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.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Saturday, January 5, 2019
We Should All Be Feminists - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
From my Goodreads account
This short essay is an insightful and well thought out piece on a serious issue that we are currently struggling with in every corner of the globe: inequality. Adiche's call to action is spot on. We should all be feminists (one who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes). There is a gender problem today. We, all of us, must do better. The issue that I have with this book is the segmentation of the equality issue.
Adichie argues that the label of feminism is important because it acknowledges the specificity of inequality between genders. But, if we as people, individuals regardless of gender, strive toward her stated goal of doing better in treating each other with equal dignity, honor and humanity then this would eliminate the gender issue in the process. I'm not Utopian and have no illusions that this is easy, or even achievable. But, the outcome of doing better has no bearing on whether or not we put forth the effort to do better. By doing better we create better individual interactions between people; done often enough, we change the culture.
What I like about Adichie's striving for gender equality is that it acknowledges a uniqueness to each gender and to each person specifically. She notes that the ones who ought to lead are the more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative and more innovative. These qualities know no gender, but they are cultivated individually. Of course, there are advantages in cultures for certain groups. Race, gender and socioeconomic factors all play a part in this. She addresses it somewhat when she notes that the poor man doesn't have all the advantages that the wealthy one does and that the black man faces challenges that are unique to his experience. But then she puts her foot down and claims a uniqueness to the inequality of the genders. Herein lies where I disagree with her.
Inequality exists in the world and we have a moral obligation as human beings to struggle against inequality and to promote equal treatment of all human beings in a merit based way in economic situations and, more importantly, an equal amount of dignity should be afforded on a personal level. I have had and continue to have more opportunity, recognition and privilege than others in society have. But, I have had and continue to have less of these than others in society have. Every person in my society is similar in that regard. It isn't right and we must continue to do better and work towards a more equitable society, even if this is ultimately tilting at windmills. We ought to do better because each individual deserves the same, limitless amount of dignity in treatment. Focusing your drive for equality based on a single, specific and limiting factor ignores your own privilege in relation to those with less and is a quick path to bitterness, an us vs. them mentality and ultimately an unhappy state of being.
I agree with a lot of what Adichie writes in this essay. I think she is a brilliant speaker and writer. My overly wordy rebuttal to this book has more to do with the notion of over-identity and its narrowing effects on our experience as humans (which are more common than dissimilar) and how it creates segmentation within humanity that is an unnecessary barrier placed between us. To illustrate our commonness rather than our dissimilarities I'll mention Adichie's anecdote about the business meeting. She notes that, "A man going to a business meeting doesn't wonder about being taken seriously based on what he is wearing- but a woman does". She has created an otherness here that is unnecessary. Dressing for success is preached to men from an early age. Men and women alike are going to afford the properly dressed person more attention than the overly casual dresser. Lastly, confidence and the struggles with it and how one looks are not specific to a gender.
To end this unnecessarily long-winded review that will either remain unread or be dismissed as someone speaking from privilege (or worse, be condemned as mansplaining) I want to stress the importance of this book. It is spot on when it calls on us to do better. It is a captivating read because she is such a good writer. And, like her Louis, I need reminders from time to time that the drive for improvement is not a completed task.
This short essay is an insightful and well thought out piece on a serious issue that we are currently struggling with in every corner of the globe: inequality. Adiche's call to action is spot on. We should all be feminists (one who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes). There is a gender problem today. We, all of us, must do better. The issue that I have with this book is the segmentation of the equality issue.
Adichie argues that the label of feminism is important because it acknowledges the specificity of inequality between genders. But, if we as people, individuals regardless of gender, strive toward her stated goal of doing better in treating each other with equal dignity, honor and humanity then this would eliminate the gender issue in the process. I'm not Utopian and have no illusions that this is easy, or even achievable. But, the outcome of doing better has no bearing on whether or not we put forth the effort to do better. By doing better we create better individual interactions between people; done often enough, we change the culture.
What I like about Adichie's striving for gender equality is that it acknowledges a uniqueness to each gender and to each person specifically. She notes that the ones who ought to lead are the more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more creative and more innovative. These qualities know no gender, but they are cultivated individually. Of course, there are advantages in cultures for certain groups. Race, gender and socioeconomic factors all play a part in this. She addresses it somewhat when she notes that the poor man doesn't have all the advantages that the wealthy one does and that the black man faces challenges that are unique to his experience. But then she puts her foot down and claims a uniqueness to the inequality of the genders. Herein lies where I disagree with her.
Inequality exists in the world and we have a moral obligation as human beings to struggle against inequality and to promote equal treatment of all human beings in a merit based way in economic situations and, more importantly, an equal amount of dignity should be afforded on a personal level. I have had and continue to have more opportunity, recognition and privilege than others in society have. But, I have had and continue to have less of these than others in society have. Every person in my society is similar in that regard. It isn't right and we must continue to do better and work towards a more equitable society, even if this is ultimately tilting at windmills. We ought to do better because each individual deserves the same, limitless amount of dignity in treatment. Focusing your drive for equality based on a single, specific and limiting factor ignores your own privilege in relation to those with less and is a quick path to bitterness, an us vs. them mentality and ultimately an unhappy state of being.
I agree with a lot of what Adichie writes in this essay. I think she is a brilliant speaker and writer. My overly wordy rebuttal to this book has more to do with the notion of over-identity and its narrowing effects on our experience as humans (which are more common than dissimilar) and how it creates segmentation within humanity that is an unnecessary barrier placed between us. To illustrate our commonness rather than our dissimilarities I'll mention Adichie's anecdote about the business meeting. She notes that, "A man going to a business meeting doesn't wonder about being taken seriously based on what he is wearing- but a woman does". She has created an otherness here that is unnecessary. Dressing for success is preached to men from an early age. Men and women alike are going to afford the properly dressed person more attention than the overly casual dresser. Lastly, confidence and the struggles with it and how one looks are not specific to a gender.
To end this unnecessarily long-winded review that will either remain unread or be dismissed as someone speaking from privilege (or worse, be condemned as mansplaining) I want to stress the importance of this book. It is spot on when it calls on us to do better. It is a captivating read because she is such a good writer. And, like her Louis, I need reminders from time to time that the drive for improvement is not a completed task.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Plenty of blame on both sides
In some notes from a History of Philosophy book, I quoted some interesting thoughts on Plato's view of democracy. Then, I made a comment about Bernie Sanders. I was only partially right.
"Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016."
It was eerily accurate, but not just to Sanders supporters. Revolution is fomented on every bit of the political spectrum. The Trump supporters are, at least, on equal terms in culpability for being disenfranchised revolutionaries longing for dominance over the other side. To paraphrase a rhetorical phrase that caused some of this revolutionary furor, there's plenty of blame on both sides...
"Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016."
It was eerily accurate, but not just to Sanders supporters. Revolution is fomented on every bit of the political spectrum. The Trump supporters are, at least, on equal terms in culpability for being disenfranchised revolutionaries longing for dominance over the other side. To paraphrase a rhetorical phrase that caused some of this revolutionary furor, there's plenty of blame on both sides...
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
The Screwtape Letters
I just finished The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis for the first time as an adult. This is what I wrote in my Goodreads blurb: "Lewis is a wonderful read anytime of the day. That he can pack so much sound theology, care for his fellow man and relevant Biblical principles into a satire from a demon's point of view shows what a gifted writer he was. I think I read this when I was a child the last time (pre-high school). At that point I hadn't been faced with or succumbed to so many temptations. Now in my early 30s I understand the temptations and barbs out there. As a Christian it's easy enough not to commit most of the "big" ones; but, the more nuanced temptations to despair, or self-righteousness or "Christianity and ___" have often overcome me. This book came along to me at a fairly low time in both my spiritual and temporal life. It's not a fix all of course; but, it was a pick me up, slap me around and point me back in the right direction. Hopefully I'll be smart enough to keep heading in that way".
