Never read Plutarch until just recently. If you're curious he wrote some pretty nice Biographies of people. I also hadn't heard of Lycurgus until just recently. So perhaps my education failed and I'm not very cultured, but whatever...
My take is Sparta is the place that he lived and that Lycurgus is credited with making it more of a commune. I guess it feels a lot like a Utopian society... minus a little bit of questionable gender practices. Plutarch credits Lycurgus with three big rule (which are unwritten) that help form Sparta.
1: Equal Land
2: Non-Portable Moneys.
3: Communal eating.
I especially like the non-portable money. Big Iron Bars. Hard to steal or issue bribes with... but it does destroy the usefulness of money. Is there any small way that our world could emulate this? We seem to be going in quite the opposite direction: Money is becoming more abstract. I don't have a real concept of where all my money is and how it flow. I'm not sure where bits of it are nibbled as financial expenditures.
What does this say about our world view. What is the end result of a culture that has abstract concepts of money, and the movement there of? Likewise, we are becoming less communal and property is becoming more and more individualistic. I like the image that Pultarch portrays of a communal and happy Sparta, but I don't agree with all of their practices. I'm mostly Not Okay with infanticide and their view on marriage is pretty unique. I remember learning about it when I was studying "Women and the Classical World."
"In their marriages, the husband carried off his bride by a sort of force; nor were their brides ever small and of tender years, but in their full bloom and ripeness. After this, she who superintended the wedding comes and clips the hair of the bride close round her head, dresses her up in man's clothes, sober and composed, as having supped at the common table, and entering privately into the room where the bride lies, unties her virgin zone, and takes her to himself; and, after staying some time together, he returns composedly to his own apartment, to sleep as usual with the other young men."
This was bizarre when we first read it and now that I read it in context it still doesn't get any better. Really, what's up with that? Different culture behaves in a different way? Yeah, but the scary part here is that I can put this into modern context without twisting it too much. Aggressive men who ditch the girl after they are finished, and then go back and play Halo?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Aristotle: Politics (Book 1)
What came first the chicken or the egg? For Aristotle, I think the question is what came first the family or the state? The family is the building block of the political body. Villages are composed of a group of these. However, Aristotle argues "the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part..."
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's, and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."
What does this mean for us? Aristotle believed that slavery was fine, that children and wives were subject to their husbands. Yet, the conditions for being a slave seems to have two conditions: be rational enough to understand what being a slave means but not rational enough to have their own slaves.
After college, I thought about how most generations have had slavery under different names. We have had "Slavery", "Indentured Servitude", company town workers, and now slaves to debt. After college I had $60k in student loans; and will be paying a pretty penny in interest. Now I'm tied to this debt which can prevent me from "freedom" in a sense. Am I subject to it because I both acknowledge that it exists and wasn't smart enough to finance my education in a different way or get a cheaper education.
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's, and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."
What does this mean for us? Aristotle believed that slavery was fine, that children and wives were subject to their husbands. Yet, the conditions for being a slave seems to have two conditions: be rational enough to understand what being a slave means but not rational enough to have their own slaves.
After college, I thought about how most generations have had slavery under different names. We have had "Slavery", "Indentured Servitude", company town workers, and now slaves to debt. After college I had $60k in student loans; and will be paying a pretty penny in interest. Now I'm tied to this debt which can prevent me from "freedom" in a sense. Am I subject to it because I both acknowledge that it exists and wasn't smart enough to finance my education in a different way or get a cheaper education.
Aristotle:Ethics (Book 1)
Three Prominent Lifestyles: "...life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent types of life--that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the contemplative life."
I'm not sure I fully understand what Aristotle is going for in the Ethics. I don't have a lot of notes about from reading Ethics Book 1. He seems to talk about "goods" that are good in themselves. For example Happiness. We want happiness not because it leads to something else, but because we want to be happy. I'm not sure if he is saying that it's a deeper good because of it's self-sufficient nature, or if he is claiming that self-sufficiency is a "Good" like Happiness.
"...it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added beomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action."
So, it would seem that Happiness is that which is self-sufficient and it is a good attribute of a "Good." The second part I really like in Ethics is in regards to active virtue.
