justice...better late than never

I cannot think of a time when the world is complete state of being just. Even if some iniquity is corrected in one part of the world, certainly another part of the world is suffering. Its like squishing a balloon("What is just in this sense, then, is what is proportionate..."1131B), when you press down on one end of the balloon, the air will just travel to other side. Just as it seems impossible to compress the balloon to a perfectly equidistant sphere, it also seems impossible to make things perfectly just. Its frustrating; we so anxiously desire to make things right but the more we try the more apparent our injustices become. Its like were playing a never ending game of wack-a-mole, and it just keeps getting faster over time.

When I think about it this way, why is justice worth the effort? It would be so much easier to just accept things as they are and ignore the problem. However, I don't think this line of reasoning has longevity. Sooner or later, your buttons are going to be pushed and you cannot turn a blind eye anymore. When you lose this capacity to recognize great injustice and respond, I think an essential part of your humanity is dead. People have an innate desire for things to be just even if we don't know what that looks like entirely.

Aristotle says, "Everything, then, must be measured by some standard, as we said before. This standard is in fact demand, which holds everything together". I found this to be an interesting beginning link Aristotelian justice and Christianity's. Injustice is born from wanting more than what is rightfully yours (an overzealous demand in the case of Even), this causes scarcity (banishment from Eden) which only makes injustice more prevalent.

Temperance

Okay so it is established that Aristotle believes virtue to be a mean between two extremes, and temperance is a virtue. The question begs, what two extremes does temperance lie between. On one hand you have un justified anger. Unjustified anger is anger either at an inappropriate amount, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, invoked too quickly, or a combination of all of these. Aristotle seems to think that this is the most common extreme in respect to temperance, and I would have to agree with him because anger is so easily and quickly invoked it often fails to do so by reason. On the other hand there are people who do not even get angry for the reasons. Aristotle describes these people sort of as push overs saying they, "seem to be insensible and to feel no pain, and because he does not get angry, not the sort to stick up for himself; and its is slavish to put up with being insulted oneself or to over look insults to those close to one. " It seems like justified anger in this sense is stemmed from having an appropriate amount of respect for things. You should not be a push over and let injustices go by, but at the same time have a sense of humor and don't give things too much reverence when they are not deserved.

To be honest when I chose "Anger" as my virtue I thought I was choosing passion or spirit. I am actually somewhat disappointed (but not unreasonably disappointed of course). The word θυμός means anger, passion, spirit, heart, and in the case of Parmenides "longing". Aristotle does talk about θυμός, but unfortunately  it is in respect to courage. What I find interesting about passion is that it carries us to do things that perhaps under normal circumstances we might not be able to do. Passionate people generally able to overcome obstacles, to make sacrifices easier than reason would allow us to permit. The challenge of passion is to not let it make sacrifices that are too large.

Zip it up and zip it out

Aristotle, virtue, and happiness

My dad is a horticulturalist who specializes in palm trees, so all my life I've grown up surrounded by palm trees. Palm trees are weird in the sense that they have different requirements than other trees to grow and maintain health. Its not really surprising my dad's relationship with trees has made him an Aristotelian. Even though he has never read any of Aristotle's works, he often identifies with the mean of virtue Aristotle is famous for. Many times my dad will just say something like, "life is just a balance, from finances to nutrition, its just a balance." I cannot tell you how annoyingly often he says stuff like this, but he is right.  Just as trees have different needs with the amount of water, sunlight, temperature, and  sustenance in accordance to their size and species so that they may become healthy and strong, humans also have different needs for becoming virtuous in accordance to their moral identity and their intellect. Because of different people's innate nature, or their experiences, we approach the balance of virtue from different sides and distances on the teeter todder. In order to become virtuous different people need to practice it in different manners.

Aristotle's idea of happiness has been my favorite part of the reading thus far. He says happiness is the chief end of all things. It is the chief good, and we always choose it for itself, and never for the sake of other things. I've been trying to think of an action that has been done, without the ultimate goal of happiness in mind, and I couldn't. Everything that has ever been done has been done in an attempt to become happy or at least happier. I am not even sure if complete happiness even for a short amount of time has even been attained, at least in this life. Its rather odd that Aristotle calls happiness complete and self sufficient. On one hand complete happiness is the goal of everything, but on the other hand it seems like nobody is completely happy. Why are we set on trying to attain something that appears impossible to obtain? And with that...

