way to power in a brutal way.
Missionary work was crucial at the time of Gregory and much of the barbarian population of the West either converted from paganism or from Arian Christianity during the time. Gregory was particularly concerned with re-Christianizing England that had been nominally Christian under the empire but was lately overrun by pagan Angles and Saxons.
"The period we have been considering is peculiar in the fact that, though its great men are inferior
to those of many other epochs, their influence on future ages has been greater. Roman law,
monasticism, and the papacy owe their long and profound influence very largely to Justinian,
Benedict, and Gregory. The men of the sixth century, though less civilized than their predecessors,
were much more civilized than the men of the next four centuries, and they succeeded in framing
institutions that ultimately tamed the barbarians. It is noteworthy that, of the above three men, two
were aristocratic natives of Rome, and the third was Roman Emperor. Gregory is in a very real
sense the last of the Romans. His tone of command, while justified by his office, has its instinctive
basis in Roman aristocratic pride. After him, for many ages, the city of Rome ceased to produce
great men. But in its downfall it succeeded in fettering the souls of its conquerors: the reverence
which they felt for the Chair of Peter was an outcome of the awe which they felt for the throne of
the Caesars.
In the East, the course of history was different. Mahomet was born when Gregory was about thirty
years old." (Russell, 387).
Woman at Point Zero
From Goodreads
I can't say that I enjoyed this book more than The Circling Song because there isn't much to enjoy about this book. It's not bad in the sense that it is poorly written. In fact there are passages that are exceptionally well written.
"Now I had learnt that honour required large sums of money to protect it, but that large sums of money could not be obtained without losing one's honour"
"I am speaking the truth. And truth is savage and dangerous".
"I only arrived at the savage, primitive truths of life after years of struggle. For it is only very rarely that people can arrive at the simple, but awesome and powerful truths of life after one no longer fears death. For death and truth are similar in that they both require a great courage if one wishes to face them".
It's beautiful writing, and like The Circling Song the story echoes itself and with each echo one sees more of the savage truth being unveiled. Having read the other book I was more prepared for thsi one, but it's still not a fun read. It reminds me a bit of the movie Dogville, especially with all the rape and the power structures between men and women ending in a reversal by the end. Like Dogville too, it's a good piece of work that I don't see me picking up again any time in the near future.
In some ways Firdaus is a bit of a stoic saint, suffering, but rising above the suffering. Her outlook on life as suffering and suffering as the path to truth have the feel of Stoicism about it. However, she has to have a final, explosive act of passion to move from the dissociative state to the state of enlightenment that doesn't quite fit the mold. But then again, Marcus Aurelius killed more than a single pimp. Firdaus is a character that is hard to empathize with, but she was made so by the male dominated society that was both the setting and the impetus for her abuse. I don't want to make light of anybody's suffering, but this book details a much more graphic and horrific situation than what more contemporary and Western feminist writers are having to deal with at the moment. It's probably wrong of me to look at the world with a sliding scale approach to oppression, but it's hard not to read something like this book and compare it to the railings against mansplaining or the fight over whether women athletes should be paid as much as their male counterparts. I'm sure some of this comes from a bit of a chauvinist way of thinking; but, it feels as though it is rooted in reality and common sense.
A comparison between this and Aristophane's Lysistrata would be an interesting endeavor.
I can't say that I enjoyed this book more than The Circling Song because there isn't much to enjoy about this book. It's not bad in the sense that it is poorly written. In fact there are passages that are exceptionally well written.
"Now I had learnt that honour required large sums of money to protect it, but that large sums of money could not be obtained without losing one's honour"
"I am speaking the truth. And truth is savage and dangerous".
"I only arrived at the savage, primitive truths of life after years of struggle. For it is only very rarely that people can arrive at the simple, but awesome and powerful truths of life after one no longer fears death. For death and truth are similar in that they both require a great courage if one wishes to face them".
It's beautiful writing, and like The Circling Song the story echoes itself and with each echo one sees more of the savage truth being unveiled. Having read the other book I was more prepared for thsi one, but it's still not a fun read. It reminds me a bit of the movie Dogville, especially with all the rape and the power structures between men and women ending in a reversal by the end. Like Dogville too, it's a good piece of work that I don't see me picking up again any time in the near future.
In some ways Firdaus is a bit of a stoic saint, suffering, but rising above the suffering. Her outlook on life as suffering and suffering as the path to truth have the feel of Stoicism about it. However, she has to have a final, explosive act of passion to move from the dissociative state to the state of enlightenment that doesn't quite fit the mold. But then again, Marcus Aurelius killed more than a single pimp. Firdaus is a character that is hard to empathize with, but she was made so by the male dominated society that was both the setting and the impetus for her abuse. I don't want to make light of anybody's suffering, but this book details a much more graphic and horrific situation than what more contemporary and Western feminist writers are having to deal with at the moment. It's probably wrong of me to look at the world with a sliding scale approach to oppression, but it's hard not to read something like this book and compare it to the railings against mansplaining or the fight over whether women athletes should be paid as much as their male counterparts. I'm sure some of this comes from a bit of a chauvinist way of thinking; but, it feels as though it is rooted in reality and common sense.
A comparison between this and Aristophane's Lysistrata would be an interesting endeavor.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter V: The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The fifth century saw the break up of the Empire and centralized authority was preserved only in the Church and that was accomplished with much effort.
The Goths took over Italy, the Vandals took Africa, the Visigoths took over in the South of France and the Franks took over France and Germany.
There was also the horror of Atilla and his Hunnic rabble from the east.
The theological hairsplitting of Cyril and Nestorius over a Christological matter erupted into violence. Nestorius claimed that there were two persons in Christ, one human and one divine. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic in a sham of an ecumenical council. Nestorius however did not recant and Nestorian Christianity was popular in Syria and even traveled to China and India where it was rediscovered centuries later by western missionaries.
After the Nestorian heresy came the opposite, the Monophysite heresy, that claimed Christ had only one nature. At the end of two ecumenical councils, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon Christianity declared that there is only one person of Christ but that he exists in two natures, one human and one divine.
The heresies of Nestorius and Monophysitism weakened the bonds of Christianity and facilitated the Arab conquest. "The heresy of the Abyssinians was given by Mussolini as one of his reasons for conquering them" (Russell, 369).
During the 6th century four men emerged as important: Boethius, Justinian, Benedict and Gregory the Great.
Boethius, author of Consolations of Philosophy was put to death by the Arian ruler of Italy, Theodoric when Justin the Eastern emperor proscribed Arianism.
"Boethius is a singular figure. Throughout the Middle Ages he was read and admired, regarded
always as a devout Christian, and treated almost as if he had been one of the Fathers. Yet his
Consolations of Philosophy, written in 524 while he was awaiting execution, is purely Platonic; it
does not prove that he was not a Christian, but it does show that pagan philosophy had a much
stronger hold on him then Christian theology. Some theological works, especially one on the
Trinity, which are attributed to him, are by many authorities considered to be spurious; but it was
probably owing to them that the Middle Ages were able to regard him as orthodox, and to imbibe
from him much Platonism which would otherwise have been viewed with suspicion." (Russell, 370).
A lot of the morality of Boethius is Stoic in nature. He takes on the privation theory of evil.
He claimed that men become happy by becoming a god. There is only one God, but there are many by participation in God.
Only the virtuous obtain the good.
Given that the book was written in prison under the sentence of death the work is as admirable as the last moment of Platonic Socrates.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter V: The Fifth and Sixth Centuries
The fifth century saw the break up of the Empire and centralized authority was preserved only in the Church and that was accomplished with much effort.
The Goths took over Italy, the Vandals took Africa, the Visigoths took over in the South of France and the Franks took over France and Germany.
There was also the horror of Atilla and his Hunnic rabble from the east.
The theological hairsplitting of Cyril and Nestorius over a Christological matter erupted into violence. Nestorius claimed that there were two persons in Christ, one human and one divine. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic in a sham of an ecumenical council. Nestorius however did not recant and Nestorian Christianity was popular in Syria and even traveled to China and India where it was rediscovered centuries later by western missionaries.
After the Nestorian heresy came the opposite, the Monophysite heresy, that claimed Christ had only one nature. At the end of two ecumenical councils, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon Christianity declared that there is only one person of Christ but that he exists in two natures, one human and one divine.
The heresies of Nestorius and Monophysitism weakened the bonds of Christianity and facilitated the Arab conquest. "The heresy of the Abyssinians was given by Mussolini as one of his reasons for conquering them" (Russell, 369).
During the 6th century four men emerged as important: Boethius, Justinian, Benedict and Gregory the Great.
Boethius, author of Consolations of Philosophy was put to death by the Arian ruler of Italy, Theodoric when Justin the Eastern emperor proscribed Arianism.
