The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Showing posts with label Plato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plato. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Christianity During the First Four Centuries
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
The Religious Development of the Jews
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Plotinus
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXX - Plotinus
Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism lived from A.D. 204 - 270, possibly one of the worst times to live in the Roman Empire, full of war, pestilence and instability. His writings however, make no mention of it. Instead of studying the actual world and its miseries, he contemplated an eternal world of goodness and beauty.
"To all of them, Christians and pagans alike, the world of practical affairs seemed to offer no hope, and only the Other World seemed worthy of allegiance. To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus" (Russell, 284).
Plotinus is historically important as an influence in the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of Catholic theology. (Augustine noted that if Plotinus had been a little bit older or born in a different place he would have been called a Christian without too much change to his theories).
Plotinus is also important because he is an archetype for a melancholy optimist. His world was awful and rather than be dragged down by it he escaped it by contemplating happiness on a metaphysical level that is untouchable by the ravages of the real world surrounding him.
Plotinus also improved on Plato by clarifying him and his arguments against materialism are good.
Plotinus' works were edited and arranged by Porphyry who was more Pythagorean and thus, more supernatural than Plotinus. Neoplatonism took on the more supernatural angle of Porphyry in development.
Plotinus begins his metaphysical theory with The One, Spirit, and Soul. The One is similar to the God of Aristotle and is transcendent of everything. Spirit or nous is the image of the One. To know the One then one must study themselves and everything godlike in the Spirit.
Through divine possession and inspiration we can see not only the nous, but also the One. In contact with the One we cannot reason or express this vision in words, we can only do that after the fact.
Soul, lower than nous, is the author of all living things and the author of the created, visible world.
For Plotinus though, the visible world isn't evil. It is just less good than the world of nous.
Matter is created by Soul and matter has no independent reality. Soul desires to entire matter in something analogous to sexual desire. "When the soul leaves the body, it must enter another body if it has been sinful, for justice requires that it should be punished... Sin must be punished; but the punishment happens naturally, through the restless driving of the sinner's errors" (Russell, 292).
The goal of soul is to become one with nous, not in a destruction type of way. "Nous and the individual soul will be simultaneously two and one" (Russell, 293).
"The soul is neither matter nor the form of a material body, but Essence, and Essence is eternal. This view is implicit in Plato's argument that the soul is immortal because ideas are eternal; but it is only with Plotinus that it becomes explicit" (Russell, 293).
The soul desires to copy the creativity of the nous. The soul contemplates the inward realm of nous and seeks to produce something as akin to it as possible. Unfortunately, to create the soul joins itself to a body and cuts itself off from other souls and the nous.
Plotinus believed that the world was imperfect because it was copied from the forms. But, he does not think this is necessarily bad. The copy cannot be both a symbol of the real and the real itself. Therefore, the copy is good enough for us because it is the best copy that could be made.
Plotinus does have to deal with sin because he suggests against determinists and astrologers that sin is the result of free will.
Plotinus marks both a beginning and an end for Russell. He is an end of Greek thought and a beginning to Christendom.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXX - Plotinus
Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism lived from A.D. 204 - 270, possibly one of the worst times to live in the Roman Empire, full of war, pestilence and instability. His writings however, make no mention of it. Instead of studying the actual world and its miseries, he contemplated an eternal world of goodness and beauty.
"To all of them, Christians and pagans alike, the world of practical affairs seemed to offer no hope, and only the Other World seemed worthy of allegiance. To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus" (Russell, 284).
Plotinus is historically important as an influence in the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of Catholic theology. (Augustine noted that if Plotinus had been a little bit older or born in a different place he would have been called a Christian without too much change to his theories).
Plotinus is also important because he is an archetype for a melancholy optimist. His world was awful and rather than be dragged down by it he escaped it by contemplating happiness on a metaphysical level that is untouchable by the ravages of the real world surrounding him.
Plotinus also improved on Plato by clarifying him and his arguments against materialism are good.
Plotinus' works were edited and arranged by Porphyry who was more Pythagorean and thus, more supernatural than Plotinus. Neoplatonism took on the more supernatural angle of Porphyry in development.
Plotinus begins his metaphysical theory with The One, Spirit, and Soul. The One is similar to the God of Aristotle and is transcendent of everything. Spirit or nous is the image of the One. To know the One then one must study themselves and everything godlike in the Spirit.
Through divine possession and inspiration we can see not only the nous, but also the One. In contact with the One we cannot reason or express this vision in words, we can only do that after the fact.
Soul, lower than nous, is the author of all living things and the author of the created, visible world.
For Plotinus though, the visible world isn't evil. It is just less good than the world of nous.
