Moderation in Epicureanism

What I most liked about Epicureanism is that once one has reached the highest static pleasure, the pleasure itself cannot be increased further by quantity. If one is satisfied by eating only bread and water to appease hunger, then this will do, no need to gorge oneself on caviar. This aspect of moderation is a breath of fresh air, and is an ageless issue that ties ancient life with modernity. The consumer culture that modernity has engendered is staggering, as many aspire to live the "glamorous" lifestyle. One cannot simply be happy with domestic bliss, must have the "it" car or the "it" bag. I mean, what makes something an "it" anyway? So, it this theory of living a simple life, that I applaud Epicurus.

Epicurus and Buddha

Buddhist Philosophy shares many of its main principles with Epicurean Philosophy. To begin, all Buddhists believe that individuals are plugged into Dharma Kya, or the true nature of Mind. Individuals are one with the absolute nature of existence and therefore the true nature of our Mind manifests the true nature of the universe. All things are of one whole. Buddha is one with the universe and is embodied to aid humankind in living with nature. A common Buddhist saying explains that we all have "Buddha nature," meaning we can see the true essence of Buddha in each individual being. Like Buddhists, Epicureans believe that all of the universe is one whole and all things in the universe arose from this whole. The nature of the universe is in each individual for both the Epicurean and the Buddhist.

Buddhism is a 99% philosophy and 1% theology. Buddhism is guided by the Noble Truth, which follows as:

1) Life involves suffering

2) there is a reason suffering and this is desire

3) breaking the link between desire and suffering is possible

4) there is a way to end suffering and Buddhism is the way

Like Buddhists, Epicureans argue that through following a certain path or philosophy, one may avoid pain and achieve pleasure. Unlike the Epicureans, however, Buddhists believe that an ascetic life, one based on spiritual pleasure is the way to live the good life. By understanding the nature of desire and rejecting this desire through asceticism, one gains true happiness.

Epicurus' Theories

I don't agree with the theory of the present moment. I don't think happiness is always available right now. The future is attainable and we will reach the future and it will become the now. I mean in theory yes all we will ever have is the now, but technically the future does in transition become the now. I think too much of Epicurus philosophy had too much chance. Epicurus actually made his philosophy into his ideal world which fit his comfort-ability. He made philosophy fit him, which is nice. However, Philosophy is the study of beliefs. So you cant discredit Socratic philosophy. Nor can you discredit the theory of experience of the intelligible or theology. Socratic philosophers could easily respond that we cant see air however we know it is here. That is an example of knowledge beyond the senses. Or some could respond with after life experience. That would be another example of knowledge beyond the senses. If in fact, Epicurus believe we only know through experience. Part of me honestly believes Epicurus is ridiculous.

Christopher Hitchens

Sexy.

So, I mentioned in class on Monday that Christopher Hitchens is a modern day Epicurean. I would like to defend that statement. To begin with, Hitchens is quoted in calling himself an Epicurean. Where he is most like the Epicureans is in his hedonistic outlook on life. Hitchens desires to achieve the highest pleasures in this world, especially because he does not believe there to be a God or an after life. Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer last June, and I think that this has made him even more of an Epicurean, searching for life's daily pleasures as opposed to looking towards the past or the present. Most notably, Hitchens enjoys his daily indulgences of cigarettes and alcohol, which he does not find a problem with. He claims that he becomes nervous without having a drink at night. In an interview, he said that he does not pity himself, nor does he ask, "Why me?" For him, that is a pointless question because he does not see himself as an individual more significant than any other individual. His cancer, he sad, was not a result of God's hate for him being an avid atheist, but rather, it is merely a result of human evolution. He said that he felt lucky to have lived to the age of 62; there are many who never live past 20. Additionally, Hitchens mentioned that he has three children, whom he would like to spend as much time with as possible.

Everything about Hitchens just screams Epicurus to me. I also feel as though he is very similar to Epicurus himself. Hitchens is not only an avid atheist, but he has publically spoken out against organized religions and social institutions which he believes to be destroying our society. Similar to Epicurus, he is concerned with turning the masses away from the lives which they live at the present moment, although he does not have anything close to the dogmas which Epicurus had defined so clearly.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130917506

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand's philosophy is in some ways similar to that of Epicurus.  Ayn Rand said that personal happiness should be one's moral purpose in life, while Epicurus said that seeking pleasure should be one's purpose.

Rand's belief that one should "exist for his own sake... neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself," goes along with Epicurus' conception of justice as an agreement not to harm others, and not to be harmed by others.

It has been said that Epicurus was not an atheist because he believed that there were gods.  Personally I would still call him an atheist because he did not believe the gods had any control over us, while the common conception of a god is as a creator or overseer of the universe.  Ayn Rand was an atheist.

Peter Singer

The main similarity I see between Epicurean philosophy and the ethical theory of Singer lies within their use of marginal utility as the basis to lead a truly good life. Both seem to subscribe to a sort of "middle" way.

Peter Singer

I may add my own opinions on this later, but in the interim if the vertical rays of inspiration penetrate your extremities and sway your interior in such a way that thoughts occur, you should comment.

Peter Singer argues that we should donate most of our income to save lives in the poor countries. He makes his case by telling the story of a healthy young professor who, walking by a shallow pond, sees a small child in it about to drown. Surely, Singer says, the professor has a duty to save the child, even at the coast of dirtying his clothes. And similarly, he argues, we have a duty to send money to poverty relief organizations that can, for each few dollars they receive, save one more child from a painful hunger death. It is, in one way, a virtue of Singer's argument that it reaches even those who subscribe to the Purely Domestic Poverty Thesis, the view that the persistence of severe poverty is due solely to domestic causes. But by catering to this empirical view, Singer also reinforces the common moral judgment that the citizens and governments of the affluent societies, who he is addressing, are as innocent in regard to the persistence of sever poverty abroad as the professor is in regard to the child's predicament. -- Thomas Pogge

The argument Singer is making uses a simple argument based on the idea that if we have the power to prevent something bad from happening, it is our moral obligation to stop it. The transference of wealth from affluent nations into impoverished ones results in an overall higher good for all. Unhappiness by the loss of luxury is eased with the knowledge that the excess money is helping buy funds for the essential food needed to combat world hunger.

This idea of maximizing happiness through redistribution of wealth may be a flawed idea. Garrett Hardin argues that the help to the poorest will not lead to happiness, but in the end this method will result in the greatest misery for the most people.

But have we ever been able to aggregate and predict happiness? Can we even have an objective measure of pain and pleasure, or do emotional responses differ among various people? Benevolent intentions are easily detected, but benevolent theories or policies cannot be detected if we cannot predict and compare results accurately.