Zip it up and zip it out

Alcibiades

Alcibiades entrance was by far my favorite part of the symposium so far, despite the beauty of diatomas speech. Frankly Aclibiades is just an entertaining character. Its easy to relate to him because we have all either had "one of those nights" that Aclibiades is experiencing or, for non drinkers, we have seen someone who has been that intoxicated. But in all seriousness, I think that his speech, though it is not on the topic of love, he gives insight into the character of Socrates. He tells stories about how Socrates values moral beauty over physical. He also goes on to to recall a story of how Socrates stood thinking in one place for over 24 hours.

I think the most striking thing about Aclibiades is the fact that to an outsider he has everything, beauty, wealth, political and civil success. However, for Aclibiades, he counts that all as nothing because he does not have the wisdom that Socrates has.

Many more blogs on the way.

For your viewing pleasure,


Drunk History: Douglass & Lincoln (Starring Will Ferrell & Don Cheadle)

via McTube for iPhone/iPad.


Zip it up and zip it out yall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLAoxCSb1tc

Protagoras

The central question of protagoras is: Can virtue be taught?

In one corner there is Protagoras, a sophist, Who believes that proper education is a prerequisite for producing good citizens. This belief assumes that if someone were to teach what is right, then inevitably the student will do what they are taught. However, people don't necessarily do what they are taught; people do what they believe.

For Socrates virtue is the same as knowledge. Learning how to be virtuous means learning a specific type of knowledge or science. For example, learning to be courageous is learning what to fear. Evil is knowing the ignorance of knowing how to act virtuously in a particular form.

Traditionally I have more or less agreed with protagoras. I equate it to basketball. If you aren't properly educated on the rules of basketball, it is exponentially difficult to to play, even though this ignorant player might score a basket without realizing they have done what they have supposed to do. However socrates is kind of challenging my belief that wisdom and virtue are divisible. I need a little more time to think.


Zip it up and zip it out y'all.

Empedocles: A weirdo with a few thought provoking ideas

On one hand Empodocles was a cooky character. He thought immortal healer who likes to wear fancy Greek swag. On the other hand, he was a pretty good scientist and physician, able to correctly observe nature.

He thought that the cosmos was created from the four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water), and the forces of Love and Strife. I interoperate the force of Love merely as being a binding force, and Strife as being a force that separates. All things are created of a mixture of elements, with varying degrees of love and strife to give things shape.

Side note: I really liked Empedocles concept of the sphere. It is the epitome of love because there is no foreign strife within it; all of its faces are equidistant.

Its easy to see how Empedocletic thought parallel chemical concepts such as bonds and disincorporation.

I find Empedocles view of ethics interesting because it is different from my own. He tends to think as evil being foreign to man. That is why I presume he writes rules such as "Fast from evil" (in the dietary sense) "Keep completely away from laurel leaves!" and "keep your hands off beans!". He thinks that these are things that are evil and could corrupt man. However, I believe that evil is rooted within humanity. Nature, without Man, is in harmony unable to create evil.  Humans have corrupted desires for our advantage that distort things things from the way they ought to be.

How can Man redeem himself? By living how humans are intended to live, righteously.


(A departure from the way things ought to be is my definition for evil)

Zip it up and zip it out y'all

Brain power

Challenge of the week: imagine an animal unlike any other. You cannot use any other animal resources to create this new one.

Can't do it.

Human beings are not very good at creating things. We cannot even come up with a completely original idea of a new animal. How is this even possible?  Are we not the most intelligent of all of the animals?

Our lack of creativity is a result of being a created creature (alliteration intended). We didn't design what animals look like someone or something else did. How then can we create something new, when we lack the capacity to do so?

Paramenides applied this reasoning not just to animals but to truth. Humans cannot manufacture truth, our capacity only allows us to seek it, and build off of what others have found. The only way to discover truth is to use our brains and our logical reasoning to recognize it where it exists.

I think that this can equally apply to love and righteousness, but we must use different organs for that*



Zip it up and zip it out y'all


*(heart and soul) I fear my implication wasn't strong enough. But whateva.