"Boethius is a singular figure. Throughout the Middle Ages he was read and admired, regarded
always as a devout Christian, and treated almost as if he had been one of the Fathers. Yet his
Consolations of Philosophy, written in 524 while he was awaiting execution, is purely Platonic; it
does not prove that he was not a Christian, but it does show that pagan philosophy had a much
stronger hold on him then Christian theology. Some theological works, especially one on the
Trinity, which are attributed to him, are by many authorities considered to be spurious; but it was
probably owing to them that the Middle Ages were able to regard him as orthodox, and to imbibe
from him much Platonism which would otherwise have been viewed with suspicion." (Russell, 370).
A lot of the morality of Boethius is Stoic in nature. He takes on the privation theory of evil.
He claimed that men become happy by becoming a god. There is only one God, but there are many by participation in God.
Only the virtuous obtain the good.
Given that the book was written in prison under the sentence of death the work is as admirable as the last moment of Platonic Socrates.
St. Augustine's Philosophy and Theology
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. IV Saint Augustine's Philosophy and Theology
I. Pure Philosophy
"Saint Augustine, at most times, does not occupy himself with pure philosophy, but when he does he shows very great ability" (Russell, 352).
Book XI of Confessions is some of his best pure philosophy. Creation, out of nothing as was taught in the Old Testament, was totally foreign to Greek philosophy. Augustine sought to meld philosophy with the Scriptural account of Genesis.
This exercise led to Augustine asking why creation was created sooner. His answer was because there was no sooner. Time was created when the world was created. God is eternal and outside of time. There is only an eternal present for God.
Augustine concludes that time is purely subjective and exists only in the mind.
II. The City of God
The City of God was Augustine's response to the pagan's blaming Rome being sacked in 410 on the abandonment of the old Roman gods.
Augustine opens up the book to point out that sacks of cities have occurred long before Christianity and the fact that some were saved by hiding in Christian churches that were respected by the Goths shows that rather than being a cause of the destruction, Christianity actually helped soften the blow that came to the city.
The Christians do not have to be troubled by the Sack of Rome because they have a sanctuary in the city of God.
"It is true that God has foreknowledge of our sins, but we do not sin because of His foreknowledge" (Russell, 357).
Augustine esteemed Plato as the best philosopher because he was not materialistic. He argued against the Stoic ban on all passions because Christians can be passionate and be virtuous, the cause of the passion is what is to be considered.
"Platonists are right about God, wrong about gods. They are also wrong in not acknowledging
the Incarnation" (Russell, 358).
There is much in the philosophers to be admired but the knowledge of God is obtained only through Christ.
Augustine was so against lust and sex because lust was required for sex and lust was independent of the will. The will was where virtue came from and thus something that can't be controlled by the will was not something to be praised. It had to be tolerated for necessity, but a truly virtuous life would be one without it and the emotions that are attached to it.
"St. Augustine holds that God divided mankind into the elect and the reprobate, not because of their merits or demerits, but arbitrarily. All alike deserve damnation, and therefore the reprobate have no ground of complaint" (Russell, 362).
"What was influential was the separation of Church and State, with the clear implication that the State could only be part of the City of God by being submissive towards the Church in all religious matters. This has been the doctrine of the Church ever since" (Russell, 362).
III. The Pelagian Controversy
Pelagius was a Welshman who taught free will, questioned the doctrine of original sin and believed that by acting virtuously comes by moral effort. Augustine disagreed with these and had them declared heretical.
Augustine taught that the original sin of Adam was passed down to generation upon generation so that everyone born was deserving of damnation. God chooses of his own free will to save some. No reason is given for why some are saved and others are not. "Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display his Goodness" (Russell, 365).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. IV Saint Augustine's Philosophy and Theology
I. Pure Philosophy
"Saint Augustine, at most times, does not occupy himself with pure philosophy, but when he does he shows very great ability" (Russell, 352).
Book XI of Confessions is some of his best pure philosophy. Creation, out of nothing as was taught in the Old Testament, was totally foreign to Greek philosophy. Augustine sought to meld philosophy with the Scriptural account of Genesis.
This exercise led to Augustine asking why creation was created sooner. His answer was because there was no sooner. Time was created when the world was created. God is eternal and outside of time. There is only an eternal present for God.
Augustine concludes that time is purely subjective and exists only in the mind.
II. The City of God
The City of God was Augustine's response to the pagan's blaming Rome being sacked in 410 on the abandonment of the old Roman gods.
Augustine opens up the book to point out that sacks of cities have occurred long before Christianity and the fact that some were saved by hiding in Christian churches that were respected by the Goths shows that rather than being a cause of the destruction, Christianity actually helped soften the blow that came to the city.
The Christians do not have to be troubled by the Sack of Rome because they have a sanctuary in the city of God.
"It is true that God has foreknowledge of our sins, but we do not sin because of His foreknowledge" (Russell, 357).
Augustine esteemed Plato as the best philosopher because he was not materialistic. He argued against the Stoic ban on all passions because Christians can be passionate and be virtuous, the cause of the passion is what is to be considered.
"Platonists are right about God, wrong about gods. They are also wrong in not acknowledging
the Incarnation" (Russell, 358).
There is much in the philosophers to be admired but the knowledge of God is obtained only through Christ.
Augustine was so against lust and sex because lust was required for sex and lust was independent of the will. The will was where virtue came from and thus something that can't be controlled by the will was not something to be praised. It had to be tolerated for necessity, but a truly virtuous life would be one without it and the emotions that are attached to it.
"St. Augustine holds that God divided mankind into the elect and the reprobate, not because of their merits or demerits, but arbitrarily. All alike deserve damnation, and therefore the reprobate have no ground of complaint" (Russell, 362).
"What was influential was the separation of Church and State, with the clear implication that the State could only be part of the City of God by being submissive towards the Church in all religious matters. This has been the doctrine of the Church ever since" (Russell, 362).
III. The Pelagian Controversy
Pelagius was a Welshman who taught free will, questioned the doctrine of original sin and believed that by acting virtuously comes by moral effort. Augustine disagreed with these and had them declared heretical.
Augustine taught that the original sin of Adam was passed down to generation upon generation so that everyone born was deserving of damnation. God chooses of his own free will to save some. No reason is given for why some are saved and others are not. "Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display his Goodness" (Russell, 365).
Three Doctors of the Church
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter III: Three Doctors of the Church
There are four Doctors of the Western Church: St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and Pope Gregory the Great. The first three were contemporaries while Pope Gregory belonged to a later date.
Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome flourished during the brief interval between the Catholic domination of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasion of the West. These three men shaped the mold into which the Church was built for the Middle Ages more than anybody. "Speaking broadly, Saint
Ambrose determined the ecclesiastical conception of the relation of Church and State; Saint
Jerome gave the Western Church its Latin Bible and a great part of the impetus to monasticism;
while Saint Augustine fixed the theology of the Church until the Reformation, and, later, a great
part of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin" (Russell, 335).
Ambrose rose to power inside the Church by becoming somewhat of a surprise victor in the election to bishop at Milan, then the capital of the West. He acted as equal, sometimes superior to the Emperor, setting a precedent.
Ambrose wrote a letter to the young Emperor Valentinian II in A.D. 384 denouncing the idea of returning a pagan statue to the Roman Senate building. In the letter he showed that the religious considerations supersede the temporal ones.
Again Ambrose battled with the State this time refusing to give one of the churches of Milan to the Arians for use. Backed by the people, Ambrose emerged victorious. "Ambrose had demonstrated that there were matters in which the State must yield to the Church, and had thereby established a new principle which retains its importance to the present day" (Russell, 339).
Ambrose famously battled with Theodosius and won out. Again showing the power of the Emperor to be subservient to the power of the Church.
Jerome is most famous for producing the Latin Vulgate which though eventually accepted as authoritative had to initially fight against reluctance because of the work of Rabbis on the text.
Jerome was born in Stridon, near Aquileia and lived in Rome, lived as a hermit in the Syrian wilderness, traveled to Constantinople and returned to Rome where he began to work on his translation of the Bible.
Jerome found himself in quarrels often and left Rome in 386 to live in Bethlehem until his death in 420. Despite his exile away from Rome, he mourned the dying of the Roman world at the hands of the barbarians.
Augustine was born in 354 to a Christian mother and pagan father in Africa.
We know more about Augustine's early life than most others because of his Confessions. The book has had famous imitators, especially Rousseau and Tolstoy.
"Saint Augustine is in some ways similar to Tolstoy, to whom, however, he is superior in intellect. He was a passionate man, in youth very far from a pattern of virtue, but driven by an inner impulse to search for truth and righteousness. Like Tolstoy, he was obsessed, in his later years, by a sense of sin, which made his life stern and his philosophy inhuman. He combated heresies vigorously, but some of his own views, when repeated by Jansenius in the seventeenth century, were pronounced heretical. Until the Protestants took up his opinions, however, the Catholic Church had never impugned their
orthodoxy" (Russell, 345).
Augustine's obsession with sin seems morbid in modern readings, but was in line with what was seen as holiness in his age. Besides that he held that righteousness, the greatest of goods, was achieved through tribulation now that sin was in the world.