Stoicism at War

In high school Latin class, we learned about Stoicism and Epicureanism as an aid to understand the texts we would translate. Our high school Latin teacher had an immense respect for the Stoics and for Cicero, and that has passed on to nearly all of his students. Although society tends to push a sort of Neo-Stoicism on men as the way to live life, it is genuinely hard to find a good example of Stoicism in the world today. As I was surfing the internet, trying to see if there was an actual renaissance of Stoic thought, I found this retired officer Vice Admiral James Stockdale. Stockdale, it turned out, never studied Epictetus in the classroom, but a former professor gave Stockdale a copy of the Enchiridion when he graduated. As a POW, Stockdale found immense comfort in the teachings of Epictetus, which I find a spectacular testament to the ability of Stoicism to grant someone peace while still participating in society. Epicurus and Diogenes are certainly profound thinkers, but there is a certain amount of uneasiness to most of us at the thought of secluding ourselves from society, no matter the degree. Stoicism remains a profound influence on the way I live my life, but I am by no means a model Stoic. What Stoicism preached over two millennia ago still has value for us today.

Just Chill, Epicurus is Cool

So, when we discussed Epicureanism for the first day, I noticed a strongly negative reaction to Epicurus’ egoism. When the term moral selfishness gets thrown around, people picture a barbarian with a turkey leg in one hand, a club in the other, and sex in his eyes. Frankly, I think that this reaction is unwarranted and based on an incomplete understanding of what Epicurus meant. A division should be drawn between pleasure and deeper set ends/goals/values. To elucidate, someone may gain immense pleasure from an altruistic action. Take Mother Theresa for example. She obviously liked taking care of poor starving children. She found purpose, and thus pleasure in those actions. Her sense of purpose came from achieving her objectives, this was also the source of her pleasure, but the objectives themselves were far from selfish.

As is common with Epicurus, he focuses in on the most sensible aspect and equates it with totality. Epicurus noticed the pleasure that can come from offering, as well as receiving, compassion and love. Consequently, he spent little time contemplating the ultimate goal or value that was achieved, producing that pleasure, and instead focused in on the pleasure itself. Epicurus was saying the same thing as Mother Theresa, just with an extremely different emphasis. So step off.

Nietzsche: Modern Epicurian(ish)

"How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more venomous than the joke that Epicurus made at the expense of Plato and the Platonists: he called them 'Dionysiokolakes'. Literally and primarily, this means 'flatterers of Dionysus', that is, the tyrant's appendages and toadies; but it also suggests: 'They are all actors, there is nothing genuine about them' (for the term 'Dionysioklax' was a popular term for actor). And that last part is the really malicious remark which Epicurus hurled against Plato: the theatricality which Plato, along with his pupils, deployed so well, the way they set themselves in the scene, things Epicurus did not understand. Epicurus, the old schoolmaster from Samos, sat tucked away in his little garden in Athens and wrote three hundred books—out of fury and ambition against Plato—who knows?

It took a hundred years until Greece came to realize who this garden god Epicurus was.

Did they realize?"

I chose Nietzsche as my modern Epicurian for several reasons that I will hopefully get to explicate more fully on Wednesday. But here is the basic run-down:

Materialism: Nietzsche denies the existence of morality. He sees it as culturally relative, arbitrary, and fabricated. What he does see as real is the physical world. In place of morality, Nietzsche offers psychology "the queen of the sciences", and believes that the "will to power" is what individuals should use to guide their actions. Nietzsche believes that existence, action, reality take precedence over the absurd language games that many other philosophers liked to play.

Ethics: Nietzsche's ethics are, in a way, a reinterpretation of hedonism. Although very different from Epicurus' version, it is nevertheless concerned with conquering and gaining pleasure through power. All in all, it's highly egoistic.

Hatred of Stoicism:"So you want to live 'according to nature?' Oh, you noble Stoics, what a fraud is in this phrase! Imagine something like nature, profligate without measure, indifferent without measure, without purpose and regard, without mercy and justice, fertile and barren and uncertain at the same time, think of indifference itself as power — how could you live according to this indifference? Living — isn't that wanting specifically to be something other than this nature? Isn't living assessing, preferring, being unfair, being limited, wanting to be different? And assuming your imperative to 'live according to nature' basically amounts to 'living according to life' — well how could you not? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be?"

Good Old Oscar Wilde

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde. 

He was an Irish writer and poet whom I first heard of in an RSA lecture series featuring  Slavoj Zizek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g). When Dr. Layne suggested we find an Epicurean for class Monday Oscar Wilde suddenly popped into my head. And I'm not sure I can prove that he was, in fact, a sure disciple, but I like him. He writes really great essays. One, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, has some pretty scandalous insights. 

Oscar Wilde belonged, for a little while at least, to the school of Aestheticism, believing that life had to be lived intensely, following an ideal of beauty. I snagged the following from wikipedia as a brief introduction, 

"The artists and writers of the Aesthetic movement tended to hold that the Arts should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than convey moral or sentimental messages. As a consequence, they did not accept John Ruskin's utilitarian conception of art as something moral or useful. Instead, they believed that Art did not have any didactic purpose; it need only be beautiful. The Aesthetes developed the cult of beauty, which they considered the basic factor in art. Life should copy Art, they asserted. They considered nature as crude and lacking in design when compared to art."

For Oscar Wilde, I don't think John Stuart Mill's--people want to be happy; that seems pretty clear. What makes people happy? Why, pleasure makes people happy--works. He states in his essay, and I would like to select a couple of clips, (I hope they can stand for their own defense).

"the chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes...The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism."

"Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan...has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand 'under the shelter of the wall' as Plato puts it, and so to realize the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable gain and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however are exceptions."

"Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism...under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realized Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It had led individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought it was the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is...Now, nothing should be able to harm a man except himself."

With regards to Epicurus, but also to keep in mind as we begin looking more closely at the Stoics I think this last clip, 'nothing should be able to harm a man except himself' is the main crux.  

Class Summary for 2/18

Class on the 18^th of February started out with a discussion of Epicurean ethics. For the Epicurists pleasure is the foundation of ethics because they believe that every human and every living being looks to get away from pain while seeking pleasure. A big part of being able to accept this is re understanding understanding of you're own ego. Since people have been trained to feel bad for pleasure the discussion then covered how the Epicureans responded to this by saying there was no need to argue against it because it was self evident.

This is expanded upon by Cicero who said that all things good were pleasurable. The example he uses to illustrate this is music. He says that music is good, but only because it was pleasurable. If music was pleasurable it would cause pain, since there is no middle ground between pleasure for the Epicureans. If you music were not pleasurable it could not be considered a good since it was going against man's search for what was pleasurable.