Matter is created by Soul and matter has no independent reality. Soul desires to entire matter in something analogous to sexual desire. "When the soul leaves the body, it must enter another body if it has been sinful, for justice requires that it should be punished... Sin must be punished; but the punishment happens naturally, through the restless driving of the sinner's errors" (Russell, 292).
The goal of soul is to become one with nous, not in a destruction type of way. "Nous and the individual soul will be simultaneously two and one" (Russell, 293).
"The soul is neither matter nor the form of a material body, but Essence, and Essence is eternal. This view is implicit in Plato's argument that the soul is immortal because ideas are eternal; but it is only with Plotinus that it becomes explicit" (Russell, 293).
The soul desires to copy the creativity of the nous. The soul contemplates the inward realm of nous and seeks to produce something as akin to it as possible. Unfortunately, to create the soul joins itself to a body and cuts itself off from other souls and the nous.
Plotinus believed that the world was imperfect because it was copied from the forms. But, he does not think this is necessarily bad. The copy cannot be both a symbol of the real and the real itself. Therefore, the copy is good enough for us because it is the best copy that could be made.
Plotinus does have to deal with sin because he suggests against determinists and astrologers that sin is the result of free will.
Plotinus marks both a beginning and an end for Russell. He is an end of Greek thought and a beginning to Christendom.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Aristotle's Ethics
Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Monday, September 16, 2019
Aristotle's Metaphysics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Laches & Charmides
From Goodreads
Laches & Charmides
Plato
Plato's dialogues are incredibly well written and tend to circle round and round the stated objective of the dialogue without ever quite hitting the bullseye. His linkage of knowledge and virtue seems to always play a central theme. At times he critiques his characters for having definitions that are too narrow to serve as the definition. At others he gets on to them for having definitions that are so vague they barely distinguish one thing from the other.
Plato is harsher with those who seem too cocksure. He blasts rigid dogmatics whenever he encounters it. With those who seem more flexible he still corrects, but generally not as harshly as with others.
I still think a of his game is to play with play with language. He often lampoons Prodicus for his sophistry in definitions while using language in a way that would make Prodicus proud. Of the two, Charmides is more complex in its philsophy. But, I find the characters of Laches more compelling. The two Generals, Nicias and Laches are much more of an interesting pair than Critias and Charmides.
Laches & Charmides
Plato
Plato's dialogues are incredibly well written and tend to circle round and round the stated objective of the dialogue without ever quite hitting the bullseye. His linkage of knowledge and virtue seems to always play a central theme. At times he critiques his characters for having definitions that are too narrow to serve as the definition. At others he gets on to them for having definitions that are so vague they barely distinguish one thing from the other.
Plato is harsher with those who seem too cocksure. He blasts rigid dogmatics whenever he encounters it. With those who seem more flexible he still corrects, but generally not as harshly as with others.
I still think a of his game is to play with play with language. He often lampoons Prodicus for his sophistry in definitions while using language in a way that would make Prodicus proud. Of the two, Charmides is more complex in its philsophy. But, I find the characters of Laches more compelling. The two Generals, Nicias and Laches are much more of an interesting pair than Critias and Charmides.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Goodreads: Theaetetus
From Goodreads
Theaetetus
Plato
Well, that took a bit, didn't it? Honestly, I finished Plato's book months ago and it was Robin A. H. Waterfield's essay that took me some time to slog through.
The dialogue itself is good, foundational, and important. The research essay was very, very thorough. Honestly, I think I might have to reread this one and my notes because the essay is fresher in my mind than the work the essay was on.
Theaetetus
Plato
Well, that took a bit, didn't it? Honestly, I finished Plato's book months ago and it was Robin A. H. Waterfield's essay that took me some time to slog through.
The dialogue itself is good, foundational, and important. The research essay was very, very thorough. Honestly, I think I might have to reread this one and my notes because the essay is fresher in my mind than the work the essay was on.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Timaeus/Critias
(Originally written September 13, 2018)
Timaeus/Critias
Plato
From my goodreads account:
This is easily my least favorite dialogue. I struggled through Timaeus and his odd ramblings about the geometry of the physical makeup of the universe and everything in it. I like my Plato otherworldly, thank you very much! Critias and the description of Atlantis was where it was starting to get good. I woun't spoil the ending for you if you haven't read it; but, let me just say.
Timaeus/Critias
Plato
From my goodreads account:
This is easily my least favorite dialogue. I struggled through Timaeus and his odd ramblings about the geometry of the physical makeup of the universe and everything in it. I like my Plato otherworldly, thank you very much! Critias and the description of Atlantis was where it was starting to get good. I woun't spoil the ending for you if you haven't read it; but, let me just say.
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...