Heraclitus and the mind of God

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light- Genesis 1:3

The central tenant to Heraclitus' philosophy is the idea of "λόγος".  This is a common word in the Greek vocabulary with a variety of meanings. For example it could possibly translated into word, reason, reasoning, argument, or account. Heraclitus' ambiguity in his usage I found confusing at first. The book calls it "the single divine law that controls the universe".  Even though λόγος  has a variety of meanings, it never means law (νάμος). Why would the book call λόγος a law? After some thought, I came to the conclusion that Divine reasoning becomes the law of the universe. Whatever God wishes results in action. His very thoughts dictate nature and the organization of the universe. His mind creates and manifests all things, holding the universe together by sheer will power. Surely, his thoughts and his words are deeper than our own. 

I really like the aphorisms in this section, though small, they were deep, similar to many sayings of people like Twain and Tagore. Nevertheless, one particular aphorism stuck out, one that I already reasoned myself. "What we see when awake is death, what we see asleep is sleep." 

When I was suffering from clinical depression, I slept more than 12 hours a day. It was a way for me to escape from my problems because I did not have to deal with their reality. I could be peacefully asleep, and not be anxious about the consequences of my actions. However,  I was sleeping my life away. I forgot that time is God's second most precious gift to us, and I wasted it. When awake one is conscious of the fact that time is always passing, and one day our time will run out. Therefore, we should make the most of our time, sleeping when necessary, but realizing that life is best lived outside of ourselves.  If we chose to live purposefully, it is more valuable that we manifest our dreams rather than just merely creating them.

In a nutshell, get busy livin or get busy dyin folks.

Zip it up and Zip it out Y'all

Pythagorus

A gem cutter and mathematician most known for his theorem, Pythagorus was a man who saw dichotomies in the world. He laid the foundation for people like Socrates, who thought that man's aim should be in the balance of certain dichotomies. At any rate, my particular interest was in Pythagorus' religious beliefs, and its striking similarities to Hinduism. I'm not saying that Hindu thought was influenced by Pythagorean thought (or vice versa), just that there are some shared characteristics. For example both beliefs have an idea of the transmigration of the soul. Both believe that the soul is an eternal entity and the body is a temporary vessel, and when the body dies, the soul continues to live on in a different form. In Hinduism, this life cycle is called samsara, however I'm not sure what Pythagorus called it. Both believe that souls can both be placed in animal vessels, which I find interesting because it makes me wonder the value of human life. I see some correlation of ideas between Pythagorus and Anaxamenes, for the latter said, "Just as the soul, holds us together and controls us, so do breath and air surround the whole cosmos." Are humans different that other beings? Why do we have to follow ethical standards? If I can't urinate facing in the sun, then there better be a good reason.

In Hinduism, men follow ethical standards in order to eventually break free from the life cycle. In this pythagorean system, is there a reward for following these ethical standards?


There is so much more that I want to talk about Pythagorus, numbers, chemistry, and human purpose. But I'll save that for class.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOgLFFmTFw

Xenophanes, gods, and sports.

I like Xenophanes, and I am always impressed by early thinker's and their theology. Often times I am astounded by the truth they discover with their limited resources. Xenophanes claimed that Deity, or at least supreme divinity, was singular and that it has a non-anthropomorphic form. He also believes that the olympic gods are immoral beings.  ". . . as they sang of many illicit acts of the gods thieving, adultery, and deceiving one another. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians) I wonder how fellow Greeks would have responded to his claim, seeing that belief in the Olympic gods was highly prevalent at this point in time. On one hand Greeks were very open to risky ideas. However, on the other hand, Xenophanes was blatantly disrespecting their gods, and generally people do not take to kindly to that.

I wonder how Xenophanes affected future the Greeks' perception of the Gospel (assuming that they still cared about pre-Socratic thought. To be honest, I'm not sure).  On one hand he paints a very accurate picture of the Father, on the other hand, it is conceivable that he would reject the Deity of Christ. In a hypothetical situation that includes Xenophanes present in the proliferation of the gospel in the Hellenic world, I wonder how he would react to what Paul says in Romans 8:3 "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,".

On another note, I agree with Xenophanes about the over glorification of athletes. I feel that athletes in American culture are looked to as role models. Yes, I understand that what they do is impressive; however, I do not think that behavior should be modeled from them just because they can do impressive things. The notion that sports build character is one thing I find particularly odd. If this is true, then the people who play sports more often than anyone else (professional athletes) will have a most righteous character. However, a quick observation of the wild living of many professional athletes dispels this notion. Nevertheless, they are still looked up to.