"And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life."
The final thing I'm pulling from this is that happiness transcends fortune. Life can be terrible, but the person who possess the attribute of happiness retains it.
"For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances of life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable; though he will not reach blessedness, if he meet with fortunes like those of Priam."
I'm not sure I fully understand what Aristotle is going for in the Ethics. I don't have a lot of notes about from reading Ethics Book 1. He seems to talk about "goods" that are good in themselves. For example Happiness. We want happiness not because it leads to something else, but because we want to be happy. I'm not sure if he is saying that it's a deeper good because of it's self-sufficient nature, or if he is claiming that self-sufficiency is a "Good" like Happiness.
"...it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added beomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action."
So, it would seem that Happiness is that which is self-sufficient and it is a good attribute of a "Good." The second part I really like in Ethics is in regards to active virtue.
"And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life."
The final thing I'm pulling from this is that happiness transcends fortune. Life can be terrible, but the person who possess the attribute of happiness retains it.
"For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances of life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable; though he will not reach blessedness, if he meet with fortunes like those of Priam."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Plato: The Republic (books I and II)
Good stuff in Plato's Republic. I look forward to coming back and reading more Plato later on, but part of the plan is to read lots of different stuff. Before we more on though here are a couple of thoughts.
"You mean when money is not wanted but allowed to lie?...That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless?" Socrates dives in and talks about when we use "Justice," and it is a good point that it isn't in the active use of items. If you want something to happen with your stuff you find the appropriate artist (farmer for the plow, a smith for anvil, a soldier for the sword), but when they are being kept idle then you need a just man that can be trusted.
That leads into another distinction that is drawn. The difference between a just man and an unjust man is the direction of their intent. A just man is concerned about others, where the unjust man twists others' intent to serve his concerns.
The last, and perhaps most interesting element that I noticed in Book 2 of the Republic was a section on censorship for youth. Socrates is portrayed as being passionate about how kids are exposed to poets. He has two big qualms; I'll elaborate with quotes below.
"Let this then be on of our rules and priciples concerning the gods, to which our poest and reciters will be expected to conform--that God is not the author of all things, but of good only."
"Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every God remains absolutely and for ever in his own form."
"You mean when money is not wanted but allowed to lie?...That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless?" Socrates dives in and talks about when we use "Justice," and it is a good point that it isn't in the active use of items. If you want something to happen with your stuff you find the appropriate artist (farmer for the plow, a smith for anvil, a soldier for the sword), but when they are being kept idle then you need a just man that can be trusted.
That leads into another distinction that is drawn. The difference between a just man and an unjust man is the direction of their intent. A just man is concerned about others, where the unjust man twists others' intent to serve his concerns.
The last, and perhaps most interesting element that I noticed in Book 2 of the Republic was a section on censorship for youth. Socrates is portrayed as being passionate about how kids are exposed to poets. He has two big qualms; I'll elaborate with quotes below.
"Let this then be on of our rules and priciples concerning the gods, to which our poest and reciters will be expected to conform--that God is not the author of all things, but of good only."
"Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every God remains absolutely and for ever in his own form."
Aristophanes: The Clouds and The Lysistrata.
Thoughts about two of Aristophanes plays.
First in the clouds I really enjoy the sounds they use to describe their bowels... sounds like "pappapappax" and "papapappappapappax." I'm not really sure how to vocalize these, but I'm sure that it would be wonderful.
On a more serious note. Strepsiades and and his son Pheidippides are two of the main parts. Dad is displeased with how Son has spent much of his wealth. Dad isn't pleased with his son at all until Son is taught "wrong logic" by Socrates. I felt a connection with our day where Fathers are more concerned with their sons abilities and accomplishments that they ar with their sons as people.
The second Play is Lysistrata. This is an amusing work about Women abstaining from Sex so their husbands will stop going to war.
I found a connection with "Glory Road" by Heinlien. In Glory Road, throughout all of the universes, Earth was the only place where Sex was thought of a commotity. Here once again it is used as means of leverage: a tool or resource.