Some of the best parts of the book are the more nuanced sins we as humans can fall to. It's eye opening to say the least. In letter XXV Screwtape writes "The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christian...What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity and'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing" (Lewis, 117).
There are two major things packed into here. First, it's a very pertinent thing to current events (and current events throughout the history of politics). Every election cycle we get to the point that I wonder if Christianity has been turned into the sub-category of some cause to be elected. Without beating a dead horse the farcical speech that President Trump gave at Liberty University is case-in-point of when Christianity has been used as a means and not the end itself. President Trump has been the punching bag from every political side. I'm not going to continue that trend. The only difference between Trump and most other modern politicians is how blatantly he donned Christianity for political purposes. Second, there is the horror of the Same Old Thing.
Throughout the book Screwtape instructs Wormwood to instill the fear of the Same Old Thing. This hits me more on a personal level than a theological one. I struggle heavily with this fear. I get easily bored and that's when I do stupid things. I fear the monotony of daily life. This leads into the next and final passage I'll share here. "But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creates to persevere" (Lewis, 130). How true that is! "The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hope, the quest despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it - all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition" (Lewis, 130). I am certainly neither as eloquent nor as learned as Lewis. I'll add nothing to this other than to hold my hand up and say, I know this feeling. But even in this season of self-inflicted trouble, or especially because of it, I am trying not to hit despair. Therefore, I won't end on that note. I'll end on a hope to persevere.
Hebrews 12:1-3
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart".
This is my prayer today. I am surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Lord, help me to throw off that which hinders me and the sin that has already entangled me. Give me the clarity to run the race and helped me to fix my eyes on Jesus. Let me consider Him so that I am no longer weary and my heart can be made anew.
Some of the best parts of the book are the more nuanced sins we as humans can fall to. It's eye opening to say the least. In letter XXV Screwtape writes "The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christian...What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity and'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing" (Lewis, 117).
There are two major things packed into here. First, it's a very pertinent thing to current events (and current events throughout the history of politics). Every election cycle we get to the point that I wonder if Christianity has been turned into the sub-category of some cause to be elected. Without beating a dead horse the farcical speech that President Trump gave at Liberty University is case-in-point of when Christianity has been used as a means and not the end itself. President Trump has been the punching bag from every political side. I'm not going to continue that trend. The only difference between Trump and most other modern politicians is how blatantly he donned Christianity for political purposes. Second, there is the horror of the Same Old Thing.
Throughout the book Screwtape instructs Wormwood to instill the fear of the Same Old Thing. This hits me more on a personal level than a theological one. I struggle heavily with this fear. I get easily bored and that's when I do stupid things. I fear the monotony of daily life. This leads into the next and final passage I'll share here. "But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creates to persevere" (Lewis, 130). How true that is! "The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hope, the quest despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it - all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition" (Lewis, 130). I am certainly neither as eloquent nor as learned as Lewis. I'll add nothing to this other than to hold my hand up and say, I know this feeling. But even in this season of self-inflicted trouble, or especially because of it, I am trying not to hit despair. Therefore, I won't end on that note. I'll end on a hope to persevere.
Hebrews 12:1-3
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart".
This is my prayer today. I am surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Lord, help me to throw off that which hinders me and the sin that has already entangled me. Give me the clarity to run the race and helped me to fix my eyes on Jesus. Let me consider Him so that I am no longer weary and my heart can be made anew.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
1984 - First Reading
I'm not quite sure how I went my whole life without having been forced to read this book or having not picked it up on my own considering both its stats as a classic and how much I love Animal Farm. But given its resurgence in the wake of a Trump election and the renewed interest in Far Right political movements I thought I might give it a go. To be utterly honest. I found a lot of it boring and underwhelming as story. As a political ideology piece it's fascinating; but, there is quite a bit to be desired in the overall novel aspect.
The term Orwellian has been tossed at Trump and his supporters a lot since the election. I don't think that's quite a fair assessment. Trump may want to and tries to employ a bit of revisionist history and certainly the alt-right media definitely spins the news events to their own end. But, I don't think Trump or any of the alt-right figures out there today has the mastery of intellect that O'Brien had over Winston. In some respects, like the power for power's sake and the hate, I think the comparison comes a bit closer. But, as far as manipulating history to make it matcha current political agenda the Left is as equally Orwellian as the right in modern America.
The most interesting parallel with current events and the state of Oceania that occurred to me was in the collectivism and newspeak that was slated to be in full force by 2050. What is closer to this Orwellian dystopia than the current (or relatively recent or relatively to come) political apparatus of the United States is the state that exists online. Freedom is slavery, at least online. Few participate openly in the hate the way they do online. And nowhere matches the collective mindset on threads following news stories or Facebook posts. As far as the creation of a new language slated to entrench itself by 2050 one need not look further than twitter to see that this future is already beginning. Hashtag truth.
The term Orwellian has been tossed at Trump and his supporters a lot since the election. I don't think that's quite a fair assessment. Trump may want to and tries to employ a bit of revisionist history and certainly the alt-right media definitely spins the news events to their own end. But, I don't think Trump or any of the alt-right figures out there today has the mastery of intellect that O'Brien had over Winston. In some respects, like the power for power's sake and the hate, I think the comparison comes a bit closer. But, as far as manipulating history to make it matcha current political agenda the Left is as equally Orwellian as the right in modern America.
The most interesting parallel with current events and the state of Oceania that occurred to me was in the collectivism and newspeak that was slated to be in full force by 2050. What is closer to this Orwellian dystopia than the current (or relatively recent or relatively to come) political apparatus of the United States is the state that exists online. Freedom is slavery, at least online. Few participate openly in the hate the way they do online. And nowhere matches the collective mindset on threads following news stories or Facebook posts. As far as the creation of a new language slated to entrench itself by 2050 one need not look further than twitter to see that this future is already beginning. Hashtag truth.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Jesus' teachings as political policy
"The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying 'Do as you would be done by' to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and science: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
I think in the course of this blog it is becoming clear that I am somewhat disgusted by the politicization of Christianity in the current state of affairs in the US. We have a leader, who uses Christianity as a way of garnering votes and favor. That is nothing new or even worse than others have done in the past. His reading of Two Corinthians only showed that he is less comfortable with using the language of Christians to win political favor with them than past politicians. What is worse and a more dangerous situation are the Christian politicization of their faiths. When you try to shoehorn your faith to fit in a box, be it socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc., you are trying to put in a relationship with the infinite into a finite container. It's just not going to work. You're going to have to peel off a bit here, trim off a bit there to make it work. It isn't even like putting a square peg into a round hole - it's like trying to put the thing with the holes into the square peg. It just doesn't work and the results are divisive inside the Church.
The divisiveness in American politics has seeped into the American conscious so ravenously we can't have polite conversations about anything meaningful. That's sad. It's bad for the country as a whole because it's going to stagnate the country and most of its population. Divisiveness in the Church is far worse. It's going directly against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought"
Romans 12:16 "Live in harmony with one another"
Galatians 5:26 "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another"
I'm not saying that there won't be political disagreements between Christians. There will be because each side has elements that mesh with our Christian faith. Each side has things that are not exactly lined up with Christianity. Furthermore, the art of government has things that must be done that have absolutely nothing to do with our faith in God. Agree with one another on the things of God and the other stuff won't matter. The side that wins in an election should not be boastful. Don't challenge one another on everything. That's the way of the world. We're not supposed to be in the world.