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Timaeus Notes 1
(Originally written July 21, 2018 in Book 17)
Timaeus & Critias
Plato
The Timaeus was the first Ancient Greek text to give an account of creation of the world by a divine creator. Other, earlier Greek accounts were either mythical, centering around sexual reproduction or treated as a haphazard evolution.
"The primary purpose of the Timaeus is theological, that is to say, to give a religious and teleological account of the origin of the world and of the phenomena of nature" (Plato, 7).
On a side note, the teleological has been widely discarded by science. But, I wonder, if we are simply matter and synapses and electrical currents then we are exactly like what the rest of the cosmos is in terms of stuff. But, we, as human beings, obviously do things with a purpose. Thus, we are teleological beings. If we are merely stuff like everything in the cosmos then that stuff is teleological. If matter is then teleological then why is it limited to human beings? That would seem an arbitrary statement.
The creation account of the Timaeus is not a god synonymous with the Christian God or even other Greek gods.
The philosophical basis for the Timaeus begins with Plato's distinction between Being and Becoming. The world of Being contains the Platonic Forms, the principles of logic and mathematics - that which can be known by reason. The world of Becoming is what we perceive by the senses.
"The function of the creator is to account for the intelligibility of the universe" (Plato, 110. Plato believed the cosmos was something we could understand and it could be understood because there is an intelligent force underlying it.
Plato argues that there is a goodness inherent in the actions of the Creator. Thus, when we see traces of divine design we can infer goodness.
The Timaeus and the Critias belong to the late period of Plato's works. They are probably his penultimate works before he wrote the Laws, which he left unfinished on account of his death in 348 BC.
Timaeus
Socrates begins by summarizing the ideal society
- separating the people by occupation/craft/class
- each class gets a single occupation appropriate to it
- the ruling class would thus, only be rulers and have no other occupation
- the rulers must be gentle to their subjects
- the rulers must be trained physically and mentally
- the rulers must not have private property
- no marriage among the rulers. all children were to be children to all and not now their parents. The good men should be assigned to the good women (and the bad paired up) by secret, fixed ways
Critias then begins to tell a story about the travels of Solon. Solon went to Egypt, to the city of Sais. There, Solon learned from the priests about antiquity.
Solon learns about Deucalion and Pyrrha who survived a great flood. But, the old priest criticizes Solon for childish thinking and small-thinking. "You remember only one deluge, though there have been many, and you do not know that the finest and best race of men that every existed lived in your country; you and your fellow citizens are descended from the few survivors that remained" (Plato, 36).
Then Timaeus speaks. He intends to speak an account of how the universe began.
First we must distinguish between "that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is" (Plato, 40). Distinguishes between Being and Becoming.
Being is knowable by reason and intellect. Becoming is understood through opinion and irrational sensation. Being has no cause. Becoming always has a cause.
The cosmos falls into the category of becoming because it can be sensed. Since it is sensible it has a cause.
Why did the creator choose to create the cosmos? The creator is good and therefore wishes all things to be as like him as possible. "God thererfore, wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect" (Plato, 42). The creator took the chaos and reduced it to order.
The Creator created the cosmos to have soul in it, not in any indiviudal part, but in its entirety. That soul is diffuse throughout its entirety.
Timaeus & Critias
Plato
The Timaeus was the first Ancient Greek text to give an account of creation of the world by a divine creator. Other, earlier Greek accounts were either mythical, centering around sexual reproduction or treated as a haphazard evolution.
"The primary purpose of the Timaeus is theological, that is to say, to give a religious and teleological account of the origin of the world and of the phenomena of nature" (Plato, 7).
On a side note, the teleological has been widely discarded by science. But, I wonder, if we are simply matter and synapses and electrical currents then we are exactly like what the rest of the cosmos is in terms of stuff. But, we, as human beings, obviously do things with a purpose. Thus, we are teleological beings. If we are merely stuff like everything in the cosmos then that stuff is teleological. If matter is then teleological then why is it limited to human beings? That would seem an arbitrary statement.
The creation account of the Timaeus is not a god synonymous with the Christian God or even other Greek gods.
The philosophical basis for the Timaeus begins with Plato's distinction between Being and Becoming. The world of Being contains the Platonic Forms, the principles of logic and mathematics - that which can be known by reason. The world of Becoming is what we perceive by the senses.
"The function of the creator is to account for the intelligibility of the universe" (Plato, 110. Plato believed the cosmos was something we could understand and it could be understood because there is an intelligent force underlying it.
Plato argues that there is a goodness inherent in the actions of the Creator. Thus, when we see traces of divine design we can infer goodness.
The Timaeus and the Critias belong to the late period of Plato's works. They are probably his penultimate works before he wrote the Laws, which he left unfinished on account of his death in 348 BC.
