Class Synopsis 2/28/11 (Never Posted it to Blog)

On 2/28/11, we continued our discussion on Stoicism. We reiterated the importance of logos, or reason, within Stoic philosophy, which ultimately leaves us with a loss of the second sailing, a loss of the super-sensible. Everything, for the Stoics, is in everything. There is a unity within the world, which logos, is used to defend. Reason is able to defend certain principles through the use of the criterion for truth. We also discussed the importance of empirical evidence, but we made the distinction in saying that sensation is NOT a criteria for truth.

To begin class, we talked about sensation to presentation to concept. What makes for a good assent to knowledge is a cataleptic presentation, but there is also a non-cataleptic presentation. Whereas a cataleptic presentation deals directly with a real object, non-cataleptic presentation does not precede from any real object and/or fails to agree with other judgements of an object. To clarify what a 'presentation' is exactly, we talked about a presentation as something that the intellect does. Every thing, every experience, is conceived by the intellect in different ways. This can be done immediately or indirectly, through inference. In experiencing something, such as coffee, we have an immediate and direct relationship between our sensation and our intellect. Upon drinking coffee, we can come up with the concept of sweet. These concepts are immediate in the sense that we do not need to taste sweet twice in order to possess the concept of sweet.

Indirectly, however, our intellect works in three ways. In resemblance, our intellect can take the image of a singular man or woman and move to the concept of humankind in general. We may not have direct sensory experience of man or woman, but we can still have the concept of humankind. In composition, our intellect can put two immediate experiences together in order to form a new concept. For example, Dr. Layne said that we may have the experience of a fish and a different experience of a woman, but we can conjoin both fish and woman to conceive of a mermaid. Lastly, we talked about analogy, through which our intellect adds or subtracts something from a concept in order to create an entirely different concept. If you add height and weight to a human, for instance, one is able to conceive of a giant. We also talked about the concept of tabula rossa-that we, as humans, are born with a blank slate. We do not, therefore, have any innate concepts within us, they are merely imprinted on us at an early age.

Furthermore, we discussed language and thought within Stoic philosophy. Although we can conceive of universals, such as manhood, that does not mean that these universals are corporeal. Our language, although it refers to real things, is not corporeal in itself. Thus, the meaning of my sentence is not real, but the references that I make are very real. In order to be real, a body must be able to be act and to be acted upon. Being is always and solely corporeal. Thus, the meaning of our language is not real

To continue, we moved from logic to physics. Dr. Layne stated that the Stoic physics is through and through materialistic and corporeal. Being is body, so the soul, God, good, and wisdom are also body. Virtue is a body because it makes us act. Sadness, for example, calls me to act-I cry when I am sad. We can easily see the roots of medieval philosophy within Stoic physics in talking about matter and form. Body is, for the stoics, both matter and form. Form, for the stoics, is the active principle of nature, whereas matter is the passive principle. Although we can logically distinguish form from matter, one can not exist in the world without the other. These two principles of matter and form are the basis for the Stoic physics as a pantheistic monism. We talked about how, because form is in everything, God is in everything and is everything. As previously mentioned, God is corporeal, and God's being as corporeal explains how everything is in everything-rendering a complete and total mingling of bodies.

To conclude, we continued to talk about God and nature. Phusis, or nature, implies both matter and the intrinsic agent of form which gives purpose and telos to all things. Here, we are able to see a complete rejection of Epicureanism. The stoics believe in a complete teleology, that all beings are innately moving towards their goal or purpose. God, who is phusis, is also logos, thus he is our principle of intelligence, and his pneuma, or spirit, extends through the universe with different intensities. I'm not entirely sure what that means, because this is where our class ended, so… hopefully we will learn more on Wednesday.

Pagan Influence on Christianity

So, our discussion yesterday has prompted me to share some fun little facts that you may or may not have known regarding the extent of Pagan influence over Christianity. Despite the severe hatred which early Christians felt for the Pagans, as shown in Agora, some of their beliefs and much of their imagery, stems from outside sources. The book of Revelation, for instance, is a piece of apocalyptic literature which was written around 96 CE, but its influence is clearly rooted in Babylonian society, which existed around 586 BCE. The Babylonians were avid believers in astrology, and almost everything that they did was influenced by patterns within the heavens. The book of Revelation, which speaks of the number seven, stars, and a throne, is clearly a representation of the beliefs of the Babylonians. Revelation speaks of Satan's Throne and a man who was shaped "like a lampstand," which is a borrowed image of the throne of Zeus which resided in Rome. The images of monsters and demons, the sun as the eye of Zeus, the golden lamb, and the mountain as the throne of Zeus, which exist within Revelation, are also borrowed images from Pagan society. Clearly, then we are able to see that the Christians did not derive something out of nothing, which is a logical contradiction, but rather, they borrowed from what they already knew, regardless of how greatly they abhorred Pagan beliefs.

