Plutarch: Alexander

Not much that really caught my attention in reading this. There is one blip that I'll share...

The extent of King Taxiles's dominions in India was thought to be as large as Egypt, abounding in good pastures, and producing beautiful fruits. The king himself had the reputation of a wise man, and at his first interview with Alexander he spoke to him in these terms: "To what purpose," said he, "should we make war upon one another, if the design of your coming into these parts be not to rob us of our water or our necessary food, which are the only things that wise men are indispensably obliged to fight for? As for other riches and possessions, as they are accounted in the eye of the world, if I am better provided of them than you, I am ready to let you share with me; but if fortune has been more liberal to you than me, I have no objection to be obliged to you." This discourse pleased Alexander so much that, embracing him, "Do you think," said he to him, "your kind words and courteous behaviour will bring you off in this interview without a contest? No, you shall not escape so. I shall contend and do battle with you so far, that how obliging soever you are, you shall not have the better of me." Then receiving some presents from him, he returned him others of greater value, and to complete his bounty gave him in money ready coined one thousand talents; at which his old friends were much displeased, but it gained him the hearts of many of the barbarians.

How is that for Utopian? Only be willing to fight for that which is essential for life. What possessions in my life would I be willing to fight and die for? It seems to make sense that I should be willing to fight for the things I need to live. If I'm going to die without them I should be willing to risk my life for the chance to live.

Beyond that, what is worth fighting for?

Plutarch: Numa Pompilius

Numa, like Lycurgus, was an influential person in the formation of a nation. This time it was the Roman Empire instead of Greece. I found three things that caught my attention. I'm not sure if I should only write about the random tidbits that tickle my fancy or should use this as an opportunity to write about the traditional 'points of interest'. I still like the prior so I'll go with it.

In our current world where the American people, having been struck, were hellbent on war after Sept 11th. The following quote seems like wisdom to apply to such situations.

"But, if, indeed, their desires are uncontrollably and madly set on war, were it not better, then, to have the reins held by such a moderating hand as is able to divert the fury another way..."

The problem was that our leader wasn't holding the reins very tightly. The question that I'm learning to ask more and more: "In what ways can we...". I want to see a move from reactionary choices to the 'moderating hand' that Plutarch references. I think that it's important to understand that when there is attack or provocation that there is going to be a heated spirit fired on adrenaline. Wisdom in those situations is knowing how to divert it and to where it should be diverted.

The second thing of note: Fecials. Where are the peacemakers in our world?

"These Fecials [an order of priest], or guardians of peace, seem to have had their name from their office, which was to put a stop to disputes by conference and speech; for it was not allowable to take up arms until they had declared all hopes of accommodation to be at an end, for in Greek, too, we call it peace when disputes are settled by words, and not by force."

It hurts me to argue this definition of peace, but I know the danger of words. I would argue that words are more peaceful than spilling blood, but most of the violence I see in my day to day life comes without a single blow. Step 1: Stop settling arguements with force; Step 2: find respect for those who you disagree with. How? The best I can do is offer the suggestion is value other people more than your own oppinions. In the Christian Worldview phrase it, "Since you are my brother in Christ that relationship is more important than have my way."

The third deals with prayer,

"the lawgiver wants to habituate us to make our petitions to the deity not by the way, and, as it were, in a hurry, when we have other things to do, but with time and leisure to attend to it."

Faith is important to me. Learning how to build a relationship with God is imporant to me. Since it is important to me, I have to wonder how it should be lived out. If a large part of my identity is spiritual; there is a God; activity can happen on the spiritual plane then I should interact with God. Often this gets clumped together as prayer.

If that is the case then how should I do it? It's not something that should be in passing... this isn't like going to the bathroom or blowing my nose. This is an activity like eating, work and play. This is a part of my life where I need to set time and focus aside.

Dream: Old Girlfriends and Bacon.

I had a dream last night where I was back in my HS; it felt like a reunion or something. I dreamed of my first real girlfriend, and we talked. We parted on less than ideal circumstances. One of those cling to the relationship because you don't know how to let go. I was once young and foolish. I didn't live the way then that I would today... so I regret the way I acted. In my dream she forgave me for it.

There may be profound meaning to this. Perhaps I should go and make peace. Then again I also dreamed of making bacon in a coffee mug with a microwave...

Plutarch: Lycurgus

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?

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.

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."

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."