The Epicureans also distinguished between different types of pleasures. They had the natural and necessary. The natural but unnecessary, and the unnatural an unnecessary. Something that would fall into the first category would be eating. Its a natural desire that wee eat and its something that is necessary for our survival. Something like sex would fall into the second category. Its a natural desire and necessary for the advance of the human race. But since it is not necessary for one person to survive. That idea led to a discussion in the class as to rather or not the Epicureans had the right view on what necessary. How could they say reproduction wasn't necessary even if it didn't help contribute to the survival of a human? The last category is unnatural and unnecessary; things like fame and power fell into this category. It was unnatural for someone to want more power or fame than they original had since they had a more minimalistic view of how people should live. “When a little is not enough, then nothing is enough,” according to this school of thought.

In regards to the anxiety and depression that life can bring they thought that this was caused by false beliefs of what people needed to be happy. If someone was living marginally, not desiring more than they should one would simply be happy naturally. One should try to find happiness in the material world, since Epicurean philosophy is based in atomist view point. So all happiness should be based in things you could sense.

Acupuncture and Aponia

Acupuncture is a part of traditional Chinese medicine, which incorporates the insertion of needles at various points on the body to cure several ailments, such as joint pain, nausea, etc. This has been used since antiquity and is a thriving practice today. According to Epicureanism, the absence of pain, Aponia, is the highest pleasure. With this in mind, would the acupuncturist and the patient, be indulging in perverted pleasures, despite the fact that one would be removing pain (or sickness) by adding pain? By extension, the field of surgery would be seen as radical, since it directly involves pain. Let me play the devil's advocate by saying that Acupuncture has not been scientifically proven to reduce pain or sickness, but that it does cure many people of their problems. The likely explanation for this phenomenon is the placebo effect.

Enter the Void and Jouissance

People talking about past lives and the idea of reincarnation against the backdrop of Epicurus and his idea of the morality of the soul lead to some interesting differences in ideas. The way we interpret the soul leaving the body also varies from person to person, even if we believe that the soul doesn't leave the body we still have the idea of some sort of "other" within the body. I recently watched this movie called ENTER THE VOID directed by Gaspar Noe, the director of IRREVERSIBLE, which gives a live account of what it like when you die, your body leaves your soul, and eventually you posit yourself back into being via conception.


ENTER THE VOID (trailer) This movie is on NETFLIX instant streaming, so do yourself a favor and watch it. I promise you haven't seen anything quite like this movie.

Anyway, another idea that was bounced around in class was the idea of there being a sort of pleasure in pain. We can see how being wrapped up in the drama of life can lead to pleasure for some people, but ultimately this pleasure becomes an either greater pain or a fracturing of pleasure. This notion can be found in Lacan's idea of Jouissance, or painful pleasure. This can be demonstrated in simple cases such as surplus-enjoyment leading to commodity-fetishism leading to relationships being mediated by material goods...simple. Jouissance flourishes outside the boundaries of the pleasure principle, which we could view as the state of static pleasure. The pleasure principle is the law that commands the subject to 'enjoy as little as possible'. Jouissance comes into the picture when the subject begins to transgress the prohibitions of the pleasure principle and goes beyond. Once you go beyond pleasure you find yourself in pain, but being wrapped up in your own "symptom" you continue to suffer in this state of jouissance deriving suffering as satisfaction.

Class summary2/16

In the class on February 16^th we started the discussion of Epicureanism. The discussion started off with a comparison to the phrase “Carpe Diem”. This idea of seizing the day led directly into the Epicurean philosophy since its one of the first major philosophical thoughts that showed no concern with the gods. This lack of concern with the gods led to a sort of seize the day attitude that in a way almost bordered on atheism.

When it was asked rather or not he was actually an atheist, it was pointed out that he wasn’t atheist because he believed in the existence of the gods he just saw them as powerless beings he lived in the void between atoms. The Epicurean way of proving this existed led to a little bit of debate in class of his faulty logic. Epicurus thought that the inability to prove something could allow one to know through inference. Which led to questions about what the point of his philosophy was. Was he saying that ignorance was bliss? Or was he saying that inference was just as good as knowledge?

Also discussed was the connection between the mind, body and soul. He interoperated that the soul and body were connected. One example given of this was how wine didn’t just affect the body but the soul, which he combined with the mind. This led to the counter example of sleep paralyses where the mind has released the chemical for sleep but the body hasn’t processed it yet meaning that the there would be some sort of disconnect between the two.

Then towards the end of class we covered the idea that 2/3 of the world is useless. So the world could not be divine. Meaning that the gods were real but unconcerned with the well being of humans and were too busy enjoying pure existence, which is what Epicurus wanted humans to do in order to be happy in life.

The Riddle of Epicurus

It is hard to imagine that Epicurus had any substantial influence on Western society, since he was essentially forgotten about prior to the Reformation. The early Church fathers demonized his philosophy for its materialism, which is about the only thing they could have done, since St. Paul seems to have copied their way of promoting Epicureanism and way of living (i.e. not getting married). However, there is one remnant that after coming across I was surprised to hear:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This small except has a powerful influence for the rest of metaphysical thought. The Riddle of Epicurus is the beginnings of the problem of evil. I bring this up because it remains a problem today, although has taken a various sort of form. Whereas Epicurus might be amenable to evil being a privation of the good, it seems to have become a hallmark of analytic philosophy to argue against this sort of thinking: if we refer to something, then it seems it must have some sort of reality. Of course this is patently untrue, and you find analogous concepts elsewhere. Blindness is a good example, as it represents a privation of sight. Epicurus, outside of his modern counterparts, asks a substantial question, "Why is there a privation of good?" While there may be varied responses to this, I am not attempting to solve it, only to point out a substantial mistake of contemporary philosophy. It has all the vocabulary of pre-modern philosophy, without the understanding of what the words mean.