"It thus came about that Christian theology had two parts, one concerned with the Church, and one with the individual soul. In later times, the first of these was most emphasized by Catholics, and the second by Protestants, but in Saint Augustine both exist equally, without his having any sense of
disharmony. Those who are saved are those whom God has predestined to salvation; this is a
direct relation of the soul to God. But no one will be saved unless he has been baptized, and
thereby become a member of the Church; this makes the Church an intermediary between the soul
and God" (Russell, 346).
Augustine became a teacher of Rhetoric in Carthage then moved to Rome. With his move he became less convinced of the Manichean faith he had been originally attracted to. He became somewhat infatuated with the Skepticism of the Academy before meeting Ambrose in his move to Milan. It was at Milan with the confluence of his mother, a devout Catholic, Ambrose, the discovery of St. Paul and seeing the not-quite-there totality in Platonism that Augustine finally converts.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter III: Three Doctors of the Church
There are four Doctors of the Western Church: St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and Pope Gregory the Great. The first three were contemporaries while Pope Gregory belonged to a later date.
Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome flourished during the brief interval between the Catholic domination of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasion of the West. These three men shaped the mold into which the Church was built for the Middle Ages more than anybody. "Speaking broadly, Saint
Ambrose determined the ecclesiastical conception of the relation of Church and State; Saint
Jerome gave the Western Church its Latin Bible and a great part of the impetus to monasticism;
while Saint Augustine fixed the theology of the Church until the Reformation, and, later, a great
part of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin" (Russell, 335).
Ambrose rose to power inside the Church by becoming somewhat of a surprise victor in the election to bishop at Milan, then the capital of the West. He acted as equal, sometimes superior to the Emperor, setting a precedent.
Ambrose wrote a letter to the young Emperor Valentinian II in A.D. 384 denouncing the idea of returning a pagan statue to the Roman Senate building. In the letter he showed that the religious considerations supersede the temporal ones.
Again Ambrose battled with the State this time refusing to give one of the churches of Milan to the Arians for use. Backed by the people, Ambrose emerged victorious. "Ambrose had demonstrated that there were matters in which the State must yield to the Church, and had thereby established a new principle which retains its importance to the present day" (Russell, 339).
Ambrose famously battled with Theodosius and won out. Again showing the power of the Emperor to be subservient to the power of the Church.
Jerome is most famous for producing the Latin Vulgate which though eventually accepted as authoritative had to initially fight against reluctance because of the work of Rabbis on the text.
Jerome was born in Stridon, near Aquileia and lived in Rome, lived as a hermit in the Syrian wilderness, traveled to Constantinople and returned to Rome where he began to work on his translation of the Bible.
Jerome found himself in quarrels often and left Rome in 386 to live in Bethlehem until his death in 420. Despite his exile away from Rome, he mourned the dying of the Roman world at the hands of the barbarians.
Augustine was born in 354 to a Christian mother and pagan father in Africa.
We know more about Augustine's early life than most others because of his Confessions. The book has had famous imitators, especially Rousseau and Tolstoy.
"Saint Augustine is in some ways similar to Tolstoy, to whom, however, he is superior in intellect. He was a passionate man, in youth very far from a pattern of virtue, but driven by an inner impulse to search for truth and righteousness. Like Tolstoy, he was obsessed, in his later years, by a sense of sin, which made his life stern and his philosophy inhuman. He combated heresies vigorously, but some of his own views, when repeated by Jansenius in the seventeenth century, were pronounced heretical. Until the Protestants took up his opinions, however, the Catholic Church had never impugned their
orthodoxy" (Russell, 345).
Augustine's obsession with sin seems morbid in modern readings, but was in line with what was seen as holiness in his age. Besides that he held that righteousness, the greatest of goods, was achieved through tribulation now that sin was in the world.
"It thus came about that Christian theology had two parts, one concerned with the Church, and one with the individual soul. In later times, the first of these was most emphasized by Catholics, and the second by Protestants, but in Saint Augustine both exist equally, without his having any sense of
disharmony. Those who are saved are those whom God has predestined to salvation; this is a
direct relation of the soul to God. But no one will be saved unless he has been baptized, and
thereby become a member of the Church; this makes the Church an intermediary between the soul
and God" (Russell, 346).
Augustine became a teacher of Rhetoric in Carthage then moved to Rome. With his move he became less convinced of the Manichean faith he had been originally attracted to. He became somewhat infatuated with the Skepticism of the Academy before meeting Ambrose in his move to Milan. It was at Milan with the confluence of his mother, a devout Catholic, Ambrose, the discovery of St. Paul and seeing the not-quite-there totality in Platonism that Augustine finally converts.
Christianity During the First Four Centuries
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
The Religious Development of the Jews
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Plotinus
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXX - Plotinus
Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism lived from A.D. 204 - 270, possibly one of the worst times to live in the Roman Empire, full of war, pestilence and instability. His writings however, make no mention of it. Instead of studying the actual world and its miseries, he contemplated an eternal world of goodness and beauty.
"To all of them, Christians and pagans alike, the world of practical affairs seemed to offer no hope, and only the Other World seemed worthy of allegiance. To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus" (Russell, 284).
Plotinus is historically important as an influence in the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of Catholic theology. (Augustine noted that if Plotinus had been a little bit older or born in a different place he would have been called a Christian without too much change to his theories).
Plotinus is also important because he is an archetype for a melancholy optimist. His world was awful and rather than be dragged down by it he escaped it by contemplating happiness on a metaphysical level that is untouchable by the ravages of the real world surrounding him.
Plotinus also improved on Plato by clarifying him and his arguments against materialism are good.
Plotinus' works were edited and arranged by Porphyry who was more Pythagorean and thus, more supernatural than Plotinus. Neoplatonism took on the more supernatural angle of Porphyry in development.
Plotinus begins his metaphysical theory with The One, Spirit, and Soul. The One is similar to the God of Aristotle and is transcendent of everything. Spirit or nous is the image of the One. To know the One then one must study themselves and everything godlike in the Spirit.
Through divine possession and inspiration we can see not only the nous, but also the One. In contact with the One we cannot reason or express this vision in words, we can only do that after the fact.
Soul, lower than nous, is the author of all living things and the author of the created, visible world.
For Plotinus though, the visible world isn't evil. It is just less good than the world of nous.
Matter is created by Soul and matter has no independent reality. Soul desires to entire matter in something analogous to sexual desire. "When the soul leaves the body, it must enter another body if it has been sinful, for justice requires that it should be punished... Sin must be punished; but the punishment happens naturally, through the restless driving of the sinner's errors" (Russell, 292).
The goal of soul is to become one with nous, not in a destruction type of way. "Nous and the individual soul will be simultaneously two and one" (Russell, 293).
"The soul is neither matter nor the form of a material body, but Essence, and Essence is eternal. This view is implicit in Plato's argument that the soul is immortal because ideas are eternal; but it is only with Plotinus that it becomes explicit" (Russell, 293).
The soul desires to copy the creativity of the nous. The soul contemplates the inward realm of nous and seeks to produce something as akin to it as possible. Unfortunately, to create the soul joins itself to a body and cuts itself off from other souls and the nous.
Plotinus believed that the world was imperfect because it was copied from the forms. But, he does not think this is necessarily bad. The copy cannot be both a symbol of the real and the real itself. Therefore, the copy is good enough for us because it is the best copy that could be made.
Plotinus does have to deal with sin because he suggests against determinists and astrologers that sin is the result of free will.
Plotinus marks both a beginning and an end for Russell. He is an end of Greek thought and a beginning to Christendom.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXX - Plotinus
Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism lived from A.D. 204 - 270, possibly one of the worst times to live in the Roman Empire, full of war, pestilence and instability. His writings however, make no mention of it. Instead of studying the actual world and its miseries, he contemplated an eternal world of goodness and beauty.
"To all of them, Christians and pagans alike, the world of practical affairs seemed to offer no hope, and only the Other World seemed worthy of allegiance. To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus" (Russell, 284).
Plotinus is historically important as an influence in the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of Catholic theology. (Augustine noted that if Plotinus had been a little bit older or born in a different place he would have been called a Christian without too much change to his theories).
Plotinus is also important because he is an archetype for a melancholy optimist. His world was awful and rather than be dragged down by it he escaped it by contemplating happiness on a metaphysical level that is untouchable by the ravages of the real world surrounding him.
Plotinus also improved on Plato by clarifying him and his arguments against materialism are good.
Plotinus' works were edited and arranged by Porphyry who was more Pythagorean and thus, more supernatural than Plotinus. Neoplatonism took on the more supernatural angle of Porphyry in development.
Plotinus begins his metaphysical theory with The One, Spirit, and Soul. The One is similar to the God of Aristotle and is transcendent of everything. Spirit or nous is the image of the One. To know the One then one must study themselves and everything godlike in the Spirit.
Through divine possession and inspiration we can see not only the nous, but also the One. In contact with the One we cannot reason or express this vision in words, we can only do that after the fact.
Soul, lower than nous, is the author of all living things and the author of the created, visible world.