Timaeus
Socrates begins by summarizing the ideal society
- separating the people by occupation/craft/class
- each class gets a single occupation appropriate to it
- the ruling class would thus, only be rulers and have no other occupation
- the rulers must be gentle to their subjects
- the rulers must be trained physically and mentally
- the rulers must not have private property
- no marriage among the rulers. all children were to be children to all and not now their parents. The good men should be assigned to the good women (and the bad paired up) by secret, fixed ways
Critias then begins to tell a story about the travels of Solon. Solon went to Egypt, to the city of Sais. There, Solon learned from the priests about antiquity.
Solon learns about Deucalion and Pyrrha who survived a great flood. But, the old priest criticizes Solon for childish thinking and small-thinking. "You remember only one deluge, though there have been many, and you do not know that the finest and best race of men that every existed lived in your country; you and your fellow citizens are descended from the few survivors that remained" (Plato, 36).
Then Timaeus speaks. He intends to speak an account of how the universe began.
First we must distinguish between "that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is" (Plato, 40). Distinguishes between Being and Becoming.
Being is knowable by reason and intellect. Becoming is understood through opinion and irrational sensation. Being has no cause. Becoming always has a cause.
The cosmos falls into the category of becoming because it can be sensed. Since it is sensible it has a cause.
Why did the creator choose to create the cosmos? The creator is good and therefore wishes all things to be as like him as possible. "God thererfore, wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect" (Plato, 42). The creator took the chaos and reduced it to order.
The Creator created the cosmos to have soul in it, not in any indiviudal part, but in its entirety. That soul is diffuse throughout its entirety.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Philebus
(Originally written July 19, 2018)
Philebus
Plato
From my Goodreads account:
Any of Plato's dialogues are generally worth reading. His style and literary prowess are enough to carry him to that level. What makes some of Plato's dialogues fantastic reads is his ability to argue soundly with himself. In Philebus, you have Plato's literary quality leading the charge. The first of Socrates' dialectic sparring partners in this dialogue are Philebus who is basically as involved as the spoiled boy who announces he won't play the game because his friends chose a diferent one than what he had suggested. Like the sulking boy Philebus sits in the corner watching the game and occasionally chimes in with a retort that has nothing really to do with the conversation because he is still hurt they're playing Monopoly instead of Life. Socrates' other partner is Protarchus. Protarchus seems to have the spinal fortitude of cooked spaghetti. While the philosophical debate isn't as strong or as barbed as in other dialogues the wit, sarcasm and wordplay is just as magical and makes Philebus a good, light read.
Philebus
Plato
From my Goodreads account:
Any of Plato's dialogues are generally worth reading. His style and literary prowess are enough to carry him to that level. What makes some of Plato's dialogues fantastic reads is his ability to argue soundly with himself. In Philebus, you have Plato's literary quality leading the charge. The first of Socrates' dialectic sparring partners in this dialogue are Philebus who is basically as involved as the spoiled boy who announces he won't play the game because his friends chose a diferent one than what he had suggested. Like the sulking boy Philebus sits in the corner watching the game and occasionally chimes in with a retort that has nothing really to do with the conversation because he is still hurt they're playing Monopoly instead of Life. Socrates' other partner is Protarchus. Protarchus seems to have the spinal fortitude of cooked spaghetti. While the philosophical debate isn't as strong or as barbed as in other dialogues the wit, sarcasm and wordplay is just as magical and makes Philebus a good, light read.
Philebus Notes 3
(Originally written July 19, 2018 in book 17)
Philebus
Plato
(continued)
"Bad men, then, delight for the most part in false pleasures, good men in true ones" (Plato, 77).
False pleasures are a 'ridiculous imitation' of true pleasures.
There are three types of life:
1) The pleasant
2) The painful
3) The painless, joyless life.
To be without pain is not the same as to feel pleasure.
The greatest pleasures and pains occur not when the body or soul is healthy, but when they are sick.
Ignorance is always an evil.
Pleasure belongs to the class of becoming, i.e. the pleasure one has involves the process of being thirsty. Thus, pleasure is not pure Being. The Good in pure Being and does not involve process and is thus, not becoming. Being is higher than becoming. Thus, pleasure cannot be the Good because as the Good it must be the highest.
Socrates claims that dialectic has the greatest claim to discovering pure truth. He concedes that while Gorgias' act of persuasion may acheive more utility, it does not have a strong claim as does dialectic to understanding the truth of a thing.
"We find fixity, purity, truth and what we have called perfect clarity, either in those things that are always unchanged, unaltered and free of all admixture, or in what is most akin to them; everythign else must be called inferior and of secondary iporantce" (Plato, 122).
There is a Greek proverb about the need for repeating a good thing 'once and twice and once again' - use this in Future Modern Ancient Greeks for comedic effect
Philebus claims that pleasure and the pursuit of it is the Supreme Good of all living Creatures. Socrates claims they are different and intelligence has more claim to be ranked as good than pleasure.