Galatians 5:15 "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other"
We are going to destroy one another in the Church if we get to wrapped up in politics. People living in a modern state are going to have disagreements on what that Modern State should look like. The Modern State is pretty damn complex with thousands upon thousands of issues that could and are debated. But, if we as Christians keep on biting at each other, we're going to destroy ourselves. If we bicker like non-Christians do among ourselves then we are being controlled by the sin nature; we are living just like the people of the world (One Corinthians 3:3). If we can't come to an agreement on everything in the political realm that's ok, so long as we come to live in harmony with one another and agree on the salvation through Christ Jesus. If we can't speak about politics in a peaceful and harmonious way with one another then we ought to just cut political discussions out of the Church. Let's listen to the Proverbs.
Proverbs 17:14 "Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out"
I think in the course of this blog it is becoming clear that I am somewhat disgusted by the politicization of Christianity in the current state of affairs in the US. We have a leader, who uses Christianity as a way of garnering votes and favor. That is nothing new or even worse than others have done in the past. His reading of Two Corinthians only showed that he is less comfortable with using the language of Christians to win political favor with them than past politicians. What is worse and a more dangerous situation are the Christian politicization of their faiths. When you try to shoehorn your faith to fit in a box, be it socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc., you are trying to put in a relationship with the infinite into a finite container. It's just not going to work. You're going to have to peel off a bit here, trim off a bit there to make it work. It isn't even like putting a square peg into a round hole - it's like trying to put the thing with the holes into the square peg. It just doesn't work and the results are divisive inside the Church.
The divisiveness in American politics has seeped into the American conscious so ravenously we can't have polite conversations about anything meaningful. That's sad. It's bad for the country as a whole because it's going to stagnate the country and most of its population. Divisiveness in the Church is far worse. It's going directly against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought"
Romans 12:16 "Live in harmony with one another"
Galatians 5:26 "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another"
I'm not saying that there won't be political disagreements between Christians. There will be because each side has elements that mesh with our Christian faith. Each side has things that are not exactly lined up with Christianity. Furthermore, the art of government has things that must be done that have absolutely nothing to do with our faith in God. Agree with one another on the things of God and the other stuff won't matter. The side that wins in an election should not be boastful. Don't challenge one another on everything. That's the way of the world. We're not supposed to be in the world.
Galatians 5:15 "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other"
We are going to destroy one another in the Church if we get to wrapped up in politics. People living in a modern state are going to have disagreements on what that Modern State should look like. The Modern State is pretty damn complex with thousands upon thousands of issues that could and are debated. But, if we as Christians keep on biting at each other, we're going to destroy ourselves. If we bicker like non-Christians do among ourselves then we are being controlled by the sin nature; we are living just like the people of the world (One Corinthians 3:3). If we can't come to an agreement on everything in the political realm that's ok, so long as we come to live in harmony with one another and agree on the salvation through Christ Jesus. If we can't speak about politics in a peaceful and harmonious way with one another then we ought to just cut political discussions out of the Church. Let's listen to the Proverbs.
Proverbs 17:14 "Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out"
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
The Historical Jesus and The Political Jesus
I'm still playing catch up on my C.S. Lewis devotions, but I'm getting closer (only 20 days behind now...).
On two days in February the book references The Screwtape Letters and makes some pretty interesting points about the Historical Jesus and the commingling of Christianity and politics. On the former Lewis points out that what we know of the historical Jesus comes from one and only one source, the New Testament. Apart from that anything else is just conjecture and can be distorting to the message of the Scriptures. The demons in Screwtape are suggesting that they change the notion of what the historical Jesus is like every thirty years or so to match the age that is envisioning this historically more accurate Jesus. In the generations before Lewis they are seeing the historical Jesus as being a champion of liberal and humanitarian causes. In Lewis' time Jesus was being envisioned in a Marxist light. Because what we know of the historical Jesus comes from the Scriptures any reconstruction of a historical Jesus becomes very unhistorical very quickly. While Jesus probably would have championed some liberal and humanitarian causes and was as revolutionary as Marx was, any thesis stating that this was the message of the historical Jesus is a perversion of what the Jesus of the Scriptures taught. This is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous for the spiritual well-being of the individual. Lewis writes, as the demonic voice, "The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist" (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters). As Christians our duty is to become Christlike - to become like the Jesus of the Scriptures. By reconstructing an historical Jesus from extra-biblical sources we run the risk of trying to emulate something that doesn't exist and stunt our walk with the real Jesus Christ.
The political aspect Lewis writes about is very interesting to me mainly because of the nightmare political situation we in America have been living for the past year and a half (and I fear there will be no end in sight). Some Christians think President Trump was the only choice that Christians could make while others thought President Trump was the only choice that Christians could not make. Honestly, I don't think it mattered in the sense of how your Christian faith is concerned. Neither American conservatism nor its liberalism has a completely synchronized view with the Scriptures. But, that isn't what I'm writing about today. What I'm writing about is the distraction that politics plays in the Christian life.
Lewis notes that the demons would certainly fear a true coalescence of Christian faith and governance because it would mean the establishment of a truly just and truly godly society. But, they do want "and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything - even social justice" (Lewis, 45). Much of the haranguing and bickering and nastiness surrounding the Christian embracement or rejection of President Trump has had the effect of making Christianity the means to something. President Trump himself is using Christianity as a means to his ends. I think it is perfectly reasonable for two devoted Christians to have entirely different ideas on how America ought to be governed. I think it is perfectly impossible to have this much animosity towards fellow Christians if Christianity is being seen as the ends of our walk in this political atmosphere.
Our faith necessarily must guide our political beliefs. And because Christianity was not designed as a political system for the governance of the United States and neither the current Republican platform nor the current Democratic platform (nor the historical platforms of either party, the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the Federalists, the Constitutionalists, the Progressives, the No-Nothings, the Populist party of Maryland, the Tea Party, the Secessionists, the Whigs or, and this is especially important, the Founding Fathers of the United States) were solely derived out of Scriptural context they are not going to be perfectly mirrored. Christianity is the vehicle through which God reached down to man to offer him salvation. The political agenda of party x, y or z is the vehicle in which the ideas of how a nation ought to be governed. The mission and scope of these two things are drastically different. There will, of course, be overlapping between them because things like caring for the poor, the widows and the needy are both tenants of Christianity and the function of Government. There will also be overlap with things like theft, murder, and other things we are not to do as Christians and things that are illegal to do. But, the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things that do not overlap. Whether the government mandates that everyone purchase healthcare or decides to have a massive tax break for the wealthy fall clearly outside the scope of Christian theology.
It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that their understanding of God's call to take care of the needy informs them to elect someone who favors universal healthcare. Their faith in the Scriptures can inform their political belief. It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that it is their duty and not the duty of the government to take care of the needy and are inclined to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in universal health care provided by the state. Their faith in the Scriptures also informs their political belief. It is my even stronger belief that those two Christians can have political disagreement without the toxic environment that is currently suffocating the United States and causing strife between Christians if both these Christians are treating their faith as the ends instead of some kind of means to fulfilling their political vision for the United States.