For Plotinus though, the visible world isn't evil. It is just less good than the world of nous.
Matter is created by Soul and matter has no independent reality. Soul desires to entire matter in something analogous to sexual desire. "When the soul leaves the body, it must enter another body if it has been sinful, for justice requires that it should be punished... Sin must be punished; but the punishment happens naturally, through the restless driving of the sinner's errors" (Russell, 292).
The goal of soul is to become one with nous, not in a destruction type of way. "Nous and the individual soul will be simultaneously two and one" (Russell, 293).
"The soul is neither matter nor the form of a material body, but Essence, and Essence is eternal. This view is implicit in Plato's argument that the soul is immortal because ideas are eternal; but it is only with Plotinus that it becomes explicit" (Russell, 293).
The soul desires to copy the creativity of the nous. The soul contemplates the inward realm of nous and seeks to produce something as akin to it as possible. Unfortunately, to create the soul joins itself to a body and cuts itself off from other souls and the nous.
Plotinus believed that the world was imperfect because it was copied from the forms. But, he does not think this is necessarily bad. The copy cannot be both a symbol of the real and the real itself. Therefore, the copy is good enough for us because it is the best copy that could be made.
Plotinus does have to deal with sin because he suggests against determinists and astrologers that sin is the result of free will.
Plotinus marks both a beginning and an end for Russell. He is an end of Greek thought and a beginning to Christendom.
The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIX The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
Rome had a major impact on later cultures in a number of ways, the most important of which were a long peace to allow the transmission of ideas, Greece and the east's influence on a large Empire because that influence included Christianity and the transfer of Hellenistic ideas to Islam where it was kept for later use.
With the power of Rome coming to full fruition under Caesar Augustus, "The Greek world lost its youth, and became either cynical or religious" (Russell, 273).
As far as the direct effect Rome had on Greek thought, two thinkers emerged as important that had been greatly effected by Roman rule. The historian Polybius, born circa 200 BC and Panaetius the Stoic were contemporaries and both friends of Scipio the younger.
Epictetus, though a Greek, spent most of his life in Rome. Plutarch also spent a long time in Rome and was changed by it.
Most Greek thinkers however were not impacted by a favorable view of Rome and the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire split along Greek and Latin lines.
Rome was "culturally parasitic on Greece. The Romans invented no art forms, constructed no original system of philosophy, and made no scientific discoveries. They made good roads, systematic legal codes, and efficient armies; for the rest they looked to Greece" (Russell, 278).
The older Romans saw the adoption of all things Greek as moral decay.
As the Western part of the empire decayed and the Emperors became more and more generals and semi-barbarians the West fell out of love with the Greek culture and culture in general. Non-Hellenic religion introduced through Greece to the Romans however had a much longer lasting audience.
Numerous Pagan religions spread into the empire from as far away as Persia, Babylonia and Egypt.
Elagabalus, the emperor from 218-222 came to power and acted like a godking from the Medes or Phoenicians. He ascended to the throne from his place as a chief-priest in the cult of the sun God and had a private chapel with statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ.
The Persian religion of Mithras, a competitor of Christianity was wildly popular with soldiers in both the East and the West.
Constantine finally ushered in the Christian age, what Russell calls a politically successful attempt at introducing a new religion for stabilizing purposes. He notes that the major difference between Christianity and other eastern religions really boiled down to its successful implementation.
"The fact that we are acquainted with what was done by the Greeks in art and literature and philosophy and science is due to the stability introduced by Western conquerors who had the good sense to admire the civilization which they governed but did their utmost to preserve" (Russell, 281).
Russell notes that while Rome may have never risen to the level of culture that Athens of Pericles had, but the stability and scope of the empire allowed for mass quantity to come down the ages and that sometimes that quantity is just as good as quality.
The Islamic conquest of the East saw their intellectuals take on Greek learning. They are responsible for the rise in Aristotle's estimation.
"In philosophy, the Arabs were better as commentators than as original thinkers. Their importance, for us, is that they, and not the Christians, were the immediate inheritors of those parts of the Greek tradition which only the Eastern Empire had kept alive" (Russell, 283).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIX The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
Rome had a major impact on later cultures in a number of ways, the most important of which were a long peace to allow the transmission of ideas, Greece and the east's influence on a large Empire because that influence included Christianity and the transfer of Hellenistic ideas to Islam where it was kept for later use.
With the power of Rome coming to full fruition under Caesar Augustus, "The Greek world lost its youth, and became either cynical or religious" (Russell, 273).
As far as the direct effect Rome had on Greek thought, two thinkers emerged as important that had been greatly effected by Roman rule. The historian Polybius, born circa 200 BC and Panaetius the Stoic were contemporaries and both friends of Scipio the younger.
Epictetus, though a Greek, spent most of his life in Rome. Plutarch also spent a long time in Rome and was changed by it.
Most Greek thinkers however were not impacted by a favorable view of Rome and the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire split along Greek and Latin lines.
Rome was "culturally parasitic on Greece. The Romans invented no art forms, constructed no original system of philosophy, and made no scientific discoveries. They made good roads, systematic legal codes, and efficient armies; for the rest they looked to Greece" (Russell, 278).
The older Romans saw the adoption of all things Greek as moral decay.
As the Western part of the empire decayed and the Emperors became more and more generals and semi-barbarians the West fell out of love with the Greek culture and culture in general. Non-Hellenic religion introduced through Greece to the Romans however had a much longer lasting audience.
Numerous Pagan religions spread into the empire from as far away as Persia, Babylonia and Egypt.
Elagabalus, the emperor from 218-222 came to power and acted like a godking from the Medes or Phoenicians. He ascended to the throne from his place as a chief-priest in the cult of the sun God and had a private chapel with statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ.
The Persian religion of Mithras, a competitor of Christianity was wildly popular with soldiers in both the East and the West.
Constantine finally ushered in the Christian age, what Russell calls a politically successful attempt at introducing a new religion for stabilizing purposes. He notes that the major difference between Christianity and other eastern religions really boiled down to its successful implementation.
"The fact that we are acquainted with what was done by the Greeks in art and literature and philosophy and science is due to the stability introduced by Western conquerors who had the good sense to admire the civilization which they governed but did their utmost to preserve" (Russell, 281).
Russell notes that while Rome may have never risen to the level of culture that Athens of Pericles had, but the stability and scope of the empire allowed for mass quantity to come down the ages and that sometimes that quantity is just as good as quality.
The Islamic conquest of the East saw their intellectuals take on Greek learning. They are responsible for the rise in Aristotle's estimation.
"In philosophy, the Arabs were better as commentators than as original thinkers. Their importance, for us, is that they, and not the Christians, were the immediate inheritors of those parts of the Greek tradition which only the Eastern Empire had kept alive" (Russell, 283).
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Stoicism
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVIII Stoicism
Zeno, the founder of Stoicism was a materialist who combined Cynicism with Heraclitus. Later, Stoicism took on a bit of Platonism and eventually materialism died out.
Stoicism is the least Greek form of philosophy with the earliest Stoics coming from Syria and the later ones being primarily Roman.
Zeno was primarily concerned with virtue and ethics. Everything else was important only in how it pertained to virtue.
Zeno denied the existence of chance. Zeno believed in a determinism that was rigid, but set up by a beneficent creator through natural laws.
"In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness,
possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a
man's life depends only upon himself. He may become poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. A tyrant may put him in prison, but he can still persevere in living in harmony with Nature. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates" (Russell, 254-55).
There is a coldness to Stoicism as not only bad passions are condemned, but all passions.
"The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but does good in order to
be virtuous" (Russell, 256).
"Kant--who resembles them--says that you must be kind to your brother, not because you are fond of him, but because the moral law enjoins kindness; I doubt, however, whether, in private life, he lived down to this precept" (Russell, 256).
Gradually stoicism incorporated other elements and became Platonic in nature under Panaetius (who in turn influenced Cicero). Under Posidonius (circa 135 - 51 BC) the Platonic element was stronger in Stoicism then in the Skeptical theories present at the Academy.
The three Roman Stoics: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were much more important historically than philosophically.
Seneca turned out to be the tutor of Nero and was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65. His dying legacy of a virtuous life remained important to his followers and to later Christians.
Epictetus, a slave who flourished between 60 and 100 AD was originally a slave and then served as a minister for the emperors until Domitian banished all philosophers.
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 180) was an emperor. His Meditations were a personal journal of Stoic virtue.
Stoicism is a philosophy of a tired age, not a hopeful one. Stoicism suited both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus because it was a philosophy of survival.
"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).
"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).
Aurelius taught that life in harmony with the universe is what was good and one should act accordingly.
Aurelius taught that all men were brothers and that we are to love them even when they do wrong because they only do wrong out of ignorance.
Although Stoics were mostly concerned with ethics, they made great strides in the theory of knowledge as well.
The theory of knowledge avoided Plato's distrust of the perceptions. They concluded that while the perceptions might not be certain, they are probable on the whole and worthy of trust.