Suspension and Epicurean Philosophy

So, I know that this is probably a far stretch, but talking about the Epicurean notions of pleasure and pain prompted me to think about masochism and body modifications. My question being, how does this relate to people who enjoy pain or to people who experience pain in order to achieve some sort of goal. Suspension is a form of body modification where an individual is suspended by cables. These cables are attached to the person through hooks which are pierced into his or her skin. This may sound absurd and unnecessary, but there are people who take the experience of being suspended very seriously, and many take offense to people gawking at the site of it. I have had the opportunity to talk to a girl who has experienced suspension, and she said that the day she was pierced and suspended was one of the most spiritually liberating days of her life. Apparently, there are numerous appeals to the experience, but many claim to attain a sort of transcendence from reality and have difficulty describing it in detail to others. Regardless, I have posted the link to an article from pschologytoday.com, which I think gives a psychological account of suspension that is far more clear and concise than I would ever be able to, so, if you are interested, you may want to check it out.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/popular-culture-meets-psychology/200908/body-suspension-extreme-piercing-spiritual-act-or-somet

Mortality of the Soul and Past Lives

Discussing Epicurism's teachings on the mortality of the soul made me think about my own past lives. Epicurus argues that the soul is mortal and that when our body dies, our soul dies as well. As a practicing, yet highly skeptical Buddhist this is idea is of particular importance to me. I spent some time traveling through Northern India this summer. While my purpose there was to work in Tibetan refugee camps, I found a lot of time to sit and talk about cosmology to Buddhist nuns and monks. Buddhist believe in reincarnation and that information about our past lives are available to certain skilled monks, who have learned to read charts. I have had my chart read and they were able to give me information about my last three lives. Buddhist believe our past lives have effect on the individuals we are in our present lives. For instance, to verify any reading of a life chart, the monk determines where you birth marks are on the body and looks for confirmation. Without hesitation, an very old monk demanded I remove my shirt so that he could verify the large birth marks I have on my shoulders and back. These birth spots are physical markers of the things we have experienced in our past lives. After verify my marks, he named my past lives from latest to earliest, I was an elephant, a demon in the hell realms, and a Naga. For the monks, this was an exciting reading because it meant I was in the heaven realm as a Naga but for me my past life as an elephant was much more exciting. My Christian family was shocked to hear this as they all know about my life-long devotion to elephants.... Did you know that they have language groups and that an elephant from the Congo cannot talk to an elephant from Mozambique? Did you know that herd members linger over the bodies of their dead for days? Did you know an elephant can map thousands of miles in its head and remember these maps for a lifetime.? .... While i am not convinced, the monk would argue that my affection for elephants is a product my a previous life. The rational part of me is inclined to agree with Epicurus's description of the soul but whether looking into the eyes of elephant or a human, I am inclined to believe there is something universal, essential, and immortal about the souls of all life. Although... I might just be saying this because I like the idea of a previous elephant life.

Senses

Epicurus beliefs in metaphysics is that we only know through the senses. After learning about Epicurus' concepts in class today I was slightly frustrated. I could have used him in my paper to help me argue against the two world theory. However, i used Descartes which was beneficial as well. Actually, Descartes and Epicurus share similar beliefs. They both believe you learn through the senses via experience. Moreover, Epicurus goes into that atoms and void exist for each other. Furthermore, Epicurus uses his metaphysics to explain how nature is mechanistic. I agree with the majority of what Epicurus said, but I don't understand how he gets the theory that things happen strictly by chance. The argument definitely has flaws. Some other problems with his concept is when he states sensation is truth but goes wrong with reason. I do believe he tends to go toward relativism. However, i do agree we learn through the senses it is the fundamental truth and the objective.

Is Pure Altruism Possible?

This is the discussion we were heading towards in class on Friday and this is the title of the article that I once read regarding the matter. In class we discussed how Epicurus was an egoist because even though he shared the hedonism pleasure is the good (the pursuit of pleasure as an ethical principle) he believed that gaining pleasure was only needed for the self-- the individual-- not the whole; hedonists on the contrary believed that pleasure must be gained through specific steps there you consider not only your well being but that of others--the hedonistic calculus. This is why when the discussion on Altruism began I was a little confused about what Epicurus was saying. Well, ,in reality I was a little concerned for him because he was so greatly confused. He believes that to be altruistic is to do the good for others in order to achieve happiness for your act. This, in my opinion, can not be altruism because not only is this a premeditated act but he is receiving some reward for preforming this action; happiness. It makes no sense to me how he's trying to pull of this very egoistic belief as altruism. I feel that he is making a mockery of the term which is defined as being: the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others!

Epicureans from our childhood

A carefree lifestyle away from the politics of society, focusing on the pursuit of happiness for yourself and only yourself. There is only happiness, a lack of pain or worry. To achieve this, you must only focus on the care necessities of life.



When I hear about this kind of lifestyle, a few beloved charaters from my childhood popped into my head. Baloo from The Jungle Book, and Timon and Pumbaa from The Lion King.



Baloo's philosophy of life was focused around his "bear" necessities. Not to quote his song too literally, but to forget about his worry and his strife. Everything he did in his life was a reflection of the pursuit of what made him happy. When he was on a mission to rescue Mogli from the chimpanzes, his 'tune' changed when the intoxicating music of the primates caused him to dress up and rock out with the monkeys, rather than focus on getting Mogli away from King Louie.

Timon and Pumbaa... Need I say more than Hakuna Matata? It means no worries for the rest of your days. That sounds like a great way to preach a lifestyle like one in The Garden. They lived simply on the fruit of the land, separated far from the cares of the world. The political world in The Lion King can quite easily be seen as the life surrounding Pride Rock, while the duo of the meerkat and warthog were comfortably removed from that all that kind of worry.

I do love it when my childhood characters reveal aspects of philosophy. Very much.

What about drugs, eh?

According to Epicureanism, human reason does not lead to knowledge, but human sensation, which leads to the truth. With this in mind, I was wondering how hallucinogenic drugs alter the mind and present the user with fanciful, frightful, and in general mind-bending hallucinations. In this case, would not Epicurus' theory expose a contradiction, in which the senses are lying to the person? Unless, Epicurus would argue that using drugs would be a pleasure that the drug user is seeking, when falling into this "other world". If anyone could answer this, I would like to hear their response.

1984

Even though hes not exactly a house hold name in the philosophy world I think the work of Antisthenes is particularly interesting. The idea that there is only one reality keeps people from just being able to make up their own reality. If society belives that there is only one reality, only one correct account of the things that happen then it keeps the dangerous idea of a consensus reality from forming. The best example of how dangerous this is was in George Orwell's 1984 where the story's protagonist lives in a world where the countries governing body simply makes up events for the benefit of keep power over the people. And this works because the government is punishing those who have thoughts to the contrary because a consensus reality can only exist if there is actually a consensus. We even see some examples of this in countries run by dictatorship around the world today. The government in North Korea is constantly feeding misinformation and propaganda to its people and those who dissent are punished. Antisthenes thoughts on what is real prove to be very forward thinking and still relevant today especially when applied to how a governing body rules over its people.

Cynicism and Christianity

Before I go to work on Thursday nights, I usually grab the Maroon to read at the desk when its not busy. Now I opened it up to find someone quote the Bible, and then proceeded to emphasize realized eschatology. My purpose of this is not intentional to tackle the issue of how to interpret the Bible, but I find it does an incredible disservice to the Christian community to interpret the Bible incorrectly.