On two days in February the book references The Screwtape Letters and makes some pretty interesting points about the Historical Jesus and the commingling of Christianity and politics. On the former Lewis points out that what we know of the historical Jesus comes from one and only one source, the New Testament. Apart from that anything else is just conjecture and can be distorting to the message of the Scriptures. The demons in Screwtape are suggesting that they change the notion of what the historical Jesus is like every thirty years or so to match the age that is envisioning this historically more accurate Jesus. In the generations before Lewis they are seeing the historical Jesus as being a champion of liberal and humanitarian causes. In Lewis' time Jesus was being envisioned in a Marxist light. Because what we know of the historical Jesus comes from the Scriptures any reconstruction of a historical Jesus becomes very unhistorical very quickly. While Jesus probably would have championed some liberal and humanitarian causes and was as revolutionary as Marx was, any thesis stating that this was the message of the historical Jesus is a perversion of what the Jesus of the Scriptures taught. This is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous for the spiritual well-being of the individual. Lewis writes, as the demonic voice, "The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist" (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters). As Christians our duty is to become Christlike - to become like the Jesus of the Scriptures. By reconstructing an historical Jesus from extra-biblical sources we run the risk of trying to emulate something that doesn't exist and stunt our walk with the real Jesus Christ.
The political aspect Lewis writes about is very interesting to me mainly because of the nightmare political situation we in America have been living for the past year and a half (and I fear there will be no end in sight). Some Christians think President Trump was the only choice that Christians could make while others thought President Trump was the only choice that Christians could not make. Honestly, I don't think it mattered in the sense of how your Christian faith is concerned. Neither American conservatism nor its liberalism has a completely synchronized view with the Scriptures. But, that isn't what I'm writing about today. What I'm writing about is the distraction that politics plays in the Christian life.
Lewis notes that the demons would certainly fear a true coalescence of Christian faith and governance because it would mean the establishment of a truly just and truly godly society. But, they do want "and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything - even social justice" (Lewis, 45). Much of the haranguing and bickering and nastiness surrounding the Christian embracement or rejection of President Trump has had the effect of making Christianity the means to something. President Trump himself is using Christianity as a means to his ends. I think it is perfectly reasonable for two devoted Christians to have entirely different ideas on how America ought to be governed. I think it is perfectly impossible to have this much animosity towards fellow Christians if Christianity is being seen as the ends of our walk in this political atmosphere.
Our faith necessarily must guide our political beliefs. And because Christianity was not designed as a political system for the governance of the United States and neither the current Republican platform nor the current Democratic platform (nor the historical platforms of either party, the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the Federalists, the Constitutionalists, the Progressives, the No-Nothings, the Populist party of Maryland, the Tea Party, the Secessionists, the Whigs or, and this is especially important, the Founding Fathers of the United States) were solely derived out of Scriptural context they are not going to be perfectly mirrored. Christianity is the vehicle through which God reached down to man to offer him salvation. The political agenda of party x, y or z is the vehicle in which the ideas of how a nation ought to be governed. The mission and scope of these two things are drastically different. There will, of course, be overlapping between them because things like caring for the poor, the widows and the needy are both tenants of Christianity and the function of Government. There will also be overlap with things like theft, murder, and other things we are not to do as Christians and things that are illegal to do. But, the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things that do not overlap. Whether the government mandates that everyone purchase healthcare or decides to have a massive tax break for the wealthy fall clearly outside the scope of Christian theology.
It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that their understanding of God's call to take care of the needy informs them to elect someone who favors universal healthcare. Their faith in the Scriptures can inform their political belief. It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that it is their duty and not the duty of the government to take care of the needy and are inclined to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in universal health care provided by the state. Their faith in the Scriptures also informs their political belief. It is my even stronger belief that those two Christians can have political disagreement without the toxic environment that is currently suffocating the United States and causing strife between Christians if both these Christians are treating their faith as the ends instead of some kind of means to fulfilling their political vision for the United States.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Plato's Ethics and Politics
(Originally written November 6, 2016 in Book 26)
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
It's been a bit since I've delved into Plato. Sorry about that guys. I'll try and give this a little more attention over the next few weeks.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - the special sciences
Ethics
Ethics was Plato's primary concern.
"Since he was convinced that the Sophistic attack on moderation and the other traditional virtues had been one of the main causes of the Athenian debacle, he was chiefly concerned, not with a knowledge of the physical world, but with a knowledge of values" (Jones, 153).
The denial of objective knowledge in ethics is extremely paradoxical. A straightforward denial of objective ethical truths would allow for absurdities like being unable to say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. The consequences of of rejecting the possiblity of objective ethical truths is so great the burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove there are not objective ethical statements, not with those who affirm their existence.
Analysis of the form "courage".
As with his physics, Plato calls the virtue courage in the real world through acts, as having some participation with the 'form' courage.
Two types of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge
2) Formal knowledge
Experiential knowledge: picked up through experience. An acquaintence with the particulars of the forms participate in, but not knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge is knowledge of the form itself.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge.
The forms precede the particulars which participate in the forms, but knowledge works backwards. One learns via the particulars and gradually learns of the form the particulars participate in.
The distinction between pleasure and the good
Plato set out to show that the Sophists were not merely good men with a confused knowledge, but bad men set out to teach erroneous ways. The Sophist's biggest error, to Plato, was their confusing of pleasure and the good.
A neutral state of equillibrium would be the best state for man in Plato's reasoning, but this is only for the gods who are above both joy and sorrow.
Plato distinguishes between 'necessary' pleasures and 'harmless' pleasures. The former being those that brought the body back to equillibrium and the latter being pure esthetic pleasures.
Plato viewed the majority of men as being hopeless egoistic hedonists. As such, he sought to teach that being a good man was the key to the life of highest pleasure.
"He set himself to try to prove that the pleasures of temperance exceed the pains and that the pains of intemperance exceed the pleasures" (Jones, 161).
Plato distinguished three types of goods:
1) Goods that are good because of their consequence
2) Goods that are good because they are good for their own sake (the harmless pleasures of esthetic enjoyment)
3) Things good for both their own sake and the consequences they produce.
Plato held the true good for men was not pleasure, but "Eudaimonia", often translated as happiness.
Analysis of the form Justice
Plato shows that the common man interacts with the form more than he knows when he describes justice as 'giving a man his due'
Justice (whether in a man or in a State) is a harmony where each element has its due. In a just man his life is balanced and the result is health, happiness and strength.
Man is an organism whose various functions must be balanced and in harmony. FOr Plato, this is not some private matter but an objective fact.
Health is the body functioning properly balanced and harmonious. The organs of the body are all interdependent.
Tripartite psyche: three urges that move man to act.
1) The Appetite - lowest, urges men to fulfill physiological needs
2) Spirit - passions and emotions
3) Reason - curiosity
The State and the individual parallel each other
Three types of activity in the State
1) The Rulers
2) The Guards
3) The Producers
The producers of the State are like the appetite. The Guards correspond to the Spirit; and, the Rulers correspond to the Reason.
The virtue or function of the producers is to produce the goods necessary and unnecessary for consumption in the State.
The virtue/function of the guards was to defend the State against enemies. Courage was therefore, its virtue.
the virtue of the rulers was to know the forms so they can make wise decisions for the State.
One of Plato's most profound beliefs: "There is a wisdom in the people that poet's express (often without understanding it) in the language of myth and metaphor. Philosophical analysis is a way of extracting this meaning and rendering it precise" (Jones, 169).
In parallel to the state, every individual has a producer part (the apetites that are satisfied to sustain life), a rational part to guide and direct his life (the ruler part) and the guards (a spirited part to keep his body in order).