The Eternal Nature of Texts

After our discussion on Monday regarding the seemingly objective nature of texts, I have to say that I am somewhat inspired. The neo-platonic tradition is so unique in their practices, and I can see how this carries over into Christianity. This whole notion of the text taking on, not a life of its own, but rather, a life in the marriage of reader and text sounds ludacris, but I am inclined to agree that this is the case. In writing a text, the author has one thing in mind. If the text is never read, does it carry any weight or meaning, though? Clearly the neoplatonists would argue that it does not. Initially, I thought, "Hell yeah it does. What are you talking about?" I was so bothered by the notion that a book, novel, poem, or even article carries no meaning unless read. I don't think that is to say, though, that there is absolutely NO meaning whatsoever to the text. I think that is to say that its potential is only partially actualized in being written. In being read, however, the text takes on a completely different dynamic. Not only the first time it is read, but every time a text is read, a new relationship is built between text and reader. This gives the text a sort of limitless potential and eternal quality, and, to me, that is jsut delightful =)

The Oh So Confusing Lucian.

So, after reading Philosophies for Sale, which I found to be utterly absurd in the most hilarious way possible, I began to wonder if there were anything which would have satisfied Lucian. He seems to be one of the most critical men of the hellenistic philosophies, but Doctor Layne also mentioned in class that he was somewhat of a Cynic. It is ironic to me that a man who was so critical could actually identify with one particular philosophy, namely a philosophy which seems, in my opinion, to be far more absurd than, let us say, Stoicism or even Skepticism. I understand that he saw countless flaws within the logic of the Stoics, but, I, personally, would rather adhere to some sort of rational dogma than to go around flaunting my crazed ways in order to prove a point. In my opinion, the cynics wasted too much time concerning themselves with others. At the same time, however, it could be said that in that their insane style of living was flaunted for all to see in the hopes that it could inspire others to renounce their worldly possessions in order to live alive of virtue and truth. In this respect, I do understand their intent. The only problem is, though, that I feel as if people thought the Cynics to be merely insane, which would ultimately deter anyone from desiring the life of a Cynic.

Class Summary 3/25

We began Friday's class with a brief discussion of the movie, Agora. The movie was about the female philosopher, Hypatia, who, in the end of the movie, is stoned to death. We first talked about how many historians dispute the way in which Hypatia was killed, because there are some who say that she was stoned to death, but others believe that she was flayed alive with pieces of either glass or pottery. Regardless, the movie depicted Davis, her slave, as one who first suffocated Hypatia before her stoning so that she would not have to endure the pain of a death of that nature. We also discussed that the library in the movie was not the great library of Alexandria, as the movie tells us. Dr. Layne, along with numerous other class mates, felt as though the sieging of the library was one of the most emotional scenes in the movie. As Jennifer stated, it is so sad to see that many human achievements up until that point in time were destroyed with the seizing of the library.

What, exactly, was the film about? Many of our classmates thought that the film was about the historical battle between faith and reason. In the film, Hypatia is accused of being godless, or believing in nothing, and many believe Hypatia to be a witch of sorts. It is arguable, though, whether or not that is true. Hypatia did, after all, have much faith in philosophy, as she stated at one point in time. For her, however, one should not adhere to the dogmatic beliefs of a religion. Hypatia told one of the bishops in the film, "You can't question what you believe, I have to question what I believe." Additionally, it could be said that there is some sort of faith-like quality to science, as Dr. Layne pointed out. It is inaccurate to say that in hypothesizing, one is not basing his or her claim on faith. Hypatia even told Davis at one point that she knew she could prove him wrong, but she did not know how she was going to do it. In that statement, it is evident that Hypatia did, in fact, have some sort of faith which preceded here scientifically backed claims to knowledge.

After our discussion of the movie, we continued to read "Philosophies for Sale." We encountered a Heraclitian, a Demacritian, a Platonist, and a Stoic. The Heraclitian and Demacritian were on sale together, and the literary juxtaposition of these two was quite humorous. On one hand, there was the Demacritian, an atomist, who believed that all things were relative, so he was constantly laughing at everyone around him. On the other hand, there was the Heraclitian, who believed that all was in constant flux and that fate was indifferent to us. Because the Heraclitian believed that all were deaf to the eternal cycle, he was weeping. After the two of them, we saw a Platonist for sale. Lucian mocked Plato's "Republic" with a discussion of the possession of wives, and we talked about how many misconstrue the purpose of the "Republic" to be a political guide, when it is not. Finally, we encountered the sale of a Stoic, and, here, we could see a mockery of stoic logic and the assent to knowledge with the example of the veiled figure.