Knowledge of things unchanged is greater than knowledge of changing things. Knowledge of pure Being is greather than knowledge of becoming.
THe mixture that comes to the threshold of the Good is all knowledge, the knowledge of both unchanging and changing things and those pleasures that do not have folly attached to them. The pleasures of a temperate existence are allowed in, but those that cause ruin or disturbance are not.
Beauty, proportion and Truth are synonymous. The mixture will be good if these three things are in it. These things make the mixture good.
Socrates' heiarchy of what is closest to the Good:
1) Whatever is measured or appropriate
2) Whatever is proportional and beautiful
3) Reason and intelligence
4) That which belongs to the soul itself (Science, Art, Right Opinions
5) Pure pleasures of the soul, some attached to knowledge, some to sensation
Philebus
Plato
(continued)
"Bad men, then, delight for the most part in false pleasures, good men in true ones" (Plato, 77).
False pleasures are a 'ridiculous imitation' of true pleasures.
There are three types of life:
1) The pleasant
2) The painful
3) The painless, joyless life.
To be without pain is not the same as to feel pleasure.
The greatest pleasures and pains occur not when the body or soul is healthy, but when they are sick.
Ignorance is always an evil.
Pleasure belongs to the class of becoming, i.e. the pleasure one has involves the process of being thirsty. Thus, pleasure is not pure Being. The Good in pure Being and does not involve process and is thus, not becoming. Being is higher than becoming. Thus, pleasure cannot be the Good because as the Good it must be the highest.
Socrates claims that dialectic has the greatest claim to discovering pure truth. He concedes that while Gorgias' act of persuasion may acheive more utility, it does not have a strong claim as does dialectic to understanding the truth of a thing.
"We find fixity, purity, truth and what we have called perfect clarity, either in those things that are always unchanged, unaltered and free of all admixture, or in what is most akin to them; everythign else must be called inferior and of secondary iporantce" (Plato, 122).
There is a Greek proverb about the need for repeating a good thing 'once and twice and once again' - use this in Future Modern Ancient Greeks for comedic effect
Philebus claims that pleasure and the pursuit of it is the Supreme Good of all living Creatures. Socrates claims they are different and intelligence has more claim to be ranked as good than pleasure.
Knowledge of things unchanged is greater than knowledge of changing things. Knowledge of pure Being is greather than knowledge of becoming.
THe mixture that comes to the threshold of the Good is all knowledge, the knowledge of both unchanging and changing things and those pleasures that do not have folly attached to them. The pleasures of a temperate existence are allowed in, but those that cause ruin or disturbance are not.
Beauty, proportion and Truth are synonymous. The mixture will be good if these three things are in it. These things make the mixture good.
Socrates' heiarchy of what is closest to the Good:
1) Whatever is measured or appropriate
2) Whatever is proportional and beautiful
3) Reason and intelligence
4) That which belongs to the soul itself (Science, Art, Right Opinions
5) Pure pleasures of the soul, some attached to knowledge, some to sensation
Monday, July 16, 2018
Philebus Notes 2
(Originally written July 16, 2018 in Book 17)
Philebus
Plato
(continued)
Socrates maintains that neither pleasure nor intelligence are identical with the good.
The good must be perfect, must be adequate and when one recognizes the good, one must desire it and go after it.
Socrates shows Protarchus that a life lived in the whole enjoyment of pleasure without intelligence would be impossible. Without intelligence one couldn't even judge that his life was pleasurable. It wouldn't be a human life, but a life of some beast.
Socrates and Protarchus also agree that a life of complete and perfect intelligence without pleasure (or even pain) would not be desireable either.
Since a life devoted to pleasure and a life devoted to intelligence both prove to be inadequate than neither intelligence nor pleasure can be the good.
Socrates points out that while pleasure and his own personal reasons are not the good; it might be that, "the tru, divine, reason, I fancy, is in rather a different position" (Plato, 35).
4 Classes of Existence:
1) Limitless - that which can be more or less, that which is becoming, that which contains a quality of "compared to such-and-such", i.e. a thing is hotter when it is compared to something. it continues on being hotter and hotter (or colder and colder) when compared.
2) The limited - that which posseses a quality of a fixed ratio or is equal to something else.
3) A mix of the limitless and the limited - this is the balance and perfection. By combining pitches in music we arrive at a harmony. "it is here that we find the source of fair weather and all other beautiful things" (Plato, 48).
Socrates uses the example of law and the wickedness of man. Socrates contends that the lawlessness and wickedness of man is due to the limitless nature of man's pleasure and his appetite for it. When Law and Order was instituted then limits were imposed. Thus the limitlessness and the limited were combined to produce balance. Socrates maintains against Philebus that rather than spoiling the capacity for pleasure this imposition of limitedness preserved man.