Since the producers must be temperate in their consumption in order to produce for the other two classes who don't produce, so to must the appetites of the self be held in moderation.
The spirited part of the individual must act in accordance with the rational reason (ruler of the self). Otherwise the emotions will overcome the reason and cause chaos.
For Plato (This can be applied to Christianity if Christ is taken as the form of man), being and goodness are parallel. The more a thing participates in the form it corresponds to the more being it has and thus is better. Men likewise participate in the form of man. Those who participate more in the form of man do so by acting more in reason than in the spirit or the appetites. Thus, the individual man who partiicpates in the form of man on the level of reason is better than the individual man who participates in the form of man in the spirit or appetitie level primarily.
Political Theory
Man is a social animal. Thus, to achieve his happiness he must live in a well run State. The good life is only possible in communal living.
Plato held that most men are not ruled by reason sufficiently and are thus, insufficient to rule.
The many should therefore be ruled by the few wise men goverened by reason (and thus participating more fully in the form of man).
Plato condemns democracy because the art of ruling becomes the art of flattery and the art of appealing to the masses, not the wise governing of the state.
Plato's political theory held two assumptions: "first, the many, being incurably ignorant, are incapable of disciplinging themselves. Second, the wise, because they are wise, can and will provide external discipline as a substitute for the internal restraints that the many lack" (Jones, 177).
Plato thought a proper state would exist when kings became philosophers or philosophers became kings.
Since the excesses of the producer class would have to be reigned in Plato was not against doing so by force if necessary, but thought education (propaganda) more effective in the long run.
Each individual of the produceer class would be taught a trade that aligned with their natural abilities or interests, but also educated so that they were obedient to the ruling class. Loyalty and patriotism are to be instilled in this class by any means necessary. This level of education was to be aimed at an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Good emotions were to be stirred while bad ones (fear, greed, etc.) were to be avoided.
Plato generally held some sort of genetic heredity as being obvious. The producer class will have producer class children, a doctor has a doctor or a farmer will have a son naturally inclined to farming; and, so too, rulers will mostly come from the ruler parentage. But, it is not absolutely static. Ability determines proper place in society. If a ruler capable child is born of a farmer than he should be educated as such. If a ruler has a child who lacks the moral character necessary to rule then he should be placed in his proper place.
The radical nature of Plato's educational system comes into play on the ruler-level, not on the guardian or producer levels. Children who show the aptitude for ruling would be removed from their family and placed in a communal nursery to encourage loyalty to the state and not smaller family structure.
- No personal possessions beyond what is necessary
- Communal meals
- No access to gold or silver
- Women can be rulers too and must have equal education: "There is no occupation concerned with the management of social affairs which belongs to woman or man" (Jones, 181).
"Knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only nows the difference of good and evil to do anything which is contrary to knowledge" (Jones, 184). Knowledge is virtue. The good man knows what is good an can therefore never act against it. This is why rulers recieve such stringent education. To know the good is to do it. "No man volunatirly pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature" (Jones, 185).
Plato believed that men who know the good can make mistakes of judgment by choosing a smaller good over a greater one but this is because of a perspective distortion - just like a smaller object may appear bigger because it is closer, a more easily obtained good may seem better than a more worthy, though harder to achieve good.
Interesting Quote on Democracy:
"They settle down in idleness, some of them burdened with debt, some disenfranchised, some both at once; and these drones are armed and can sting. Hating the men who have acquired their property and conspiring against them and the rest of society, they long for a revolution" (Jones, 189).
Seems eerily accurate to Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.
Plato's description of democrarcy is fascinating. Jones says that Plato held that his theory was undoubtedly somewhat impractical but because his theory was supposed to be a description of a political form the fact that a State could only imperfectly participate in it is to be expected and not a valid criticism of it.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Assessment of Picasso - Gertrude Stein
So I finished Picasso by Gertrude Stein the other day. I wrote on my Good Reads account "It's a bit of a jarring book to follow, but it reveals a lot about Picasso and Stein without revealing a lot of actual events in either of their lives. It's that which makes the read an interesting one. Unfortunately, or fortunately when I read the book I picture Kathy Bates across from me and I as Owen Wilson having Picasso explained to me. Thanks a lot Woody Allen". I gave it a three star rating because she sort of kept repeating and rambling, which I suppose was her intentional style, but it ended up being somewhat repetitive. But, I desperately envy her life so I can't criticize her work too much.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
October
October might be my favorite month. I love that it starts to get cool and I am released from the oppressive heat of the south. I love seeing the leaves change colors. But, most of all I love the World Series.
For most of my childhood and adolescence I believed that I would grow up to be the replacement for Cal Ripken Jr. The stage was set perfectly. Cal began his career at nearly 21 years old and retired when I was about to turn 18. There might have been a short little gap between us as I worked my way through the minor league system, but this could have been filled by Miguel Tejada. By 2004 he would have been out because of steroids and the next homegrown Marylander would take the reigns for a 21 year career at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Sadly, this never came to fruition. But in spite of my failures, I still get giddy in October. This World Series however has made me feel old. The reason is Raul Mondesi.
I remember baseball players from the 80's and 90's with an alarming accuracy. But, if I met them in real life I might not recognize them. For me, this is Raul Mondesi:
That's mid 90's baseball gold. It was smack dab in the middle of the steroid age and the junk wax era and I was dialed in. Raul Mondesi is about 12 years older than me. His son however was just named to the Royals' World Series roster. He made his debut yesterday in game three, striking out. (p.s. Baltimore, I could've debuted and struck out as well). But, what made me feel old is that I'm about 12 years older than Raul Mondesi Jr.
Good grief. I started feeling old when players that I collected hawkishly like Matt Williams and Don Mattingly started becoming managers. But this takes the cake!
For most of my childhood and adolescence I believed that I would grow up to be the replacement for Cal Ripken Jr. The stage was set perfectly. Cal began his career at nearly 21 years old and retired when I was about to turn 18. There might have been a short little gap between us as I worked my way through the minor league system, but this could have been filled by Miguel Tejada. By 2004 he would have been out because of steroids and the next homegrown Marylander would take the reigns for a 21 year career at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Sadly, this never came to fruition. But in spite of my failures, I still get giddy in October. This World Series however has made me feel old. The reason is Raul Mondesi.
I remember baseball players from the 80's and 90's with an alarming accuracy. But, if I met them in real life I might not recognize them. For me, this is Raul Mondesi:
Good grief. I started feeling old when players that I collected hawkishly like Matt Williams and Don Mattingly started becoming managers. But this takes the cake!
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Monday, July 20, 2015
Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge Revisited
It's been ten years since I've read the book Secular Humanism: Threat and Challenge by Robert E. Webber. It's been thirty-two years since Robert E. Webber has written the book. Some of its tone seems to be as current as ever. Its rhetoric is definitely current. But, in typing the notes I've noticed a few things about my own thoughts on these topics in my current mindset. I've matured; become less naïve and developed a more nuanced view of the world. I'm not sure if that's always the best thing in the world, but it is the brute fact. But, I've become a little bit more open-minded to things as well. I think I'd be less apt to label secular humanism as hypocritical in the margins of my notes today. I might not; I once yelled at an Ayn Rand book and scared some poor Starbucks sipping soccer moms to death.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Smith of Wootton Major & Farmer Giles of Ham
I just finished Smith of Wootton Major & Farmer Giles of Ham by J.R.R. Tolkien and really fancied it, especially Farmer Giles of Ham.