The Stoics also believed in innate ideas and principles.
The Stoic notion of the equality of man and the doctrine of natural law, when backed by the weight of Christianity saw the end of despotism in the 17th century.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVIII Stoicism
Zeno, the founder of Stoicism was a materialist who combined Cynicism with Heraclitus. Later, Stoicism took on a bit of Platonism and eventually materialism died out.
Stoicism is the least Greek form of philosophy with the earliest Stoics coming from Syria and the later ones being primarily Roman.
Zeno was primarily concerned with virtue and ethics. Everything else was important only in how it pertained to virtue.
Zeno denied the existence of chance. Zeno believed in a determinism that was rigid, but set up by a beneficent creator through natural laws.
"In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness,
possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a
man's life depends only upon himself. He may become poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. A tyrant may put him in prison, but he can still persevere in living in harmony with Nature. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates" (Russell, 254-55).
There is a coldness to Stoicism as not only bad passions are condemned, but all passions.
"The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but does good in order to
be virtuous" (Russell, 256).
"Kant--who resembles them--says that you must be kind to your brother, not because you are fond of him, but because the moral law enjoins kindness; I doubt, however, whether, in private life, he lived down to this precept" (Russell, 256).
Gradually stoicism incorporated other elements and became Platonic in nature under Panaetius (who in turn influenced Cicero). Under Posidonius (circa 135 - 51 BC) the Platonic element was stronger in Stoicism then in the Skeptical theories present at the Academy.
The three Roman Stoics: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were much more important historically than philosophically.
Seneca turned out to be the tutor of Nero and was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65. His dying legacy of a virtuous life remained important to his followers and to later Christians.
Epictetus, a slave who flourished between 60 and 100 AD was originally a slave and then served as a minister for the emperors until Domitian banished all philosophers.
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 180) was an emperor. His Meditations were a personal journal of Stoic virtue.
Stoicism is a philosophy of a tired age, not a hopeful one. Stoicism suited both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus because it was a philosophy of survival.
"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).
"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).
Aurelius taught that life in harmony with the universe is what was good and one should act accordingly.
Aurelius taught that all men were brothers and that we are to love them even when they do wrong because they only do wrong out of ignorance.
Although Stoics were mostly concerned with ethics, they made great strides in the theory of knowledge as well.
The theory of knowledge avoided Plato's distrust of the perceptions. They concluded that while the perceptions might not be certain, they are probable on the whole and worthy of trust.
The Stoics also believed in innate ideas and principles.
The Stoic notion of the equality of man and the doctrine of natural law, when backed by the weight of Christianity saw the end of despotism in the 17th century.
The Epicureans
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans
Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.
Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.
Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.
"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).
Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".
The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.
He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.
Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.
The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.
Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.
Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.
"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).
Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.
Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.
Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.
The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.
Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.
Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).
The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans
Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.
Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.
Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.
"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).
Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".
The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.
He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.
Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.
The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.
Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.
Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.
"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).
Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.
Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.
Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.
The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.
Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.
Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).
The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).
Monday, September 23, 2019
Cynics & Sceptics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXVI Cynics & Sceptics
Three types of intellectual stances to the world:
1) In harmony with their surroundings, light reformist thinking
2) Radical and revolutionary, major reforms needed and an expectation of radical reforms coming
3) Despair at the current situation and a lack of hope for the world, good only comes from mystical transfiguration
"The psychological preparation for the other-worldliness of Christianity begins in the Hellenistic
period, and is connected with the eclipse of the City State" (Russell, 229). Philosophy shifted from the question of how to make a good state to how to survive in suffering, how can one be good in a world gone bad?
Four famous schools of philosophy formed around the time of Alexander: Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics and Sceptics.
Cynicism began with Antisthenes and Diogenes. Antisthenes was a contemporary of Plato & Socrates, being about 20 years older than Plato. He formed a protocommunism and took up for the uneducated, common man. He believed that anything that can be known can be known by all.
Diogenes, Antisthenes pupil, was the founder of cynicism. He lived like a dog, rejecting every social convention. (Cynic comes from the word canine).
"He sought virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire: be indifferent to the
goods that fortune has to bestow, and you will be emancipated from fear" (Russell, 231).
All Greek philosophers after Aristotle had a withdrawal sort of look at life, the world is not good, let's learn how to be independent of it.
Cynicism did not teach abstinence to the good things of the world, only an indifference to them.
Scepticism, built on what was good in Cynicism and became a more complete and rounded philosophy.
Pyrrho of Elis, who traveled with Alexander all the way to India, moved back home and founded Scepticism, a formalization and synthesizing of older thoughts.
Scepticism took on a local flavor wherever it was. They adopted the local religious customs, not because they were inherently right, but that they could not be proved wrong and it was beneficial to follow the custom.
Scepticism became popular because it allowed people to not worry about the future. The future was uncontrollable so why not enjoy the present.
After Pyrrho came Timon, who practiced a skepticism similar to Hume. After Pyrrho came Arcesilaus who housed skepticism in Platonic thought. Rather than focusing on Plato's belief in the Forms and the superiority of the immortal soul, Arcesilaus treated the Socratic dialogues as the end, not the means. Most of the dialogues don't end with a positive conclusion and a lot of them argue both sides well. Arcesilaus saw this as the embodiment of skepticism.
The Academy became skeptical for two hundred years after Arcesilaus and produced a number of variations on the school. One of which, that of Clitomachus, seemed to agree with more modern philosophers as he based his skepticism on probabilities: "Probability should be our guide in practice, since it is reasonable to act on the most probable of possible hypotheses" (Russell, 238).
Sextus Empiricus, a Roman skeptic, used the problem of evil and his skepticism to argue against the existence of God, or at least, knowing that God exists: "Those who affirm positively that God exists cannot avoid falling into an impiety. For if they say that God controls everything, they make Him the author of evil things; if, on the other hand, they say that He controls some things only, or that He controls nothing, they are compelled to make God either grudging or impotent, and to do that is quite obviously an impiety" (Russell, 239).
Ancient skepticism had enough power in it to make men dissatisfied with the ancient, traditional and state religion. But it had no answer to fill the void. (Modern skepticism, Russell notes, is "supplemented, in most of its advocates, by an enthusiastic belief in science" (Russell, 239). The hollowing out done by Skepticism paved the way for an invasion of oriental religions that competed with one another until the domination of Christianity.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXVI Cynics & Sceptics
Three types of intellectual stances to the world:
1) In harmony with their surroundings, light reformist thinking
2) Radical and revolutionary, major reforms needed and an expectation of radical reforms coming
3) Despair at the current situation and a lack of hope for the world, good only comes from mystical transfiguration
"The psychological preparation for the other-worldliness of Christianity begins in the Hellenistic
period, and is connected with the eclipse of the City State" (Russell, 229). Philosophy shifted from the question of how to make a good state to how to survive in suffering, how can one be good in a world gone bad?
Four famous schools of philosophy formed around the time of Alexander: Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics and Sceptics.
Cynicism began with Antisthenes and Diogenes. Antisthenes was a contemporary of Plato & Socrates, being about 20 years older than Plato. He formed a protocommunism and took up for the uneducated, common man. He believed that anything that can be known can be known by all.
Diogenes, Antisthenes pupil, was the founder of cynicism. He lived like a dog, rejecting every social convention. (Cynic comes from the word canine).
"He sought virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire: be indifferent to the
goods that fortune has to bestow, and you will be emancipated from fear" (Russell, 231).
All Greek philosophers after Aristotle had a withdrawal sort of look at life, the world is not good, let's learn how to be independent of it.
Cynicism did not teach abstinence to the good things of the world, only an indifference to them.
Scepticism, built on what was good in Cynicism and became a more complete and rounded philosophy.
Pyrrho of Elis, who traveled with Alexander all the way to India, moved back home and founded Scepticism, a formalization and synthesizing of older thoughts.
Scepticism took on a local flavor wherever it was. They adopted the local religious customs, not because they were inherently right, but that they could not be proved wrong and it was beneficial to follow the custom.
Scepticism became popular because it allowed people to not worry about the future. The future was uncontrollable so why not enjoy the present.
After Pyrrho came Timon, who practiced a skepticism similar to Hume. After Pyrrho came Arcesilaus who housed skepticism in Platonic thought. Rather than focusing on Plato's belief in the Forms and the superiority of the immortal soul, Arcesilaus treated the Socratic dialogues as the end, not the means. Most of the dialogues don't end with a positive conclusion and a lot of them argue both sides well. Arcesilaus saw this as the embodiment of skepticism.
The Academy became skeptical for two hundred years after Arcesilaus and produced a number of variations on the school. One of which, that of Clitomachus, seemed to agree with more modern philosophers as he based his skepticism on probabilities: "Probability should be our guide in practice, since it is reasonable to act on the most probable of possible hypotheses" (Russell, 238).