( I'm not saying that ALL professional athletes are horrible people, and none of them are good role models.)

Zip it up and zip it out y'all.

Nietzsche on Thales

Being a noob to this whole philosophy thing, I've only been exposed to only small out of context fragments of Nietzsche's work. I must say, after reading for this assignment, I'm absolutely blown away . Not only does he have brilliant thoughts, but in employing those thoughts, he uses some of the most powerful imagery I've come across. 

Philosophy In the Tragic Age of the Greeks is, more or less, a  historical and philosophical commentary by Nietzsche on figures and philosophies of the classic era. He begins by claiming that the ancient astronomer Thales proposition of a watery ἄρχε as the genesis of Greek philosophy. He asserts that no one before Thales had the belief that everything is connected. Even though Thales idea had some obvious flaws, he used his imagination and saw beyond observable evidence and personal experience. He then speaks about how using one's imagination to see beyond the plainly evident is a central tenant of philosophy. In much more eloquent words than my own Nietzsche says, "Philosophy leaps ahead on tiny  toeholds;  hope and intuition lend wings to its feet. Calculating  reason limbers  heavily  behind, 

looking for better footholds, for reason too wants to reach that alluring goal which its divine comrade  has long since reached." 

He later goes on to praise Thales on challenging the Greek notion that Man is the center of the universe. If everything is truly water, than Man cannot be the center of the universe because he is made of water and must take on a secondary role. 

Even though Nietzsche knows that water is not the ἄρχε he praises Thales for thinking it. I wonder if Nietzsche believes in an ἄρχε? And if so, what is it? And what does man have to do with it?

Zip it up and zip it out.

Sappho: A break from the traditional

When one normally thinks of historical figures of ancient Hellenic culture, usually one thinks of prominent Athenian men. Sappho is a refreshing break from traditional historical figures of ancient Greece. Not only was Sappho a women, she also was from Eastern Greece on the Isle of Lesbos, speaking an entire different dialect of Greek than renown poets such as Homer. In addition, evidence suggests that she was short, average in appearance, dark in complexion, and of Hittite descent. Prominent male elitist in Athens at her time would call people of Sappho's ethnic group uncivilized βαρβάροι or "Barbarians". Unless she were rich, she would have been at the bottom of the totem pole in Greek society. Nevertheless, she is one of the most prominent figures in Greek poetry.

For women today she represents female excellence in a male dominated society. That is primarily why is synonymous with lesbianism. However, there is no evidence indicating that she was, or was not, truly gay.

Poem 1: This is a poem recalling an apotheosis. In this poem she is sitting in a temple praying to Aphrodite, when suddenly she has a a vision of Aphrodite gloriously coming to her, speaking to her telepathically asking her "what hurts?". Then, just as suddenly, she is brought back to reality; however, she continues speaking to her as if Aphrodite were still there. At the end of the poem Sappho calls the goddess her "battle ally". Perhaps she is allied with Aphrodite in the battle for female equality in a male dominated society?

Poem 2: This is a poem about infatuation. In the first few stanzas it seems like Sappho is talking about the butterflies-in-stomach feeling of being in love, saying things like "Then in my bosom my heart wildly flutters, And, when on thee I gaze never so little, Bereft am I of all power of utterance". But then  in the last stanza, there seems to be a darker shift in the poem, as if something joyful was lost. She says: "Down courses in streams the sweat of emotion, A dread trembling o'erwhelms me".

I'm not quite sure of the philosophical value of Sappho's poems. It seems she uses her poetry to express personal experiences, not philosophical ideas.

zip it up and zip it out

Homer & Hesiod

Even though I have a budding affinity for ancient Hellenic culture, I have never read the works of Homer or Hesiod before being assigned in this class. I must say, I greatly enjoyed reading the iliad, odyssey, and theogony.

Homer: I grew up loving action movies, and I noticed quite a bit of similarities between the action heroes today and those described in Homer's epics. For example Rocky Balboa is known for taking quite a beating, yet he over comes all of his obstacles. Perhaps He could be inspired by Odysseus, overcoming his many obstacles and sufferings to be reunited with his family. I could also see a correlation between Achillies and heroes like John Rambo or Jason Bourne, these are characters who are masters of destruction, able to kill everything they come across. 