Around lines 358-390 the Men are going to burn the Acroplis (or women there in), and the women are going to save them by dousing the flame. I feel that this is an interesting element of symbolism. Think Men->Fire->Passion; Think Women->Water (cold)-> quenching the mens' passion. Don't take it that I'm generalizing this, but only within this story where the women are abstaining to drive their husbands nuts.
First in the clouds I really enjoy the sounds they use to describe their bowels... sounds like "pappapappax" and "papapappappapappax." I'm not really sure how to vocalize these, but I'm sure that it would be wonderful.
On a more serious note. Strepsiades and and his son Pheidippides are two of the main parts. Dad is displeased with how Son has spent much of his wealth. Dad isn't pleased with his son at all until Son is taught "wrong logic" by Socrates. I felt a connection with our day where Fathers are more concerned with their sons abilities and accomplishments that they ar with their sons as people.
The second Play is Lysistrata. This is an amusing work about Women abstaining from Sex so their husbands will stop going to war.
I found a connection with "Glory Road" by Heinlien. In Glory Road, throughout all of the universes, Earth was the only place where Sex was thought of a commotity. Here once again it is used as means of leverage: a tool or resource.
Around lines 358-390 the Men are going to burn the Acroplis (or women there in), and the women are going to save them by dousing the flame. I feel that this is an interesting element of symbolism. Think Men->Fire->Passion; Think Women->Water (cold)-> quenching the mens' passion. Don't take it that I'm generalizing this, but only within this story where the women are abstaining to drive their husbands nuts.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Quote: Screwtape Letters
The Screwtape Letters are written from the perspective of Senior Devil to a Junior Devil. This quote talks about the Junior's subject facing trials (or troughs) in faith.
"He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys." -C.S.Lewis
C.S.Lewis writes to me in profound ways. I'm not sure what I think of the Screwtape Letters, yet-but regardless of how I view the entire book there are pieces that echo with truth.
Some of my Confirmation kids have a lot of trouble with the concept of Hell. Why would God create this if he loves us so much. I keep trying to explain it, but it never seems to work. I don't know that I really understand myself. It is related to this quote... It's about "taking the hand away."
The first part of my explanation is that in my mind Hell is nothing more than eternal separation from God. I don't buy into Dante, despite the elegance of his writings. Heaven and Hell are spiritual places... New bodies? Maybe... but I don't really know.
The second part involves God "Taking his hand away." He grants us free will. We can either stumble to or away from God. In short, we get to decide how we spend eternity.
I'm not sure how, or when all our chips are put onto the table. It could be that we are conditioned by the choices we make. I remember playing a Star Wars Video Game (KoTR?) and your character's alignment with the force was deteremined by your actions: Light or Dark. The other side I think might be likely is that come Rapture (not exactly how I invision Rapture), Christ will ask you where you stand with him. Could it be that some would walk away from Christ standing in his Glory? As scary as it is, I think that those people exist.
C.S.Lewis I think favors the prior. We are beings learning to walk like a son/daughter of God.
"He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys." -C.S.Lewis
C.S.Lewis writes to me in profound ways. I'm not sure what I think of the Screwtape Letters, yet-but regardless of how I view the entire book there are pieces that echo with truth.
Some of my Confirmation kids have a lot of trouble with the concept of Hell. Why would God create this if he loves us so much. I keep trying to explain it, but it never seems to work. I don't know that I really understand myself. It is related to this quote... It's about "taking the hand away."
The first part of my explanation is that in my mind Hell is nothing more than eternal separation from God. I don't buy into Dante, despite the elegance of his writings. Heaven and Hell are spiritual places... New bodies? Maybe... but I don't really know.
The second part involves God "Taking his hand away." He grants us free will. We can either stumble to or away from God. In short, we get to decide how we spend eternity.
I'm not sure how, or when all our chips are put onto the table. It could be that we are conditioned by the choices we make. I remember playing a Star Wars Video Game (KoTR?) and your character's alignment with the force was deteremined by your actions: Light or Dark. The other side I think might be likely is that come Rapture (not exactly how I invision Rapture), Christ will ask you where you stand with him. Could it be that some would walk away from Christ standing in his Glory? As scary as it is, I think that those people exist.