Sextus Empiricus, a Roman skeptic, used the problem of evil and his skepticism to argue against the existence of God, or at least, knowing that God exists: "Those who affirm positively that God exists cannot avoid falling into an impiety. For if they say that God controls everything, they make Him the author of evil things; if, on the other hand, they say that He controls some things only, or that He controls nothing, they are compelled to make God either grudging or impotent, and to do that is quite obviously an impiety" (Russell, 239).
Ancient skepticism had enough power in it to make men dissatisfied with the ancient, traditional and state religion. But it had no answer to fill the void. (Modern skepticism, Russell notes, is "supplemented, in most of its advocates, by an enthusiastic belief in science" (Russell, 239). The hollowing out done by Skepticism paved the way for an invasion of oriental religions that competed with one another until the domination of Christianity.
The Hellenistic World
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXV The Hellenistic World
History of the Greek speaking world can be divided into three periods:
1) The free City States (freedom and disorder)
2) The Macedonian domination (Hellenistic Age)
3) Under the Roman Empire
Alexander tried to meld Greek and barbarian customs into one. But the Greeks were not very impressed with Alexander whom they considered semi-Greek to begin with and not fans of barbarians at all.
After the death of Alexander the Hellenistic world was split into three separate dynasties between some of Alexander's generals: Antigonus controlled the European part, Ptolemy the African, and Seleucus controlled the Asiatic parts.
Ptolemies and the Seleucids ruled as military tyrannies. Ptolemy held sway in Egypt for a time, but it took only two centuries for the Seleucids to fall apart at the seams being gobbled up by Rome and Persia.
India even received a bit of Hellenization, but Asoka (264-28 BC) tried to proselytize the Greeks with Buddhism.
Babylonian and Syria (minus Judea) were completely Hellenized in the urban populations. Only in Judea where the Greeks and the Jews faced off did Hellenization meet stiff resistance.
While Hellenization brought wealth and some stability, it didn't guarantee any individual security. Small dynastic squabbles could up end a populace and its local gentry and leaders instantly. It is no wonder that the religious life of the age found the cult of the goddess Fortune or Luck to be very popular.
"There was widespread social discontent and fear of revolution. The wages of free labour fell,
presumably owing to the competition of eastern slave labour; and meantime the prices of
necessaries rose. One finds Alexander, at the outset of his enterprise, having time to make
treaties designed to keep the poor in their place" (Russell, 225). This was all done to discourage any revolution at a time when civil unrest was ready to burst because of the inequities.
While Hellenization dramatically impacted everywhere the Greeks conquered, the Greeks were themselves conquered in a way by the superstitions of the east. Astrology coming from Babylon took a preeminent role in Greek thought at the time to detriment of Greek thought.
The instability of the age led to a lack of virtue in men. When wealth is only acquired through adventurers despoiling others and that wealth can disappear just as quickly by a stronger adventurer then it becomes almost expected for men to turn bad. Menander notes, "So many cases I have known of men who, though not naturally rogues, became so, through misfortune, by constraint" (Russell, 228).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXV The Hellenistic World
History of the Greek speaking world can be divided into three periods:
1) The free City States (freedom and disorder)
2) The Macedonian domination (Hellenistic Age)
3) Under the Roman Empire
Alexander tried to meld Greek and barbarian customs into one. But the Greeks were not very impressed with Alexander whom they considered semi-Greek to begin with and not fans of barbarians at all.
After the death of Alexander the Hellenistic world was split into three separate dynasties between some of Alexander's generals: Antigonus controlled the European part, Ptolemy the African, and Seleucus controlled the Asiatic parts.
Ptolemies and the Seleucids ruled as military tyrannies. Ptolemy held sway in Egypt for a time, but it took only two centuries for the Seleucids to fall apart at the seams being gobbled up by Rome and Persia.
India even received a bit of Hellenization, but Asoka (264-28 BC) tried to proselytize the Greeks with Buddhism.
Babylonian and Syria (minus Judea) were completely Hellenized in the urban populations. Only in Judea where the Greeks and the Jews faced off did Hellenization meet stiff resistance.
While Hellenization brought wealth and some stability, it didn't guarantee any individual security. Small dynastic squabbles could up end a populace and its local gentry and leaders instantly. It is no wonder that the religious life of the age found the cult of the goddess Fortune or Luck to be very popular.
"There was widespread social discontent and fear of revolution. The wages of free labour fell,
presumably owing to the competition of eastern slave labour; and meantime the prices of
necessaries rose. One finds Alexander, at the outset of his enterprise, having time to make
treaties designed to keep the poor in their place" (Russell, 225). This was all done to discourage any revolution at a time when civil unrest was ready to burst because of the inequities.
While Hellenization dramatically impacted everywhere the Greeks conquered, the Greeks were themselves conquered in a way by the superstitions of the east. Astrology coming from Babylon took a preeminent role in Greek thought at the time to detriment of Greek thought.
The instability of the age led to a lack of virtue in men. When wealth is only acquired through adventurers despoiling others and that wealth can disappear just as quickly by a stronger adventurer then it becomes almost expected for men to turn bad. Menander notes, "So many cases I have known of men who, though not naturally rogues, became so, through misfortune, by constraint" (Russell, 228).
The Spine of Medieval History
I think I'd like to do a really big book or podcast or something on the Medieval History of Europe. I keep dancing around the topic without knowing where to wade into the waters. I'm going to finish The History of Western Philosophy and the other Jones philosophy book. That will give me some of the framework for the intellectual structure on which the Middle Ages was built, but my primary focus to start I think will be the papacy. I figure that's the spine of Europe in the Middle Ages and everything gets back to Rome anyway. I think there's a figure of speech about Rome and roads that might be fitting here, but I'll leave the cliches for the final product.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Goodreads: Lysistrata
Lysistrata
Aristophanes
The play is like a good American Pie movie. It's entertaining, raucous and racy and an absurdist take on nonviolent protest. But it's still an American Pie movie so it can't get more than three stars.
Aristophanes
The play is like a good American Pie movie. It's entertaining, raucous and racy and an absurdist take on nonviolent protest. But it's still an American Pie movie so it can't get more than three stars.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Goodreads: Catch-22
Catch-22
Joseph Heller
I'm not sure why this book seems to garner such profound adoration or abject hatred. The majority of the reviews on here either praise it to the hilt or look to denounce it as garbage. Most of the negative reviews seem to be written by people who didn't finish the book claiming they couldn't finish the book. The thing is though that you'd have to be crazy not to finish this book once you started this book. Those people claiming that it was something that they didn't or couldn't finish the book are either crazy or lying. Obviously you can't trust a madman or a liar so we can throw their opinions our the window like the poor, defenestrated Michaela. The other side of the coin is those who seem to be overly effusive in their praise of the book. I'm pretty sure most of them are just trying to sound smart and impress all their followers on Goodreads. (I prefer to impress my followers on instagram).
There's a lot of similarities between Heller and Vonnegut. The major difference is that Vonnegut usually gets to the punchline a bit quicker and Heller has to circle back again and hits the targe on the second run. Both end up with the results they're after but Heller leaves himself exposed a little bit to some calamity. I enjoyed Catch-22. I'm convinced though that it is a bit longer than he originally intended because as he was writing it he forgot where he was from time to time and just started telling the story again from the place he thought he left off. The book could have been a bit shorter, but it worked well the way it was written and realistically, who am I to critique it? It reminds me of a part in a funny movie where the joke goes on long enough for you to stop laughing and to begin again.
The moaning scene during the briefing has to be one of the funniest bits I've ever read in a book. I had to pause for a moment to get through that part. I was crying I was laughing so hard. Heller took a risk in writing the book the way he did. But his aim was true and he nailed what he was going after. I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Joseph Heller
I'm not sure why this book seems to garner such profound adoration or abject hatred. The majority of the reviews on here either praise it to the hilt or look to denounce it as garbage. Most of the negative reviews seem to be written by people who didn't finish the book claiming they couldn't finish the book. The thing is though that you'd have to be crazy not to finish this book once you started this book. Those people claiming that it was something that they didn't or couldn't finish the book are either crazy or lying. Obviously you can't trust a madman or a liar so we can throw their opinions our the window like the poor, defenestrated Michaela. The other side of the coin is those who seem to be overly effusive in their praise of the book. I'm pretty sure most of them are just trying to sound smart and impress all their followers on Goodreads. (I prefer to impress my followers on instagram).
There's a lot of similarities between Heller and Vonnegut. The major difference is that Vonnegut usually gets to the punchline a bit quicker and Heller has to circle back again and hits the targe on the second run. Both end up with the results they're after but Heller leaves himself exposed a little bit to some calamity. I enjoyed Catch-22. I'm convinced though that it is a bit longer than he originally intended because as he was writing it he forgot where he was from time to time and just started telling the story again from the place he thought he left off. The book could have been a bit shorter, but it worked well the way it was written and realistically, who am I to critique it? It reminds me of a part in a funny movie where the joke goes on long enough for you to stop laughing and to begin again.