I know that comparing Jesus to Cynicism is nothing new, but this past week learning Cynicism has allowed me to make many connections myself. And its not like the theologians/historians are blowing smoke. Jesus' lifestyle, as described in any account we have of Him, is remarkably similar to a Cynic's lifestyle: he wandered around surviving on the bare minimum, he overturned tables in the Temple where people were selling goods (something I can imagine Diogenes doing if he subscribed to a mainstream religion), and he preached a very simple lifestyle. His way of life, out of all the Hellenistic philosophies, most closely resembles Cynicism.

Back to the realized eschatology portion. From the parallels I have drawn, I do not think Jesus' message can be interpreted as Him wanting to to have an abundant life now without looking at the text upside-down. I think these parallels can give us a deeper understanding of Jesus' teachings, and help understand the true nature of Christianity.

The Dorian Mode is the Greek Mode

One of our readings mentions the modes, which are musical intervals or scales, and the dorian mode was called the Greek mode. I thought it was interesting that musical knowledge was such an integral part of Greek culture, I figured I would post some modal jazz so people could get an idea of the different sounds and motifs built from modes.

Bill Evans - My Foolish Heart

Wynton Kelly - Softly, As In A Morning Sunrise

John Coltrane w/ Eric Dolphy - Impressions

Herbie Hancock - Maiden Voyage

2/9/11 Class Synopsis

We began the instructional portion of class on Wednesday by offering a couple of definitions to several Greek words associated with Diogenes. The stories of Diogenes’ various activities exhibit the conceptions: Parrhesia, Anaidrea, Pono, and Askesis. The stories of Diogenes’ life are meant to be entertaining because through these elaborate gestures he gains the attention of his audience and may impart certain conceptions essential to cynicism. One such essential concept is Parrhesia, which translates to free speech. Unlike the modern definition of free speech, Parrhesia translates as the ability of all human beings to say whatever they like and to be frank in their speech. Any hesitation to be frank is not natural to humankind. Rather, Diogenes would argue that it is society and its morality that keeps us from speaking frankly and honestly. But how does society control our speech and action? The answer to this question brings us to the second concept we discussed: Anaidrea, with which Diogenes is well acquainted. Anaidrea translates to shameless or without shame. Diogenes argues that by creating a false morality, which maintains the power structures of a community, societies determine what is shameful and what is not. Shame normalizes individuals and pressures them to follow a standard social morality, which inhibits the free or natural actions of individuals. Virtue, however does not have to be instilled by society because it is the natural behavior of human beings. Diogenes argues that a mastery of self is the genesis of true virtue. Therefore, any inhibition of the mastery of one’s truest self is without virtue. Society establishes a false morality and discourages the development of actual virtue by inflicting shame on the individual. Diogenes argues that through free speech and shamelessness an individual moves closer to mastering one’s self and therefore becoming virtuous.

If becoming virtuous requires rejecting social mores, how are creatures of society supposed to achieve this task? Diogenes argues that one may master one’s body through Askesis and Pono. Askesis translates to physical training. Diogenes argues that through denying the body of pleasure, mastering bodily pain, and denying miscellaneous creature comforts, one trains to overcome the desires of one’s body, and therefore is the master of it. Because virtue requires this kind of physical self- training, Ponos, or work, is required to accomplish this. By working and training oneself in self-control, shamelessness, and freedom of speech an individual becomes virtuous.

Cynicism and Anarchy

Last class I am pretty sure someone started to talk about the relationship between Cynicism and Anarchy. This observation struck a chord, which in turn spawned some thinking on what I consider to be the ontology of both cynicism and anarchy--utopia. This utopia shouldn't be conceived as a regulated life controlled by certain hegemonic judiciaries, but as a way of life in search of the good life. The means of attaining this good life are many, but in searching for your own way you can become wrapped up in a collective consciousness that regulates itself by law--even if the law is nothing more than a signifier. One of the main problems with assessing the philosophies behind cynicism and anarchy is the common myopic view or conception we associate with each; anarchy is not chaos that is kept in check by political institutions and cynicism is not Diogenes. The seemingly eccentric nature of Diogenes should not be looked upon as anti-social but I dare say that they are ultra-social! The idea of masturbating in public may seem to be a rather unpleasant anti-social behavior, but if we look at it through the lens of eating in public we can see how some people may actually carry on a rather interesting, possibly enlightening conversation while getting their rocks off (before I finished typing this sentence I started to type shameless as a means to describe masturbating in public, but to consider it shameless is to consider it abnormal in some sense, which is missing the point). Cynicism should be looked at as a way to rise out of complacency, be it the complacency of tradition, religion, colonization, empire, and social relations. It is a profession of our fundamental freedom--which in turn gives rise to anarchy and philosophies concerning the morality of freedom and the pursuit of the good life as exemplified by Joseph Raz.

I think the importance of Diogenes is more than just the fact that he went all out and presented us with a "high note." Diogenes presents us with a caricature of freedom or self-sufficiency, but within this caricature can we not sees it's resemblance to reality? This caricature is represented as one's self mastery over the self and the ablility to integrate your thoughts with your actions. It is of key importance to realize that the lifestyle supersedes the philosophy. If you are not living freely are you living? In the search for the good life Joseph Raz gives an interesting interpretation of the how conceptions of the good are not necessarily absolute. The function of justice, law, or government is not to provide citizens with a unanimous decision as to what is just, but as long as there is a plurality among people concerning ideals of the good we can begin to see underlying elements similar to various conceptions of the good that are unanimous.

The origins of ideals held by Americans --liberty and justice for all--seem to have strong anarchist underpinnings that seem to make up a radical unconscious that is not too different from the radical life of Diogenes.



No wonder he was called a Dog.

Diogenes: Shameless or Barbaric?

Today I picked out a major contention that I have with Diogenes (yes! Possible paper topic). According to Dr. Layne, he claimed to be living the rational life, meaning that even his shameless actions were for the good or the purpose of enlightening through exemplification. Diogenes believed that the convention of shame was a societal superstition, and chose to live “naturally”. But upon closer examination, the life of Diogenes was neither rational, not natural.

But Aristotle would argue that man’s rational faculty, or nous, is characterized by its ability to draw out universals from particulars. Therefore, that which is rational is universal. The problem that arises from Diogenes’ lifestyle is it elitist nature. I know it may sound silly to call a homeless beggar an elitist, but hear me out. Diogenes survived merely by the productive energies of others. He begged constantly to barely sustain himself, and slept in buildings he took no part in constructing. Besides the irrational contradiction of Diogenes’ commitment to independence and simultaneous parasitism, he also created an ethical system that is far from universal, and therefore, irrational in Aristotle’s sense of the word. Imagine for a moment an entire society of cynics, each begging from each other, laying around with no codes of conduct, scoffing at any attempt to create order, tradition, or law. It wouldn’t function. They would die. That is why I call it elitist—only a select few could possibly have the privilege of engaging in the pure cynic way of life.