4) The thing that causes the mixture of the limited and unlimited. This is greather than the thing that is mixed because the caused always comes after the cause.
Socrates claims that mind and soul belong to the category 4, the cause of things.
Socrates points out pain must be discussed in any thought of pleasure. He places both pain and pleasure in the third, combined category.
He describes pain as a disturbance of harmony in any creature and pleasure as the occurrence when that harmony is restored. "When the natural state of a living organism, constituted, as I have maintained, of the unlimited and the limit, is destroyed and that destruction is pain; conversely, when such organisms return to their own true nature, this reversion is invariably pleasure" (Plato, 60).
Socrates argues that all desires come from the soul, not the body. Likewise pain and pleasure are in the soul, not the body.
Socrates points out that feeling a pleasure is on the same level of holding an opinion. Since opinion can be either true or false, pleasures can likewise be either true or false.
If a pleasure has rightness then it is a right pleasure. But if a pleasure has badness, it is a bad pleasure.
Socrates compares our souls to a book. When memories with attached feelings "write" on our souls what is true, then true opinions spring up in us. But when those memories and attached feelings are false, false opinions spring up in us.
Philebus
Plato
(continued)
Socrates maintains that neither pleasure nor intelligence are identical with the good.
The good must be perfect, must be adequate and when one recognizes the good, one must desire it and go after it.
Socrates shows Protarchus that a life lived in the whole enjoyment of pleasure without intelligence would be impossible. Without intelligence one couldn't even judge that his life was pleasurable. It wouldn't be a human life, but a life of some beast.
Socrates and Protarchus also agree that a life of complete and perfect intelligence without pleasure (or even pain) would not be desireable either.
Since a life devoted to pleasure and a life devoted to intelligence both prove to be inadequate than neither intelligence nor pleasure can be the good.
Socrates points out that while pleasure and his own personal reasons are not the good; it might be that, "the tru, divine, reason, I fancy, is in rather a different position" (Plato, 35).
4 Classes of Existence:
1) Limitless - that which can be more or less, that which is becoming, that which contains a quality of "compared to such-and-such", i.e. a thing is hotter when it is compared to something. it continues on being hotter and hotter (or colder and colder) when compared.
2) The limited - that which posseses a quality of a fixed ratio or is equal to something else.
3) A mix of the limitless and the limited - this is the balance and perfection. By combining pitches in music we arrive at a harmony. "it is here that we find the source of fair weather and all other beautiful things" (Plato, 48).
Socrates uses the example of law and the wickedness of man. Socrates contends that the lawlessness and wickedness of man is due to the limitless nature of man's pleasure and his appetite for it. When Law and Order was instituted then limits were imposed. Thus the limitlessness and the limited were combined to produce balance. Socrates maintains against Philebus that rather than spoiling the capacity for pleasure this imposition of limitedness preserved man.
4) The thing that causes the mixture of the limited and unlimited. This is greather than the thing that is mixed because the caused always comes after the cause.
Socrates claims that mind and soul belong to the category 4, the cause of things.
Socrates points out pain must be discussed in any thought of pleasure. He places both pain and pleasure in the third, combined category.
He describes pain as a disturbance of harmony in any creature and pleasure as the occurrence when that harmony is restored. "When the natural state of a living organism, constituted, as I have maintained, of the unlimited and the limit, is destroyed and that destruction is pain; conversely, when such organisms return to their own true nature, this reversion is invariably pleasure" (Plato, 60).
Socrates argues that all desires come from the soul, not the body. Likewise pain and pleasure are in the soul, not the body.
Socrates points out that feeling a pleasure is on the same level of holding an opinion. Since opinion can be either true or false, pleasures can likewise be either true or false.
If a pleasure has rightness then it is a right pleasure. But if a pleasure has badness, it is a bad pleasure.
Socrates compares our souls to a book. When memories with attached feelings "write" on our souls what is true, then true opinions spring up in us. But when those memories and attached feelings are false, false opinions spring up in us.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Philebus Notes 1
(Originally written July 2, 2018 in Book 17)
This book hasn't been written in for nearly eleven years. But it seems a waste not to fill the pages. Thus, I'll continue with my Plato reading project that has dragged on for nearly two years now.
Plato's Philebus
trans. R. Hackforth
Cambridge at the University Press
1972
Introduction
Philebus is from the later career of Plato.
Philebus is not a real person; he is an embodiment of an irrational dogmatic hedonism.
The main concept of Philebus is that pleasure is an 'unlimited thing'.
Philebus
Philebus: pleasure is the good for all loving creatures; it is the right aim for all creatures and they ought to seek it.