C.S.Lewis I think favors the prior. We are beings learning to walk like a son/daughter of God.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Plato's Apology and Crito.
1. Having just written a confirmation lesson on Joseph and his 'technicolor dreamcoat', I found an interesting connection between Joseph and Socrates here. They both lack tact and it gets them into all kinds of trouble.
Joseph taunts his brothers and gets thrown in a well, and Socrates boasts about being the wisest man and after telling them that they should pay him instead of kill him... well they kill him.
2. I love two main topics of these works. First is the concept of inappropriate punishment. Socrates expresses this confusion. Why should death be considered a bad thing? Who knows what is going to come after death: Good or Bad or Nothing.
This leads into the second point and I'll quote Plato on this, "There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or of a bad." If death is nothing it doesn't matter, but if our actions in the world effect the next phase of existence we might be wise to take Socratic Advice on this.
3. At what point can we stop obeying the laws of the 'State'? Plato argues that he can't being that they raised him and taught him and he owes much to the State. If faced with death or injury does a man still owe allegiance to his flag? What if that flag has exploited him, or in Socrates' case what if it hadn't provided nurture in past days?
In our world it seems that a lot of the crime we punish is perpetrated by those who don't have a 'State' which nurtures them. Think Poor, Think UnderEducated, Think Orphaned. Heinlein write in Starship Troopers a bit about how Juvinile Deliquint is an oxymoron. They weren't the ones that were deliquint, but Society. Do we then hold them accountable for their actions. Plato doesn't address this issue here, but I hope to come back to it later.
Joseph taunts his brothers and gets thrown in a well, and Socrates boasts about being the wisest man and after telling them that they should pay him instead of kill him... well they kill him.
2. I love two main topics of these works. First is the concept of inappropriate punishment. Socrates expresses this confusion. Why should death be considered a bad thing? Who knows what is going to come after death: Good or Bad or Nothing.
This leads into the second point and I'll quote Plato on this, "There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or of a bad." If death is nothing it doesn't matter, but if our actions in the world effect the next phase of existence we might be wise to take Socratic Advice on this.
3. At what point can we stop obeying the laws of the 'State'? Plato argues that he can't being that they raised him and taught him and he owes much to the State. If faced with death or injury does a man still owe allegiance to his flag? What if that flag has exploited him, or in Socrates' case what if it hadn't provided nurture in past days?
In our world it seems that a lot of the crime we punish is perpetrated by those who don't have a 'State' which nurtures them. Think Poor, Think UnderEducated, Think Orphaned. Heinlein write in Starship Troopers a bit about how Juvinile Deliquint is an oxymoron. They weren't the ones that were deliquint, but Society. Do we then hold them accountable for their actions. Plato doesn't address this issue here, but I hope to come back to it later.
Great Books of the Western World
In 1952 Britannica released a set of the Great Books of the Western World. I saw these for the first time at a training retreat, and fell in love with them. Well bound and containing an immense amount of literature in 54 volumes, I decided I would pick up a copy.
On Amazon they go for around 300, but I sniped mine on Ebay for a low 75.
Included in the introduction volume is an essay/letter that discusses the failing nature of the Western Education system (remember this is from '52), and it mirrored many of my sentiments from High School.
I have decided to follow the "10 year plan" they have as a tool to start reading these texts. It is my goal to read them faster than that, but we will have to see how my time works out. After I read each text I'll post my thoughts... mostly to solidify them. If you aren't me, feel free to post your thoughts and replies. Discussion is welcome.
On Amazon they go for around 300, but I sniped mine on Ebay for a low 75.
Included in the introduction volume is an essay/letter that discusses the failing nature of the Western Education system (remember this is from '52), and it mirrored many of my sentiments from High School.
I have decided to follow the "10 year plan" they have as a tool to start reading these texts. It is my goal to read them faster than that, but we will have to see how my time works out. After I read each text I'll post my thoughts... mostly to solidify them. If you aren't me, feel free to post your thoughts and replies. Discussion is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)