One could at least say, if not rationally, that Diogenes existed naturally, right? It’s a trick question, because it contains an imbedded contradiction. No, the life of Diogenes was not natural, because humans are rational creatures. Humans, naturally, use their rational abilities to produce things for themselves. That is how we survive: production. Diogenes, on the other hand, stifled that drive and instead chose to exist as a sub-human parasite, living outside, naked like an animal. Diogenes’ inhumanity is illustrated in his glee at the prospect of not using bowls or utensils. His reasoning is absurdly off base. It is natural for homo-sapiens to create tools that make their lives more comfortable and efficient. That’s what natural is for us. We adapt our background to fit our needs. Diogenes, like an animal, does the opposite. It is self-tyranny, and it is no wonder that he accepted the name Dog.

Old Men and the Honest Truth

As I read an endless list of Diogenes' actions, I was reminded of one of my favorite Internet characters: dear old Dad. I was introduced to Dad after his son started posting his father's little jewels of wisdom on a website called shitmydadsays. Just like Diogenes, Dad blesses those around him with anecdotes like, "He's a politician. It's like being a hooker. You can't be one unless you can pretend to like people while you're fucking them," or "Stop trying so hard. He doesn't like you. Jesus, don't kiss an ass if it's in the process of shitting on you." Both Dad and Diogenes believe that they have mastered the art of living and use interesting tactics and language to get their points across. While their stories have endless comic value, the stories also provide their audience with advice that these individuals have learned over a lifetime of experiences. Old age and the confidence of a lived life seem to provide these men with the willingness to express their feelings on an assortment of topics. Unlike a younger individual, elders have less ties to society and therefore are less willing to submit to the disciplines of normalized behavior. Dad and Diogenes both feel free to express their empirical knowledge because they are more free from the expectations and mores of the communities in which they live. As dad says, "They're offended? Fuck, shit, asshole, shitfuck; they're just words...Fine. Shitfuck isn't a word, but you get my point."

Shame

Diogenes taught a number of things. Among these things he taught pahesia, free speech. In addition he also taught Anaidea, shamelessness in actions. Diogenes, a cynic, introduced these things to society in a exemplary lifestyle. Diogenes believed in a lack of shame. Even though, i believe Diogenes often uses a method of an extreme to get to a point, I completely agree with him. Shame does normalize humankind. I believe society uses shame as a force to control human behavior. Shame is established in society through laws, as well as, "taboo". For instance, some examples of taboo would be things such as young pregnant mothers, or speaking your mind in public. History truly repeats itself, and I believe society will always use shame to control human behavior. If you look back in time specifically during times of racial tension you see multiple examples. White women dating black men, or a black man, such as Martin Luther King Jr. speaking up. Laws that exemplify shame would be public nudity, which Diogenes would be to outraged and displaced if he lived in society today. People such as Diogenes would be considered a radical in modern day society. Diogenes and many other cynics used an extreme to set the bar to raise the standard of society. I believe in some cases it is needed because humankind can tend to get out of control if they have to much power. However, i believe if intelligent people spoke up more, regardless of shame the world could be a better place.

Then there is the opposition who believe people like Diogenes, who take things to the extreme are the reasons for problems in today's society. Some would argue there isn't enough balance. However, as i stated previously Diogenes acted above the norm to get people to at least step up.

February 7th Class Synopsis

We began class discussing Theophrastus and Strato, who were successors of Aristotle.  Theophrastus was a mechanist, and believed that there were no abstract principles separate from nature.  He did not believe in any type of major purpose in life.  He did not believe in any kind of abstract soul or rational thought.  He believed that our thoughts are material, and that external goods are necessary for happiness.  One had to be comfortable to be happy, and could not be happy when in pain. Theophrastus thought it was very important to be a citizen o f the world, as it was very important that there was equality among people.

Like Theophrastus, Strato was also a mechanist.  He was a physicist.  He did not believe in an abstract soul, but believed that the soul was simply a part of the body, that it was the same things as sensation.  He believed that thought is material and thinking is merely a physical sense.  He did not believe in the afterlife.  When you die, you die. 

We continued class, discussing the Cynics.  We looked at a quote by Nietzsche that pretty much summed up Cynicism: “Cynicism is the only form in which common souls come close to honesty; and the higher man must prick up his ears at every Cynicism, whether course or refined and congratulate himself whenever a buffoon without shame or a scientific satyr speaks out in his presence.” 

A central aspect of Cynicism is that your way of life is more important than any philosophical theory that you discuss.  Cynicism is about actions, not discourse. The Cynics believed one should live life in accordance with nature, and that Enkratia, or self-rule was extremely important.  The Cynic is the most wise and free type of person, and that getting bogged down in ridiculous false value judgments prevented one from living the good life. 

Antisthenes was one of the first to adopt the Cynic behavior.  He defined a statement of assertion as that which sets forth what a thing is, and believed that there is only one account of a thing.  He claimed that the only life worth living is the good life, and if you’re not going to live the good life you might as well be dead.  He believed that one should not associate one’s reputation with who they were, and that it was good to have a bad reputation because this showed that you did not make this association.  He believed that city laws were not in accordance with our highest rationality, and that it is better to follow one’s own virtues.  Antisthenes believed that getting rid of the knowledge instilled in us, or “unlearning” is the most valuable type of learning.  Antisthenes once criticized a friend who was complaining that he could not read his notes, and told him that he should have put the material in his brain instead of merely writing it down.

The Cynics disliked Plato because they believed that his dialogues were superfluous and unnecessary, and also that he was a glutton and a show-off.  In one instance Plato had been offered some figs, and took way more than he should have taken, and another time when Diogenes asked Plato for just a few olives, Plato sent him an entire jar. 

            The Cynics were naturalists, and believed that names are naturally related to the things they describe.  Cynics, especially Diogenes believed that in order to be called a certain name, a thing must deserve to be called that name.  Diogenes was known to have walked around with a lamp in the middle of the day, saying, “I am looking for a man,” as he believed that there were no real men in Athens, because nobody there was worthy of being called a man.  

A Topic for Debate

After reading Foucault's "Parrhesia and Public Life: the Cynics" where Dio Chrysostom described certain dialogues between Diogenes and Alexander in a fashion similar, but a tad bit different than the Socratic method, I posed the question to Brian Samuel whether he preferred Diogenes to Socrates. Regardless of who you are in discussion with, I sense that most would wind up feeling like a jackass in some degree, but I want to ask the class who they would prefer to be in discussion with, Socrates or Diogenes? My opinion switches whenever I think about each man and their ways, but I think I might have to go with Socrates because he seems to be less of an asshole.