"Hedonism and Socratism have this much in common, that they both find the human good within ourselves" (Plato, 12).
Socrates: thought, intelligence, memory and true reasoning are more valuable than pleasure.
This book hasn't been written in for nearly eleven years. But it seems a waste not to fill the pages. Thus, I'll continue with my Plato reading project that has dragged on for nearly two years now.
Plato's Philebus
trans. R. Hackforth
Cambridge at the University Press
1972
Introduction
Philebus is from the later career of Plato.
Philebus is not a real person; he is an embodiment of an irrational dogmatic hedonism.
The main concept of Philebus is that pleasure is an 'unlimited thing'.
Philebus
Philebus: pleasure is the good for all loving creatures; it is the right aim for all creatures and they ought to seek it.
"Hedonism and Socratism have this much in common, that they both find the human good within ourselves" (Plato, 12).
Socrates: thought, intelligence, memory and true reasoning are more valuable than pleasure.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Goodreads review of Meno
(Originally written October 24, 2017)
From my Goodreads review.
This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.
From my Goodreads review.
This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Quick Thoughts on The Symposium
I just finished The Symposium by Plato last night. It was probably the third or fourth time I've read it in my recent (and slow paced) journey through all of Plato's works. I've taken notes in my notebooks that will eventually find their way on to this blog in the future, so I won't spend too much time here other than to give my overarching thoughts on it. Here is what I wrote on my Goodreads page: "In the Symposium not all speeches are equal. This is one of my favorite dialogues of Plato, but surprisingly not because of Socrates. Aristophanes' speech about the fantastically weird original humans and Alcibiades' drunken entrance are exceptional pieces of literature - humorously and babbingly brilliant". I'm not going to add much more to this here, but I read this book again, even though I had read this particular dialogue in two or three collections of dialogues earlier because I wanted to reread the speech of Aristophanes. I don't know why it is so fascinating to me. It could be that it's just so odd I can't help just be attracted to it.
Two verses from Acts 3
I've been rather neglectful of a number of things in my life recently. I've been intellectually, spiritually, physically and creatively lazy over the past few months. This is nothing new - and it tends to coincide with dips in form in my struggles. This in turn creates tension in my marriage, putting more pressure on my inability to overcome my baser desires and intentional forgetfulness. That in turn, makes me a bit depressed and I turn to my well worn stress relievers putting more tension on my marriage and the carousel continues to spin faster and faster, sucking me in deeper and deeper to the middle and everything seems to get worse and worse. And so on and so on. But, if I push through and am not intellectually, physically, creatively or most importantly, spiritually lazy than none of this happens. Mistakes are still made, but these are incidents rather than cycles.
I often work in platitudes or hastily announced, unachievable goals. This drives my wife insane and sets me up for failure. I'm trying not to do this again. I've ran or worked out the last three days, finished another book (40 of my 60 goal this year) and read some from Acts last night. I'm hoping to just make incremental progress this week and work on creating a more virtuous circle rather than getting sucked into the aforementioned negative merry-go-round. But - as you can see, that last sentence is rather close to a hastily announced, unachievable goal. Is it my own personal jargon? Who am I announcing these platitudes towards? I think I'm only saying them to ease my own unrest. But, I digress.
I read the first three chapters of Acts last night after finishing The Symposium by Plato and reading 20 pages of Ulysses by Joyce. It took me nearly a month to finish the Plato piece (which marks my intellectual laziness as of late). It will take me longer to finish Joyce (which is because it's a gargantuan 700 plus pages and difficult to read). But, two verses stood out to me from Acts 3.
Acts 3:16
"It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him".
I'm not sure that I'm ready or willing to call my self-inflicted frustrations a disease. It's more of an issue of will. But, there is definitely some healing that needs to take place in me. Whether it is biological or spiritual in nature is a question of semantics. There is something broken inside of me. And it struck me that my spiritual laziness is leading me to reject complete healing. What also struck me about this verse is that faith comes through Jesus. In order for man to have faith it must come through Jesus. It isn't a strength of a man reaching out to Jesus, but rather Jesus preceding the faith that the man can have. So I prayed for that faith that comes only through Jesus last night and I echo that prayer again today.
Acts 3:26
"When God raised up His servant, He sent him first to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways".
My struggles are my struggles. They have impacted my social life, my career life, my physical life to an extent, my spiritual life and my love life. To be blunt, they have sucked. Yet, I derive a weird pleasure while going through them. I know it's wrong but I do it anyway for the moments of escape they provide. However, this verse jumped out at me because I never thought of getting out of these struggles as a blessing. I just figured when I grew out of this struggle that I could return to a sort of base line normalcy. I now see it - when I am turned by Jesus from my wicked way, I won't be returning to some base line normalcy, but an elevated state of being blessed.