In Smith, I really enjoyed the description of the morality of the villagers. "A fair number of folk lived in it, good, bad, and mixed, as is usual" (Tolkien, 9). I just like the simple, yet enlightening description. I like the folksy language that Tolkien uses throughout the two stories.
"Some found one, and some found two, and several found none; for that is the way luck goes, whether there is a doll with a wand on the cake or not" (Tolkien, 20). I like this description of luck. It struck me to think about the arbitrary nature of pure chance, written out in simplistic terms.
"But later in long journeys he had seen things of both beauty and terror that he could not clearly remember nor report to his friends, though he knew that they dwelt deep in his heart. But some things he did not forget, and they remained in his mind as wonders and mysteries that he often recalled" (Tolkien, 26). This is a good description of mysticism that I would like to emulate somewhere in my stories.
The interaction between Alf and Nokes on pages 55-56 is a great description of meeting someone of great religious import (Alf) and then rearranging the circumstances in one's own mind so as to be naturally skeptical (Nokes). In some people there is no chance of recognizing truth no matter how plainly it appears to them. Faith is something internal and those devoid of its capacity will reinvent their own history to intentionally misunderstand it. Tolkien's approach devastatingly shows this in the short little passage.
While most of my notes have been on Smith of Wootton Major, I enjoyed reading Farmer Giles of Ham more than the the former. I like the idea of forcing a dragon to do things against its will and the idea of a farmer and commoner overcoming the powerful king. I also like the idea of the Little Kingdom - I think it speaks volumes of what today's "non-elite" can do. Also, it speaks volumes of what the elite (the knights in the story) are unwilling or incapable of doing. In today's society of palpable class divisions in America, it is a triumphant story of the lowly being able to rise above the elite in spite of circumstances and wealth difference. Farmer Giles may have been lucky and unwilling to go his destiny, but even in his unwillingness he ended up doing it. With luck, even those who are apprehensive can overcome massive odds and rise above and thus be subversive to a system stacked against one - it is a triumphant story!
This notion of overcoming the unfair system is a stark contrast to the current situations in Baltimore, a place I nominally claim as a birthplace, though I am truly suburban in my own mind. That said, I have a great affinity for Baltimore. But, even in a place that may have the odds stacked against the lower classes, it is my strongest belief that those willing to work within the system that anyone, regardless of social status can overcome the system to rise to the top. The only difference between those who do not overcome a system stacked against them and those that rise above it is there willingness to work. Farmer Giles had no business getting his hands on the Tailbiter. But, the brute fact of the matter is that he did. With it he was able to amass his wealth and power. He got the Tailbiter because swords had fallen out of fashion with the elite and it was given to him as it might fit someone provincial as it was no longer loved in the elite. Today, there are so many chances afforded to everyone, regardless of class. If only those in the lower classes would grasp at what is afforded to them, they too can threaten and tame dragons. And in doing so, they can carve themselves their own little kingdoms. While luck may play a part, as it did for Farmer Giles, no amount of luck would have behooved this mere provincial if he hadn't seized it. So let us seize our luck and if it fails, let us seize it again.
"Some found one, and some found two, and several found none; for that is the way luck goes, whether there is a doll with a wand on the cake or not" (Tolkien, 20). I like this description of luck. It struck me to think about the arbitrary nature of pure chance, written out in simplistic terms.
"But later in long journeys he had seen things of both beauty and terror that he could not clearly remember nor report to his friends, though he knew that they dwelt deep in his heart. But some things he did not forget, and they remained in his mind as wonders and mysteries that he often recalled" (Tolkien, 26). This is a good description of mysticism that I would like to emulate somewhere in my stories.
The interaction between Alf and Nokes on pages 55-56 is a great description of meeting someone of great religious import (Alf) and then rearranging the circumstances in one's own mind so as to be naturally skeptical (Nokes). In some people there is no chance of recognizing truth no matter how plainly it appears to them. Faith is something internal and those devoid of its capacity will reinvent their own history to intentionally misunderstand it. Tolkien's approach devastatingly shows this in the short little passage.
While most of my notes have been on Smith of Wootton Major, I enjoyed reading Farmer Giles of Ham more than the the former. I like the idea of forcing a dragon to do things against its will and the idea of a farmer and commoner overcoming the powerful king. I also like the idea of the Little Kingdom - I think it speaks volumes of what today's "non-elite" can do. Also, it speaks volumes of what the elite (the knights in the story) are unwilling or incapable of doing. In today's society of palpable class divisions in America, it is a triumphant story of the lowly being able to rise above the elite in spite of circumstances and wealth difference. Farmer Giles may have been lucky and unwilling to go his destiny, but even in his unwillingness he ended up doing it. With luck, even those who are apprehensive can overcome massive odds and rise above and thus be subversive to a system stacked against one - it is a triumphant story!
This notion of overcoming the unfair system is a stark contrast to the current situations in Baltimore, a place I nominally claim as a birthplace, though I am truly suburban in my own mind. That said, I have a great affinity for Baltimore. But, even in a place that may have the odds stacked against the lower classes, it is my strongest belief that those willing to work within the system that anyone, regardless of social status can overcome the system to rise to the top. The only difference between those who do not overcome a system stacked against them and those that rise above it is there willingness to work. Farmer Giles had no business getting his hands on the Tailbiter. But, the brute fact of the matter is that he did. With it he was able to amass his wealth and power. He got the Tailbiter because swords had fallen out of fashion with the elite and it was given to him as it might fit someone provincial as it was no longer loved in the elite. Today, there are so many chances afforded to everyone, regardless of class. If only those in the lower classes would grasp at what is afforded to them, they too can threaten and tame dragons. And in doing so, they can carve themselves their own little kingdoms. While luck may play a part, as it did for Farmer Giles, no amount of luck would have behooved this mere provincial if he hadn't seized it. So let us seize our luck and if it fails, let us seize it again.
Friday, February 6, 2015
A funny anecdote from Tolstoy on the state of the world
In digging up the old journals and writings of the last 10-13 years I've found so far that I was once smarter than I am now - or at least I appeared so. I've also found things that struck me as funny back then, don't strike me as funny now or the opposite. But, there are a few things that were funny to me then and funny to me now. This is one of them. In rewriting the notes on Tolstoy I found a funny little quip about how Tolstoy was bemoaning the state of affairs and the current lack of morality in the present age.
"Half a century ago no explanation would have been neeeded of the words 'important', 'good' and 'moral, but in our time nine out of ten educated people, at these words, will ask with a triumphant air: 'What is important, good or moral?' assuming that these words express something conditional and not admitting of definition, and therefore I must answer this anticipated objection" (Maude, 55).
I can't think how many times I've heard somebody say on the news that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of the decaying morals of today's youth. Tolstoy thought the same thing - in 1895. I picture him sitting on his porch, yelling at the neighborhood children to get off his lawn and bemoaning the lack of discipline in today's society. (Not to say he isn't right, just that it's funny every generation thinks the upcoming one is so much morally reprehensible).
"Half a century ago no explanation would have been neeeded of the words 'important', 'good' and 'moral, but in our time nine out of ten educated people, at these words, will ask with a triumphant air: 'What is important, good or moral?' assuming that these words express something conditional and not admitting of definition, and therefore I must answer this anticipated objection" (Maude, 55).
I can't think how many times I've heard somebody say on the news that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of the decaying morals of today's youth. Tolstoy thought the same thing - in 1895. I picture him sitting on his porch, yelling at the neighborhood children to get off his lawn and bemoaning the lack of discipline in today's society. (Not to say he isn't right, just that it's funny every generation thinks the upcoming one is so much morally reprehensible).