Marissa Gentner-Trollin'

Finally Some Questions

Okay now that we are in Hellenistic philosophy proper, I will start asking the daily reading questions more regularly. Keep in mind you do not have to answer these questions on the blog, just be prepared to answer them in class.

For tomorrow, read the Foucault text and tell me what characteristic of Cynicism is of the utmost importance and how is this communicated. Moreover, do some research on Foucault and ask yourself if Foucault is a contemporary Cynic. Also, do you know any other Cynics?

Have fun!
Dr. Layne

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barack Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk)

First of all, Obama did a great job of staying professional in this interview. Cynics are dogs, however, if you've seen Bill O'Reilly's show, this interview seems more generous than usual. The President gives full answers (as full as one can give in a 14 minute interview), O'Reilly even uses a citation (WSJ editorial) rather than saying, "We all know that..." or "Some say..."

That being said, I hope people realize that O'Reilly went into this interview planning to be nicer than usual. This is one of the games that Fox news plays. They will bash someone unmercifully for months on shows with the most rabid conservative viewership, and then for the Super Bowl O'Reilly plays is relatively friendly to appeal towards the middle he keeps describing.


With loads of logical fallacies to detect, here is a rather good example of political discourse in America. I like to think it isn't all too different from Athens.

Your relative self

How is it that one and the same man can be both large and small, large relative to one person but small when compared to another?

This question posed in the Phaedo brought up an excerpt from a book I read back in grade school, The Phantom Tollbooth. by Norton Juster

“Milo and Tock walked up to the door, whose brass plate name read simply ‘THE GIANT’, and knocked.
‘Good afternoon,’ said the perfectly ordinary-sized man who answered the door.
‘Are you the giant?’ asked Tock doubtfully.
‘To be sure,’ he replied proudly. ‘I’m the smallest giant in the world. What can I do for you?’…

…They walked to the rear of the house, which looked exactly like the front, and knocked at the door, whose name plate read ‘THE MIDGET’.
‘How are you?’ inquired the man, who looked exactly like the giant.
‘Are you the midget?’ asked Tock again, with a hint of uncertainty in his voice.
‘Unquestionably,’ he answered. ‘I’m the tallest midget in the world. May I help you?’…

…The side of the house looked very like the front and back, and the door flew open the very instant they knocked.
‘How nice of you to come by,’ exclaimed the man, who could have been the midget’s twin brother.
‘You must be the fat man,’ said Tock, learning not to count too much on appearance.
‘The thinnest one in the world,’ he replied brightly, ‘but if you have any questions, I suggest you try the thin man, on the other side of the house.’

… and the door was again answered by a man who looked precisely like the other three.
'What a pleasant surprise!' he cried happily. 'I haven't had a visitor as long as I can remember.'

...'Are you the fattest thin man in the world?' asked Tock.
'Do you know one that's fatter?' he asked impatiently.
'I think you are all the same man,' said Milo emphatically.
'S-S-S-S-S-H-H-H-H-H-H-H,' he cautioned...'...to the tall men I'm a midget, and to the short men I'm a giant; to the skinny ones I'm a fat man, and to the fat ones I'm a thin man.' "

Its not a perfect production, but here is a home-made adaptation of this scene from the book.

Obviously, this a very literal example of that question posed above.
We can be many people and still one person.
Our one person is made up of those many persons, but those many persons can only be recognized relative to certain situations.
For example.... '...to the tall men I'm a midget...' as quoted from above.

Its interesting how a 'thing' can exist in this world and go by many names and many meanings relative to where you are in the world. This is as much true for physical objects as it is for ideas such as piety or virtue. The Web of Ideas concept is identical to what I am getting at here.
Again using my example from The Phantom Tollbooth, who that man was in their world was no one special, but from the perspective of different people, he had distinguishable attributes, in relation to those different people. At the same time, how something like virtue exists in our world can be debated all day by many different people, but in reality, they are possibly all talking about the same being.


On a less related note, but related all the same.....
I'm sitting here talking with my new roommate Karim, who is a foreign exchange student from France. His ability to speak english is still developing but for the most part he is doing very well! He also speaks a bit of Spanish. We have been discussing how certain things such as titles of TV shows or comic book characters like Wolverine have different names in Spain and France. Sometimes, we'll use Wolverine as an example, only the basic idea, as opposed to the original idea, will be transferred across peoples. In Spain, the character Wolverine has a different name and plays a slightly different role in the storyline of the comic series.

When we discussed in class how Aristotle left Plato's school in order to form his own, it immediately reminded me current state of American politics. Because of the dissatisfaction many politicians and voters feel with the sate of the current two party system it has caused many to question if we should continue with the current standard political philosophies. As Aristotle saw it necessary with the loss of the second sailing and a train of thought that he saw as unproductive to start looking at things from a new perspective, political thinking is starting to go through a series of subtle changes. Even though unlike Aristotle’s school of thought, the one we are experiencing in this country doesn’t really seem like its for the better. But I think its an interesting parallel considering how politically conscious Plato's Academy was before his death.

Diogenes, good advice

After reading about Diogenes's behavior, conduct, and attitude towards life and humanity in general, one can see the ironic wisdom that Diogenes is trying to advocate. For example, one of Diogenes's sayings is "That one ought to hold out one's hand to a friend without closing the fingers," meaning that friendship is a relationship in which the participants are equal. Consequently, being open and comfortable is required. When he is saying, ".... without closing the fingers" he is expressing that in a mutual friendship everything is ours, this is not just mine (to hold, to own etc.) This brings to mind a conversation with my friend in which she was describing her experience at a recent convention she went to. She said she felt a little out of place, and could not understand the source and reason for her distress. All of a sudden she started to cry, and began to tell her story in earnest. I did my best in comforting her and she ended our conversation by saying that the best part of any human relationship is sharing, be it sentiments, feelings, or just chips. Until that point, I did not really understand that it is indeed sharing that is the food of companionship. Sometimes, people are friends for the wrong reasons in which the one person might be using the other. In this case, the companions are not on an equal footing, because one person is taking advantage of the other and not giving in return. Thus this is a one-sided, and closed relationship. Thus, any genuine friendship should not be based on personal gain, but mutual understanding (taking and giving).

Very Cool Website

I have discovered that Stumble Upon is one of the most amazing websites out there. I really don't know how long my post has to be but I just thought that I would share this. This website tripped me out when I saw it because it shows me the whole of western philosophy. It unfortunately doesn't give me the origins (how could it) but it does show me everyone involved with the development of western philosophy and their contributions. Check it out!