I often work in platitudes or hastily announced, unachievable goals. This drives my wife insane and sets me up for failure. I'm trying not to do this again. I've ran or worked out the last three days, finished another book (40 of my 60 goal this year) and read some from Acts last night. I'm hoping to just make incremental progress this week and work on creating a more virtuous circle rather than getting sucked into the aforementioned negative merry-go-round. But - as you can see, that last sentence is rather close to a hastily announced, unachievable goal. Is it my own personal jargon? Who am I announcing these platitudes towards? I think I'm only saying them to ease my own unrest. But, I digress.
I read the first three chapters of Acts last night after finishing The Symposium by Plato and reading 20 pages of Ulysses by Joyce. It took me nearly a month to finish the Plato piece (which marks my intellectual laziness as of late). It will take me longer to finish Joyce (which is because it's a gargantuan 700 plus pages and difficult to read). But, two verses stood out to me from Acts 3.
Acts 3:16
"It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him".
I'm not sure that I'm ready or willing to call my self-inflicted frustrations a disease. It's more of an issue of will. But, there is definitely some healing that needs to take place in me. Whether it is biological or spiritual in nature is a question of semantics. There is something broken inside of me. And it struck me that my spiritual laziness is leading me to reject complete healing. What also struck me about this verse is that faith comes through Jesus. In order for man to have faith it must come through Jesus. It isn't a strength of a man reaching out to Jesus, but rather Jesus preceding the faith that the man can have. So I prayed for that faith that comes only through Jesus last night and I echo that prayer again today.
Acts 3:26
"When God raised up His servant, He sent him first to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways".
My struggles are my struggles. They have impacted my social life, my career life, my physical life to an extent, my spiritual life and my love life. To be blunt, they have sucked. Yet, I derive a weird pleasure while going through them. I know it's wrong but I do it anyway for the moments of escape they provide. However, this verse jumped out at me because I never thought of getting out of these struggles as a blessing. I just figured when I grew out of this struggle that I could return to a sort of base line normalcy. I now see it - when I am turned by Jesus from my wicked way, I won't be returning to some base line normalcy, but an elevated state of being blessed.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
The Four Socratic Dialogues of Plato
I finished The Four Socratic Dialogues of Plato last night after nearly two months of reading it at a start and stop pace. This was my Goodreads entry: "My goodness! That took me a long time to read! I'll admit I was a bit slack; but, goodness gracious. I like to have two books going at a time - a story format and a non-story, non-fiction one. (When I'm on my A game I have a third religious one going too). But I have utterly neglected that latter two recently.
Anyway, this has four of Plato's dialogues in it: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. All of them are good. I think Apology and Phaedo are stellar. This is the second and third reading of each dialogue in my recent attempt to read all of Plato cycle. What makes this particular book so great is that it is a Benjamin Jowett translation (one that most other translations look to) with Jowett's own notes and prefaces. It's an edition from 1928 based on the first printing from 1903. If you're lucky enough like me to find one collecting dust in a long-neglected corner of some rundown bookshop for $4 bucks snap it up!
Anyway, this has four of Plato's dialogues in it: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. All of them are good. I think Apology and Phaedo are stellar. This is the second and third reading of each dialogue in my recent attempt to read all of Plato cycle. What makes this particular book so great is that it is a Benjamin Jowett translation (one that most other translations look to) with Jowett's own notes and prefaces. It's an edition from 1928 based on the first printing from 1903. If you're lucky enough like me to find one collecting dust in a long-neglected corner of some rundown bookshop for $4 bucks snap it up!
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Lottery
Do a short story on Plato's lottery for sex.
I imagine a very somber, melancholic room. Sex has been stripped of its fun. The lottery has been going on for centuries. Instead of creating excitement it now creates dread. When the lottery is drawn the couples perform in front of bored audiences. The woman is then sequestered until she is with child. If she doesn't conceive both the man and the woman are released from the lottery system. They are thrown out into the free love room. This is where I want to do the myth of the cave kind of story. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I am picturing an aesthetic similar to Dogville by Lars von Trier...
I'm not sure where this will go (if anywhere) but there you have it future Chris. Good luck with this one...
I imagine a very somber, melancholic room. Sex has been stripped of its fun. The lottery has been going on for centuries. Instead of creating excitement it now creates dread. When the lottery is drawn the couples perform in front of bored audiences. The woman is then sequestered until she is with child. If she doesn't conceive both the man and the woman are released from the lottery system. They are thrown out into the free love room. This is where I want to do the myth of the cave kind of story. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I am picturing an aesthetic similar to Dogville by Lars von Trier...
I'm not sure where this will go (if anywhere) but there you have it future Chris. Good luck with this one...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)