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Some Cultural Criticism on Baseball and Honesty
(Originally written August 7, 2007 in Notebook 17)
We, as a culture are not only numb to cheating and dishonesty, but approve of it. Cheating lying and most importantly, the half-truth telling are arts and skills that are honed from early ages. We only criticize these actions when the person doing them is caught.
We see these things as shrewdness and tactics in business and in life. Cheating in school or plagiarism is only a great sin if we copy word for word, but if we add an insight here and there we are seen as reworking old theories and making them new. We can point to these insights and say, "Sure, our theories are similar, but my insights make it my own". We would only become outraged if we saw someone plagiarizing our own work or something we collectively hold as sacrosanct.
In business we only become outraged at cheating, lying and half-truths when they come to fruition in major scandals. Rightfully so we were outraged at Enron, but we ignore a salesman's half-truths tricks as the norm unless we are, of course, the one who the product is sold to.
In spurts we are outraged by cheating only when the hallowed records fall. Nobody cared about steroids in the 80's and 90's, now that a truly talented ballplayer has tied Aaron's record we are outraged. Just the hint of cheating has us up in arms about Barry Bonds. For what reason? It offends our ideological history of Baseball. Where was this outrage when it all began? Was it not obvious that something improper was going on when people were gaining 30 pounds of muscle in the offseason?
Lying, cheating and half-truths are ignored or even celebrated until their outcomes effect us directly or they encroach upon something that is sacred. We should be outraged when this happens, but we should have been outraged much sooner.
We, as a culture are not only numb to cheating and dishonesty, but approve of it. Cheating lying and most importantly, the half-truth telling are arts and skills that are honed from early ages. We only criticize these actions when the person doing them is caught.
We see these things as shrewdness and tactics in business and in life. Cheating in school or plagiarism is only a great sin if we copy word for word, but if we add an insight here and there we are seen as reworking old theories and making them new. We can point to these insights and say, "Sure, our theories are similar, but my insights make it my own". We would only become outraged if we saw someone plagiarizing our own work or something we collectively hold as sacrosanct.
In business we only become outraged at cheating, lying and half-truths when they come to fruition in major scandals. Rightfully so we were outraged at Enron, but we ignore a salesman's half-truths tricks as the norm unless we are, of course, the one who the product is sold to.
In spurts we are outraged by cheating only when the hallowed records fall. Nobody cared about steroids in the 80's and 90's, now that a truly talented ballplayer has tied Aaron's record we are outraged. Just the hint of cheating has us up in arms about Barry Bonds. For what reason? It offends our ideological history of Baseball. Where was this outrage when it all began? Was it not obvious that something improper was going on when people were gaining 30 pounds of muscle in the offseason?
Lying, cheating and half-truths are ignored or even celebrated until their outcomes effect us directly or they encroach upon something that is sacred. We should be outraged when this happens, but we should have been outraged much sooner.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Wanderer and His Shadow
(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)
The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)
33: Elements of revenge
The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.
Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.
A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.
Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.
One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.
"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).
Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.
Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.
194: Dreams
On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).
202: Tourists
Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.
203: Too much and too little
"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).
204: End and goal
Not every end is the goal.
208: How to have all men against you
"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.
249: Positive and Negative
"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)
Arrogant twit!
263: Way to equality
Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.
297: Not to wish to see too soon
One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.
298: From the practice of wise men
To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.
301: A testimony of love
To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly
302: How one tries to improve bad arguments
Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.
That is funny, this is one of my favorites.
307: When taking leave is needed
You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.
317: Opinions and Fish
Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.
322: Death
Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.
323: Remorse
Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).
326: Don't touch!
Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.
333: Dying for the "truth"
We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.
The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)
33: Elements of revenge
The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.
Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.
A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.
Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.
One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.
"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).
Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.
Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.
194: Dreams
On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).
202: Tourists
Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.
203: Too much and too little
"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).
204: End and goal
Not every end is the goal.
208: How to have all men against you
"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.
249: Positive and Negative
"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)
Arrogant twit!
263: Way to equality
Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.
297: Not to wish to see too soon
One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.
298: From the practice of wise men
To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.
301: A testimony of love
To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly
302: How one tries to improve bad arguments
Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.
That is funny, this is one of my favorites.
307: When taking leave is needed
You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.
317: Opinions and Fish
Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.
322: Death
Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.
323: Remorse
Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).
326: Don't touch!
Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.
333: Dying for the "truth"
We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Ramblings, just incoherent ramblings
(Originally written June 6, 2006 in Book 3)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
"Doomsday"
I guess I shouldn't mock as there is yet two hours left for the beast to emerge. Actually, I would have been somewhat disappointed if God as Satan had chosen to act in such a predictable manner. Honestly, who am I to judge God or Satan? May the Lord have mercy on me if I offended Him in ay way and may He protect me if I marked myself with a bullseye.
Anyway, the purpose of today's journaling is to discuss crime and punishment, the death penalty, and imprisonment. The prison system of America is in shambles. It is impotent. I think that it may be one of the biggest failures in our government's history, So now that I have exposed my bias, I cannot in good faith simply tell you to accept it as fact. But, explore for yourself and check if you believe that the American justice system is effective.
Today, out my argument we must start far before prison, before justice, and even before crime. The starting point is what is society's and what is individual?
First, there is individual man.
Second, there is individual man.
Every individual being has the right to do whatever he pleases without impediment, Unfortunately, even in this simplest scenario it is implausible:
Steve wants land 'A' and Joe wants land 'A'. Both have the rights to land 'A'.
But if both Steve and Joe have the right to land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Both have the rights to land through individual fundamental rights. But if both Steve and Joe have the right to Land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Each of their rights impedes the other's individual fundamental rights. Thus, there is a violation of that right if either man claim's land "a" of the other man's individual fundamental rights.
Now there is a major problem for human society. We have a paradox: either every human being will either respect one another's right to something by not doing anything or by overpowering others and exerting their right as supreme. If the former is chosen then we will sit idly until we die and if we choose the latter (which has been repeatedly chosen we will live in a world of Hitlers, Stalins and servants. Nietzsche would be proud.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
"Doomsday"
I guess I shouldn't mock as there is yet two hours left for the beast to emerge. Actually, I would have been somewhat disappointed if God as Satan had chosen to act in such a predictable manner. Honestly, who am I to judge God or Satan? May the Lord have mercy on me if I offended Him in ay way and may He protect me if I marked myself with a bullseye.
Anyway, the purpose of today's journaling is to discuss crime and punishment, the death penalty, and imprisonment. The prison system of America is in shambles. It is impotent. I think that it may be one of the biggest failures in our government's history, So now that I have exposed my bias, I cannot in good faith simply tell you to accept it as fact. But, explore for yourself and check if you believe that the American justice system is effective.
Today, out my argument we must start far before prison, before justice, and even before crime. The starting point is what is society's and what is individual?
First, there is individual man.
Second, there is individual man.
Every individual being has the right to do whatever he pleases without impediment, Unfortunately, even in this simplest scenario it is implausible:
Steve wants land 'A' and Joe wants land 'A'. Both have the rights to land 'A'.
But if both Steve and Joe have the right to land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Both have the rights to land through individual fundamental rights. But if both Steve and Joe have the right to Land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Each of their rights impedes the other's individual fundamental rights. Thus, there is a violation of that right if either man claim's land "a" of the other man's individual fundamental rights.
Now there is a major problem for human society. We have a paradox: either every human being will either respect one another's right to something by not doing anything or by overpowering others and exerting their right as supreme. If the former is chosen then we will sit idly until we die and if we choose the latter (which has been repeatedly chosen we will live in a world of Hitlers, Stalins and servants. Nietzsche would be proud.