Western Philosophy- Mind Meister

Folly

I was reading about Diogenes and said to my boyfriend, "Diogenes was such a dick.  Listen to what he did."  I read aloud:

"On one occasion, when no one came to listen to him while he was discoursing seriously, he began to whistle.  And then when people flocked round him, he reproached them for coming with eagerness to folly, but being lazy and indifferent about good things."

I complained about how it was ridiculous for Diogenes to criticize people for appreciating something that is so natural for people to appreciate, such as music.  I did not think that he should not have expected people to gather around him to listen to his discourse, when it is likely that he had made no announcement that he was going to talk about something he thought was important.  I though that his deliberately provoking people and putting them down made him an asshole.

After listening to my rant, my boyfriend told me about something the actor and comedian Andy Kaufman used to do.  Kaufman, who was famous for his character Latka Graves in the show Taxi, would put on comedy shows.  At these shows, audience members would beg him to act like his character in Taxi, and Kaufman, annoyed that people did not wish to see his new material but only old character, would in response, sit and read The Great Gatsby for the remainder of the show.  Here, Kaufman was like Diogenese in his frustration that people were not interested in what he wanted to communicate.  I guess I can kind of understand where Kaufman and Diogenese were coming from.

Cobert's Alpha Dog on Habits

One of my favorite shows is the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, and I was watching old Alpha Dog of the Week clips when I came upon this. Colbert talked about Domino's being the Alpha Dog of the Week because Domino's decided to change change up their recipe and not apologize for their terrible product. While Colbert focused on the fact that Domino's did not apologize, I would instead like to focus on Domino's change in recipe and how it relates to habit.

What Domino's did requires an enormous amount of self-awareness. To make that change could not have been a purely internal thing. The pizza chain would have needed to see the reaction of the customers before it could have changed. In the same way, we must first recognize that our actions are wrong, according to Aristotle, before we can change. Having that self-awareness is much harder for us than it is for a corporation. Whereas the corporation can simply take a poll on customer satisfaction, people do not have that luxury. In the first place, the virtuous are in the minority. Finding a person who can help you work towards virtue is indeed rare, much rarer than finding a customer that has a relatively normal sense of taste. But on top of that, it is much easier to change for Domino's than it is for any of us.

This is not to discourage any of us that we may very well need change, but more of an analogy to how we may do it. We first need to find the virtuous person who can point us towards the virtuous life who can encourage change within us. Change may not be as easy for us as it was for Domino's, but we can still change for the better.

On aiming for the Good

I have been thinking that Plato and Aristotle were "birds of a feather" for a little while now and that I could consider myself in the same camp. Lately, I've been questioning that belief though.

I agree that if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for this would go on until your racing for the best spot at the local retiring home) we must aim at the Good. Further, I claim that we must be content in speaking of such subjects and with such premises as to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true. As Aristotle writes in Nichomachean Ethics,

"A young man is not suited to only listen to lectures...for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life."

Rationality can teach us how to get (most effectively) from A to Z but it can't tell us where Z is located. For such persons at the incontinent knowledge brings no profit. This is where Aristotle and I split with Plato: philosophical examination is not a reliable source of happiness or political nous. It isn't the end of the world though, there are many philosophers who regarded the quest for understanding as an end in itself, not as a path to success. After all, as most of those who have been bitten by the philosophy bug will tell you, philosophers mainly philosophize because they cannot help it.

Diogenes

Diogenes of Sinope was a historical cynic. Diogenes attempted to humiliate his peers. Regardless of his controversy he was considered one of the founders of Cynicism. He was on the move after he defaced currency under the advice of the oracle of Delphi. Diogenes became Antisthenes pupil even though he wasn't warmly accepted. He choose to be somewhat of an ascetic, along with his poor life and his belief in being naked. He looked down on those who praised money and their status. Diogenes was definitely an extremist. Modern day, he would be considered a drunken bum that roamed the streets and made outrageous claims. Nevertheless, Diogenes was very influential in his time period. He attempted to point too that what society holds is not equivalent to happiness that the natural state of nature can offer. Diogenes believed people should return to the origins of nature to achieve true happiness. However, it was difficult to understand why he didnt care for plato since he was the successor of plato who Diogenes shared many of the same concepts with.

Just checking the blog and wanted to remind you guys to be prepared to talk about the Cynics!

Cheers,
Dr. Layne

Rand discussing the influence of Aristotelian/Platonic philosophy on writing

For a nonfiction writing course I was asked to read a chapter from Ayn Rand’s The Art of Nonfiction. The chapter was entitled Creating an Outline, and I was shocked by the amount of overlap between this chapter and our discussions last week on Plato and Aristotle. Rand is highly critical of Plato in many respects. One section of the chapter was called The Platonic Approach to Logical Order, and in it Rand makes the claim that to a Platonist “there is a dangerous misconception that there is … only one possible logical order of presentation.” Rejecting this view, Rand, who referred to her philosophy as Aristotelian, asserts that “the principles behind determining the order of an outline are abstractions subsuming a vast number of concretes. You can establish rules about these principles, but not about the use of concretes. No set of principles can give you one logical order.” What I found particularly interesting about Rand’s perspective was her belief that one’s philosophical perspective is capable of determining how one will perform even the minutest of tasks, such as writing an outline. I backtracked to the chapter that came before, which we were not required to read, and I stumbled upon this explanatory passage: “I have often said that the whole history of philosophy is a duel between Plato and Aristotle, and that this conflict is present in every issue” [italics mine]. Rand saw one’s view of the relationship between abstract principles and concrete particulars as highly definitive. For an Aristotelian these things do not exist apart from each other, and for a Platonist, archetypes or universals do exist apart from their concrete manifestations.

It became even more relevant when Rand then delved into Aristotles four causes, specifically his conception of the final and efficient cause:

"By final causation, Aristotle meant that a purpose is set in advance, and then the steps required to achieve it are determined…To do anything, you must know what you want to achieve. For instance, if you decide to drive to Chicago, the roads you select, the amount of gas, etc., will be determined by that goal. But to get there, you will have to start a process of efficient causation, which includes filling the gas tank, starting the car, steering, etc. But the whole process will be a chain of actions you have selected in order to achieve a certain process, namely, to get to Chicago."

Regardless of whether Rand’s analysis of these ideas is bias towards Aristotle or under-researched, she puts into perspective just how important even one’s most abstract convictions are. They affect how one thinks. Therefore they will affect how one writes, talks, votes, and any other action. Philosophy affects one’s entire world-view (whether consciously accepted or not). Likewise, a certain philosophy, if accepted by a society, would greatly change the way it views, and thus interacts with its world. Philosophy has (and has exercised) the power to shape the world.