The moaning scene during the briefing has to be one of the funniest bits I've ever read in a book. I had to pause for a moment to get through that part. I was crying I was laughing so hard. Heller took a risk in writing the book the way he did. But his aim was true and he nailed what he was going after. I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Goodreads: Lost to the West
Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that rescued Western Civilization
Lars Brownworth
I grabbed this book years ago because I loved his podcasts. The book is just as fantastic. It's easy to read, digestible and Brownworth writes in a style that makes the history enjoyable to read. While this isn't an exhaustive study of the history of the thousand years of Byzantine history, its 300 pages are surprisingly chock full of information.
I read a few of the reviews on the book and found that most people generally seem to agree with me. The few negative reviews I read (why do I always read the negative reviews of books I like?) are silly in their criticism. They attack Brownworth for being not academic enough or for focusing too much on the Christian aspect of the Empire. These attacks stem from either an elitism that often insulates the people stuck in their ivory towers who have lost touch with people that exist outside of academia or those who are looking for any way to disagree with something Christian. I also am tired of hearing complaints about mentioning that Christopher Columbus discovered America. He did discover the new world and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that. Was what he discovered a barren wasteland? Of course not. But it was the Columbus voyages that forever changed the world. Do you want to argue over whether or not the pros outweigh the cons because of Columbus' voyages? There's something that you can have mixed feelings on. But, this book isn't about Columbus and I really shouldn't mention it; but, I'm growing tired of the constant wailing and whining about the whole Columbus thing. It happened. It changed the world as we know it. Yes, others came to the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but it was his voyages that ushered in a new age, not the Vikings and not the pre-Columbian peoples. Besides that, if it hadn't been Columbus, the people whining about him would be arguing the same nonsense to fit their personal feelings by decrying the other Western European who would have taken Columbus' spot. For those complaining that the book isn't scholarly enough I suggest you go grab a text book; or, better yet, spend a lifetime learning Latin, Greek and Arabic and pick up only primary sources and leave the rest of us uneducated schmucks to enjoy our pop history. I'll end my rant there and move back to the book.
Some of the Emperors are well known: Justinian, Alexius, Theodosius, Constantine the Great, etc. Those parts I enjoyed; but, it was the lesser well known ones I found the most fascinating. I really enjoyed the sections covering the Isaurian, Nicephorus and Macedonian sections of the book. I found the probably apocryphal account of Syrian emir Sayf escaping the Byzantines by scattering gold coins behind him as he fled back to Aleppo. These little, dubious nuggets tell us more about history than verifiable, archeological facts as they speak to what the people believed at the time. Myths often contain as much truth as do bones dug up out of the ground when concerning civilizations.
After Rome, Istanbul has been my biggest dream destination to visit. This book reinforced that hope. It also drew my attention to Mount Athos: "Set on the stunningly beautiful Athonite peninsula, these twenty monasteries form an autonomous community- and they still fly the eagle flag of Byzantium". It sounds like a place of living history and I desperately want to visit now.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in history, unless you're a scholar and can read Latin, Greek and Arabic or you have an axe to grind. In that case, read something else and write a better book.
Lars Brownworth
I grabbed this book years ago because I loved his podcasts. The book is just as fantastic. It's easy to read, digestible and Brownworth writes in a style that makes the history enjoyable to read. While this isn't an exhaustive study of the history of the thousand years of Byzantine history, its 300 pages are surprisingly chock full of information.
I read a few of the reviews on the book and found that most people generally seem to agree with me. The few negative reviews I read (why do I always read the negative reviews of books I like?) are silly in their criticism. They attack Brownworth for being not academic enough or for focusing too much on the Christian aspect of the Empire. These attacks stem from either an elitism that often insulates the people stuck in their ivory towers who have lost touch with people that exist outside of academia or those who are looking for any way to disagree with something Christian. I also am tired of hearing complaints about mentioning that Christopher Columbus discovered America. He did discover the new world and no amount of revisionist history will ever change that. Was what he discovered a barren wasteland? Of course not. But it was the Columbus voyages that forever changed the world. Do you want to argue over whether or not the pros outweigh the cons because of Columbus' voyages? There's something that you can have mixed feelings on. But, this book isn't about Columbus and I really shouldn't mention it; but, I'm growing tired of the constant wailing and whining about the whole Columbus thing. It happened. It changed the world as we know it. Yes, others came to the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but it was his voyages that ushered in a new age, not the Vikings and not the pre-Columbian peoples. Besides that, if it hadn't been Columbus, the people whining about him would be arguing the same nonsense to fit their personal feelings by decrying the other Western European who would have taken Columbus' spot. For those complaining that the book isn't scholarly enough I suggest you go grab a text book; or, better yet, spend a lifetime learning Latin, Greek and Arabic and pick up only primary sources and leave the rest of us uneducated schmucks to enjoy our pop history. I'll end my rant there and move back to the book.
Some of the Emperors are well known: Justinian, Alexius, Theodosius, Constantine the Great, etc. Those parts I enjoyed; but, it was the lesser well known ones I found the most fascinating. I really enjoyed the sections covering the Isaurian, Nicephorus and Macedonian sections of the book. I found the probably apocryphal account of Syrian emir Sayf escaping the Byzantines by scattering gold coins behind him as he fled back to Aleppo. These little, dubious nuggets tell us more about history than verifiable, archeological facts as they speak to what the people believed at the time. Myths often contain as much truth as do bones dug up out of the ground when concerning civilizations.
After Rome, Istanbul has been my biggest dream destination to visit. This book reinforced that hope. It also drew my attention to Mount Athos: "Set on the stunningly beautiful Athonite peninsula, these twenty monasteries form an autonomous community- and they still fly the eagle flag of Byzantium". It sounds like a place of living history and I desperately want to visit now.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in history, unless you're a scholar and can read Latin, Greek and Arabic or you have an axe to grind. In that case, read something else and write a better book.
Early Greek Math & Astronomy
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIV Early Greek Mathematics and Astronomy
The Greeks took a little from the Egyptians and a little from the Babylonians and then developed some sound mathematics.
Euclid was still regarded as the sole textbook on geometry when Bertrand Russell was a schoolboy.
"Euclid Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect
monuments of the Greek intellect. It has, of course, the typical Greek limitations: the method is
purely deductive, and there is no way, within it, of testing the initial assumptions. These
assumptions were supposed to be unquestionable, but in the nineteenth century non-Euclidean
geometry showed that they might be in part mistaken, and that only observation could decide
whether they were so" (Russell, 211)
Like Plato, Euclid had a contempt for the practical utility of his work.
The Buridan's ass argument: two bundles of hay were placed at equal distances to the right and left of the donkey. Therefore, he died of hunger. That could be mined for an interesting short story idea.
In astronomy the Greeks made leaps and strides, with some even moving away from an anthropocentric universe. Of course, it wasn't quite heliocentric yet, but the notion of earth being just one of the planets moving in space paved the way from a heliocentric theory.
Heraclides, a pupil of Plato's school postulated that the earth rotates once on its own axis every twenty-four hours and discovered that Venus and Mercury revolve around the son.
Aristarchus of Samos (310 - 230 BC) "is the most interesting of all ancient astronomers, because he advanced the complete Copernican hypothesis, that all the planets, including the earth, revolve in circles around the sun, and that the earth rotates on its axis once in twenty-four hours" (Russell, 214).
Seleucus, Aristarchus' successor fully adhered to this theory as well, but then was not adopted by any other ancient astronomer.
Eratosthenes estimated the earth's diameter within 50 miles of the actual diameter.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIV Early Greek Mathematics and Astronomy
The Greeks took a little from the Egyptians and a little from the Babylonians and then developed some sound mathematics.
Euclid was still regarded as the sole textbook on geometry when Bertrand Russell was a schoolboy.
"Euclid Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect
monuments of the Greek intellect. It has, of course, the typical Greek limitations: the method is
purely deductive, and there is no way, within it, of testing the initial assumptions. These
assumptions were supposed to be unquestionable, but in the nineteenth century non-Euclidean
geometry showed that they might be in part mistaken, and that only observation could decide
whether they were so" (Russell, 211)
Like Plato, Euclid had a contempt for the practical utility of his work.
The Buridan's ass argument: two bundles of hay were placed at equal distances to the right and left of the donkey. Therefore, he died of hunger. That could be mined for an interesting short story idea.
In astronomy the Greeks made leaps and strides, with some even moving away from an anthropocentric universe. Of course, it wasn't quite heliocentric yet, but the notion of earth being just one of the planets moving in space paved the way from a heliocentric theory.
Heraclides, a pupil of Plato's school postulated that the earth rotates once on its own axis every twenty-four hours and discovered that Venus and Mercury revolve around the son.
Aristarchus of Samos (310 - 230 BC) "is the most interesting of all ancient astronomers, because he advanced the complete Copernican hypothesis, that all the planets, including the earth, revolve in circles around the sun, and that the earth rotates on its axis once in twenty-four hours" (Russell, 214).
Seleucus, Aristarchus' successor fully adhered to this theory as well, but then was not adopted by any other ancient astronomer.
Eratosthenes estimated the earth's diameter within 50 miles of the actual diameter.