(Side Note: In the movies Jason is not known for being a destroyer; however, in the original books he is   without a doubt a stone cold mass murderer.)

As a student learning Attic Greek, I really appreciate Vince Lombardo's translations of Homer's epics. Not only does stay true to the original text, but also he provides a translation with modern vernacular so that even today's readers can grow fond of Homer's beautiful work. 

Overall, these poems are not really philosophical; however, they are very fun to read and are often alluded to in a variety philosophical works, which makes them works reading. 

 Hesiod's Theogony I found was a more confusing read to me for some reason. Nevertheless, with sufficient elbow-grease applied, I felt I was able to understand the gist of what was happening. The title θεογόνια which translates into "birth of the gods" is kind of a dead give away. Theogony is essentially a creation story for the olympic gods. It starts out with the narrator minding his own business, but suddenly muses show up and charge him to be the tool of telling this story. (Perhaps there is a similar experience with the Holy Spirit for Christians?) 

Overall, I think Theogony is more philosophical in nature juxtaposed to Homer's epics because it introduces philosophical ideas personified as gods. That may come off as confusing, but allow me to explain. For example, philosophers have taken great lengths to explain ideas such as justice. Though everyone somewhat has an idea of what justice is, it becomes much harder to define what it means. It is, however, much easier for someone to recognize when a person is acting justly, and then attribute their character just. 

Again, perhaps when the Greeks think of someone as being powerful, they think of someone who is not only wise, but also cunning and able to manipulate others. And if there were someone else that could pose a threat to them, this being could easily destroy whoever opposes them. This idea of power is perfectly personified as Zeus. Not to mention, power is just of many  philosophical concepts that are personified. 

Overall, Theogony I thought was confusing in part because my translation made it difficult, but a great read nevertheless.

zip it up and zip it out

An introduction: Who is in the box?

Howdy everyone, I'm new to this blog stuff so please bare with me. I know some of you who are reading this might be wondering why my blog is titled "The man in the glass box". I'm aware that this sounds strange; however, it is an idea I made up being inspired by both Plato's cave analogy in Republic and a passage in 1 Corinthians.

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."- 1 Corinthians 13:12

Imagine there is a woman who happens to come upon a large box made out of translucent glass. Though her vision is blurred and distorted from translucent film coating the glass, she sees the figure of a man inside the box. Straining her sight, the woman outside the box tries to see if she recognizes the strange figure inside the box. She is able to see certain characteristics about the man, noting his hair color, skin color, and his figure, however she can’t recognize who he is so she moves on. Another woman comes by the same box a year later except the translucent film has been peeled away. She is able to see the man inside the box clearly. The second woman is able to have relationship with the man, communicating to him through sign language. They both know each other, but are still rigidly separated by the glass between them. Everyday she revisits the man because she enjoys his company, but she is continually frustrated by the glass preventing them from speaking to each other. Desperate to finally talk to this man, the second woman aggressively attempts to break the glass but to no avail. She simply is not strong enough to cause any damage to this crystal clear force field. The man inside the box however, sees this and sympathizes with her. He strikes the glass, resulting a significant crack. Though he could easily break the glass entirely with one more strike, he chooses not to, seeing that it would be better for the woman to complete the destruction of the barrier. This woman once again tries to break the glass, and with every effort the crack becomes larger. she is filled with hope that soon the glass will be broken, and they will see each other face to face. 

Parallels:

Philosophically this parallels the cave analogy and the quest for enlightenment. The first woman is like those who can see shadows on the wall in the cave. She was able to see bits and pieces of the truth, but never could distinguish what it really is. The second woman is like one who gets a glimpse of the truth, recognizes it, and pursues it. (Ask me, if you have any questions).

In a spiritual sense, the man inside the box is God. The first woman represents someone who has spirituality besides true and perfect Christianity. It encompasses pagans and even modern day religions. The second woman is at first like the Jews in the old testament. The woman was able to have a relationship with God, however it was marked by separation. God himself had to break the barrier (justification), renewing our hope to see him face to face. The second woman than plays a role of a a Christian, or the Church as a whole, in completing the destruction of the glass (sanctification). 

I know that the analogy could perhaps be muddy in some areas, but if the basic idea is understood that is what matters. 

zip it up, and zip it out.