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Biblical backing for animal rights issues
(Originally written May 9, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Animal Rights
Rights/Duties
Sentient Rights
Genesis 1:26, 9:1-7 Divine image bearers exercising dominion
Genesis 2:16-17 - Pre-Fall diet, vegetarian??
Deuteronomy 12:15, 20 - Israelites may eat meat
Proverbs 12:10 - ethical treatment of animals
Mark 7:18-19: "Are you so dull? He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but their stomach, and then out their body" (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).
Luke 12:24 - humans are more valuable in God's eyes than animals are
1 Timothy 4:1-5 - humans can eat animals
Isaiah 11:6 - the wolf, the lamb & the child
Animal Rights
Rights/Duties
Sentient Rights
Genesis 1:26, 9:1-7 Divine image bearers exercising dominion
Genesis 2:16-17 - Pre-Fall diet, vegetarian??
Deuteronomy 12:15, 20 - Israelites may eat meat
Proverbs 12:10 - ethical treatment of animals
Mark 7:18-19: "Are you so dull? He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but their stomach, and then out their body" (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).
Luke 12:24 - humans are more valuable in God's eyes than animals are
1 Timothy 4:1-5 - humans can eat animals
Isaiah 11:6 - the wolf, the lamb & the child
Monday, May 1, 2006
Sparse notes on an environmental seminar
(Originally Written May 1, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Stewardship Seminar
Dr. Spiegel - Philosophy department
Dr. Whipple - Biology department
Professor Reber - Earth & Science department
Professor Reber
In 1967, Lynn Townsend White blames the Christian ethics for the current environmental problems. The Christian ideal of nature being for man demands Christians to exploit the earth.
This work by White sparked the Christian Environmental Ethics movement.
In 2006, the pendulum has swung to where most environmentalists see the Christian stewardship concept as one of the strongest environmental ethics in play at the moment.
Background of Reber
-Rural, recycling, Mennonite concept of servitude
Stewardship Seminar
Dr. Spiegel - Philosophy department
Dr. Whipple - Biology department
Professor Reber - Earth & Science department
Professor Reber
In 1967, Lynn Townsend White blames the Christian ethics for the current environmental problems. The Christian ideal of nature being for man demands Christians to exploit the earth.
This work by White sparked the Christian Environmental Ethics movement.
In 2006, the pendulum has swung to where most environmentalists see the Christian stewardship concept as one of the strongest environmental ethics in play at the moment.
Background of Reber
-Rural, recycling, Mennonite concept of servitude
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Reality & Appearance - 9/11 Analogy
(Originally written April 30, 2006 in Book 3)
Is there a difference between appearance and true reality?
Appearance is what we understand (through the thought process). True reality is what the senses perceive. It is the empirical observation we take in. But, since we can only know what we understand and we do not understand any purely empirical evidence, we cannot know true reality. What we know (understand) is empirical -emotional evidence. All appearance is subjective. True reality exists, but since we cannot know anything without the empirical observation of true reality first being funneled through our emotions, than all appearance must be subjective to the observer and more precisely to the observer's emotions. We can have a strong sense of true reality because not all emotions will skew or corrupt our empirical observations as much as others.
Emotions are vital to our understanding. They dictate how the empirical evidence is understood and more importantly how we will act (through the will). Take for instance the event that occurred on September 11th, 2001.
The true reality is that an object composed of inorganic (lifeless) substances that contained organic (living) substances crashed into another object composed of inorganic substances that contained a number of organic substances. If we understood what the true reality was, then we would not understand it in such deep and profound ways. However, we all understand the events of 9/11 in subjective ways.
We understand the appearance of the true reality of 9/11. Our emotions enrich our understanding (or our knowledge). Without emotions our knowledge would be so dry that we might not even find it worthwhile to acquire.
First off, we understand that the objects composed of inorganic substances were created by the organic substances. Thus, we know that these inorganic substances were the Twin Towers and airplanes, both of which are high achievements of the organic substances.
Secondly, we understand that the organic objects were humans. We have emotional bonds with these creatures because we ourselves are human. We have this bond because we experience human beings (including ourselves) empirically and understand them through empirical-emotional ways. The weight of our emotions with other human beings involved specifically, and with ourselves drives our understanding.
Hypothetically put yourself into these various positions to understand the appearance of the 9/11: The New Yorker who did not lose a loved one in the attack, the New Yorker who lost a loved one, The American who didn't lose a loved one, the American who lost one and received a phone call from their loved one from the plane, the Japanese person who has no ties to America or Islam, the Islamic person who is not deeply religious or avidly anti-American, and the fundamentalist Islamic Jihadist. Their emotions played a vital role in how they understood the event. Their understanding is not wrong from an empirical-emotional viewpoint, but may be wrong from an ethical viewpoint.
Is there a difference between appearance and true reality?
Appearance is what we understand (through the thought process). True reality is what the senses perceive. It is the empirical observation we take in. But, since we can only know what we understand and we do not understand any purely empirical evidence, we cannot know true reality. What we know (understand) is empirical -emotional evidence. All appearance is subjective. True reality exists, but since we cannot know anything without the empirical observation of true reality first being funneled through our emotions, than all appearance must be subjective to the observer and more precisely to the observer's emotions. We can have a strong sense of true reality because not all emotions will skew or corrupt our empirical observations as much as others.
Emotions are vital to our understanding. They dictate how the empirical evidence is understood and more importantly how we will act (through the will). Take for instance the event that occurred on September 11th, 2001.
The true reality is that an object composed of inorganic (lifeless) substances that contained organic (living) substances crashed into another object composed of inorganic substances that contained a number of organic substances. If we understood what the true reality was, then we would not understand it in such deep and profound ways. However, we all understand the events of 9/11 in subjective ways.
We understand the appearance of the true reality of 9/11. Our emotions enrich our understanding (or our knowledge). Without emotions our knowledge would be so dry that we might not even find it worthwhile to acquire.
First off, we understand that the objects composed of inorganic substances were created by the organic substances. Thus, we know that these inorganic substances were the Twin Towers and airplanes, both of which are high achievements of the organic substances.
Secondly, we understand that the organic objects were humans. We have emotional bonds with these creatures because we ourselves are human. We have this bond because we experience human beings (including ourselves) empirically and understand them through empirical-emotional ways. The weight of our emotions with other human beings involved specifically, and with ourselves drives our understanding.
Hypothetically put yourself into these various positions to understand the appearance of the 9/11: The New Yorker who did not lose a loved one in the attack, the New Yorker who lost a loved one, The American who didn't lose a loved one, the American who lost one and received a phone call from their loved one from the plane, the Japanese person who has no ties to America or Islam, the Islamic person who is not deeply religious or avidly anti-American, and the fundamentalist Islamic Jihadist. Their emotions played a vital role in how they understood the event. Their understanding is not wrong from an empirical-emotional viewpoint, but may be wrong from an ethical viewpoint.
(Originally written May 1, 2006)
Emotions are the key to understanding and, thus to knowledge itself.
- But how?
Consider it from my vantage point. At the time I was a seventeen year old college student in Indiana. I had no ties to New York City and had no family members or friends, or even acquaintances on board a plane. Geographically and emotionally I was disconnected. However, I am sympathetic to loss of life because I view all life as precious. Also I was in a far right influential environment. Patriotism, which was already abnormally high in rural Indiana, copulated with paranoia and the love child was bastard of vengeful rage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)