Aristotle's Physics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Aristotle's Logic
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXII Aristotle's Logic
Aristotle's influence was large in general. It was largest in the field of logic. "Even
at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the
discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely
antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy" (Russell, 195).
Aristotle's most important work in the field of logic is the syllogism, an argument made up of major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
If Aristotle's logic had been the beginning of logic and not the end, it would be easy to estimate it as historically important. But, because it was adhered to for thousands of years as the totality of logic it has some deficiencies: formal defects in the system, an over-estimation of the value of the syllogism and the over-estimation of deduction.
The formal defects in the system arise when the particulars and universals are blurred. Aristotle's system allows a lot of things to be assumed that are not necessarily true.
There are other forms of deduction and the syllogism has no priority over any other deductive argument.
All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz. the statute books or the scriptures" (Russell, 199). Even though Aristotle allowed for the importance of induction in his writing, his followers did not often mention it and thus, caused errors by accepting premises as being self-evident when they were in fact inductive in nature. Thus, if the premise is arrived at through inductive reasoning it is probably true rather than absolutely true. Two absolutely true premises lead to an absolutely true conclusion. But, if the premises are probably true than the conclusion must be probably true as well. You can see where the errors come from.
Aristotle had ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and affection. Russell states that the definition of categories is muddy and he says that their use in philosophy is not useful.
Aristotle described a definition as a statement of a thing's essential nature, its essence. Russell argues that a thing does not have an essence, only a word can have an essence.
Russell also attacks the Aristotelian doctrine of substance, stating that a substance is merely a collective name for a number of events. By defining those events as a substance philosophy has made a bunch of metaphysical mistakes.
"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are
wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant" (Russell, 202).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXII Aristotle's Logic
Aristotle's influence was large in general. It was largest in the field of logic. "Even
at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the
discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely
antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy" (Russell, 195).
Aristotle's most important work in the field of logic is the syllogism, an argument made up of major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
If Aristotle's logic had been the beginning of logic and not the end, it would be easy to estimate it as historically important. But, because it was adhered to for thousands of years as the totality of logic it has some deficiencies: formal defects in the system, an over-estimation of the value of the syllogism and the over-estimation of deduction.
The formal defects in the system arise when the particulars and universals are blurred. Aristotle's system allows a lot of things to be assumed that are not necessarily true.
There are other forms of deduction and the syllogism has no priority over any other deductive argument.
All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz. the statute books or the scriptures" (Russell, 199). Even though Aristotle allowed for the importance of induction in his writing, his followers did not often mention it and thus, caused errors by accepting premises as being self-evident when they were in fact inductive in nature. Thus, if the premise is arrived at through inductive reasoning it is probably true rather than absolutely true. Two absolutely true premises lead to an absolutely true conclusion. But, if the premises are probably true than the conclusion must be probably true as well. You can see where the errors come from.
Aristotle had ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and affection. Russell states that the definition of categories is muddy and he says that their use in philosophy is not useful.
Aristotle described a definition as a statement of a thing's essential nature, its essence. Russell argues that a thing does not have an essence, only a word can have an essence.
Russell also attacks the Aristotelian doctrine of substance, stating that a substance is merely a collective name for a number of events. By defining those events as a substance philosophy has made a bunch of metaphysical mistakes.
"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are
wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant" (Russell, 202).
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Aristotle's Politics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. 21 Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle's politics are interesting because of their historical insight into the culture surrounding them. They are not useful for a modern statesman to study to implement something from them.
The State is the highest form of community.
The State is prior to the individual. An individual cannot reach his highest good without functioning within a good state.
"Without law man is the worst of animals" (Russell, 186).
Slavery was natural because some are made to rule and some to be ruled.
Slaves are better off when ruled by masters than if they were free because of their inferior nature. Just like dogs are better off domesticated than feral.
War is justified when the war is waged against those who are inferior and refuse to accept their inferiority. The problem with this theory is it justifies all slavery and the notion that might makes right.
Aristotle was against capitalistic style trade and found the retail trade to be lowly.
Usury was despised. Lending at any profit remained reviled throughout the ancient times right on up to the Reformation.
Aristotle argues against Plato's Utopia. Russell notes that his arguments against Plato are rather weak. "I do not agree with Plato, but if anything could make me do so, it would be Aristotle's arguments against him" (Russell, 189).
Aristotle argues that the greatest crimes come from excess, not want. Nobody becomes a tyrant to avoid being cold.
"A government is good when it aims at the good of the whole community, bad when it cares only
for itself" (Russell, 189).
Three good governments: monarchy, aristocracy & constitutional government.
Three bad governments: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
External goods being acquired does not create virtue. But, the acquisition of virtue leads to the accumulation of external goods.
Monarchy is the best, followed by aristocracy and then constitutional government. Tyranny is worse than oligarchy. Oligarchy is worse than democracy.
Oligarchy is when the rich rule without a care for the poor. Democracy is when the power is in the hands of the have-nots and they disregard the interest of the rich.
"Democracy, Aristotle says, arises from the belief that men who are equally free should be equal in all respects; oligarchy, from the fact that men who are superior in some respect claim too much. Both have a kind of justice, but not the best kind. 'Therefore both parties, whenever their share in the
government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution'" (Russell, 190).
Three things needed to prevent revolution: government propaganda in education, respect for law and justice being served in law and administration.
Aristotle believed that all men deserved equality according to their proportion. The problems with that are myriad. But, what happens is that virtue, which is difficult to define and quantify becomes connected with money, which is easy to quantify. Thus, in Aristotle's equality according to their proportion will always lead to equality according to their income level.
"All social inequality, in the long run, is inequality of income" (Russell, 191).
Aristotle believes citizens should be the landowning gentry who do not have to work for a living. Tradesmen and merchants need not apply.
Education is reserved for children who can become citizens. Useful arts and trades can be taught to the slaves and lower classes.
Education needs to be catered to the type of government in which the pupils are being taught. Democratic education will thus differ from oligarchical or monarchical.
The purpose of education is virtue, not utility.
"The aim of the State, in his view, is to produce cultured gentlemen - men who combine the aristocratic mentality with love of learning and the arts" (Russell, 194).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. 21 Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle's politics are interesting because of their historical insight into the culture surrounding them. They are not useful for a modern statesman to study to implement something from them.
The State is the highest form of community.
The State is prior to the individual. An individual cannot reach his highest good without functioning within a good state.
"Without law man is the worst of animals" (Russell, 186).
Slavery was natural because some are made to rule and some to be ruled.
Slaves are better off when ruled by masters than if they were free because of their inferior nature. Just like dogs are better off domesticated than feral.
War is justified when the war is waged against those who are inferior and refuse to accept their inferiority. The problem with this theory is it justifies all slavery and the notion that might makes right.
Aristotle was against capitalistic style trade and found the retail trade to be lowly.
Usury was despised. Lending at any profit remained reviled throughout the ancient times right on up to the Reformation.
Aristotle argues against Plato's Utopia. Russell notes that his arguments against Plato are rather weak. "I do not agree with Plato, but if anything could make me do so, it would be Aristotle's arguments against him" (Russell, 189).
Aristotle argues that the greatest crimes come from excess, not want. Nobody becomes a tyrant to avoid being cold.
"A government is good when it aims at the good of the whole community, bad when it cares only
for itself" (Russell, 189).
Three good governments: monarchy, aristocracy & constitutional government.
Three bad governments: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
External goods being acquired does not create virtue. But, the acquisition of virtue leads to the accumulation of external goods.
Monarchy is the best, followed by aristocracy and then constitutional government. Tyranny is worse than oligarchy. Oligarchy is worse than democracy.
Oligarchy is when the rich rule without a care for the poor. Democracy is when the power is in the hands of the have-nots and they disregard the interest of the rich.
"Democracy, Aristotle says, arises from the belief that men who are equally free should be equal in all respects; oligarchy, from the fact that men who are superior in some respect claim too much. Both have a kind of justice, but not the best kind. 'Therefore both parties, whenever their share in the
government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution'" (Russell, 190).
Three things needed to prevent revolution: government propaganda in education, respect for law and justice being served in law and administration.
Aristotle believed that all men deserved equality according to their proportion. The problems with that are myriad. But, what happens is that virtue, which is difficult to define and quantify becomes connected with money, which is easy to quantify. Thus, in Aristotle's equality according to their proportion will always lead to equality according to their income level.
"All social inequality, in the long run, is inequality of income" (Russell, 191).
Aristotle believes citizens should be the landowning gentry who do not have to work for a living. Tradesmen and merchants need not apply.
Education is reserved for children who can become citizens. Useful arts and trades can be taught to the slaves and lower classes.
Education needs to be catered to the type of government in which the pupils are being taught. Democratic education will thus differ from oligarchical or monarchical.
The purpose of education is virtue, not utility.
"The aim of the State, in his view, is to produce cultured gentlemen - men who combine the aristocratic mentality with love of learning and the arts" (Russell, 194).
Aristotle's Ethics
Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)