The Importance of a Skeptic Attitude

I will admit that I, initially, abhorred the skeptics. I have to say that they are still not exactly my favorite hellenistic movement, but I came across an article on the internet which argued that it is "right" to be a modern day skeptic. The link is posted below. To summarize the article briefly, the author talks about the necessity in questioning truths that have, previously, been held as immune to any criticism. Included in the list of truths which have been previously held as immune to criticism is the geocentric theory, which we are all familiar with. As I thought more about skepticism, I realized the importance of at least questioning everything I am told, because there is clearly danger in accepting things at face value.

http://www.paduiblog.com/pa-dui/why-it-is-right-to-be-a-modern-day-skeptic-the-need-to-continue-to-challenge-sacred-cows-paradigm-shift/

Having said all of that, however, I do believe that we, as humans, are capable of assenting to knowledge, and this is where I find validity in the logic of the Stoics.

Stoicism and Psychology

Our discussion today on stoicism and psychoanalysis has prompted me to share a bit more of my thoughts on the topic. I would argue that most psychological endeavors are in complete harmony with the Stoic beliefs. It is not that a therapist or psychiatrist is offering an excuse for a human to act in accordance with nature. Rather, the psychiatrist offers a patient a sort of rational or backing for the patient’s emotions. Once a patient understands why and how he or she feels the way that they do, it is then the job of the psychiatrist to guide the patient in his or her emotional transformation. A GOOD therapist or psychiatrist should not merely allow a patient to act irrationally. A therapist, in my opinion, should listen, help one’s patient to understand his or her underlying issues. Without reaching that understanding, it is very difficult for a person to change. I think that psychology may be misunderstood if one takes it to be a mere defense for irrational behavior. Psychology should be used to help a person understand that his or her feelings are NATURAL, but just because those feelings are NATURAL does not make them RATIONAL.

“You know the old joke. How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb?
It will change only when it truly wants to change.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/stoicism.html

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

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

Marissa Gentner-Trollin'

Gentner-What would Aristotle say?

BINGO.

I have just begun to read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1. Within the first few pages, Aristotle discusses happiness, and what constitutes the good. Something that Aristotle begins with is a brief discussion of politics, which I find to be especially relevant to what is going on in the political spectrum today. When I think of politics today, I instantly think CORRUPTION. Why is that? No matter what political affiliation, I would guess that at least 90% of local, state, and federal politicians have ulterior motives. Sad to say it, but it's true. Today, Chris and I ate lunch together, and he was telling me about this group called, "The Family." I was unable to find any reliable information regarding this group (Chris, maybe you could provide a link in a comment if you get the chance, or just share some of your knowledge), but, basically, it is a group of people who are hired from within the White House. This group appears genuine in their desire for involvement, but they have ulterior motives, and they also have a lot of influence from within. Regardless, it is not only the politicians who are corrupt, but I would like to argue that the public, through a lack of education regarding what is going on in society, coupled with a love for drama, has created a world in which politics can not honestly be taken seriously. I do not generally watch television, but the only time that I have ever seen anything regarding President Obama on TV are times when what I am watching is completely irrelevant to anything in politics. What do I hear? I hear about the president's new puppy, or I hear about what dress Michelle Obama wore to some dinner the other night, or I hear about how Obama is going grey. Oh how will he deal with this one?

How does this relate to Aristotle's Ethics? On page 2, Aristotle argues that government, namely the "political sciences" must be studied and enacted within cities and/or states. Aristotle believes that politics are necessary to promote good for the many. He argues that there are certain goods which trump others, and the good of the state trumps the good of the individual, which is why there is a need for political regulation-to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Sadly, our society has lost sight of that. Today's political realm is closer to Sophistry than democracy. Politicians use rhetoric in order to persuade us instead of attempting to properly represent their people so as to promote the good. This is something that I believe both Socrates and Aristotle would be appalled to see.

Gentner-The Validity of Temperance

After talking in class briefly about Socrates' notion of temperance, and especially after having read the section in the Phaedo which is written about temperance, I have been doing a great deal of thinking regarding the subject. I am extremely bothered by the notion that having temperance is a contradiction in the sense that being temperate first involves being intemperate. One can not abstain from alcohol without having first experienced the desire, and Socrates felt that simply avoiding taking a drink was not, in itself, as impressive as having absolutely no desire to drink in the first place.

While I agree that an alcoholic ultimately never having a craving for some booze is great in theory, I don't think that this is a realistic approach to temperance. I, contrary to Socrates, find validity in the virtue of temperance. I am impressed by a man or woman overcoming his or her deepest desires because I see strength in their actions. Where is the strength in someone denying a drink who did not have a desire for that drink in the first place?

On the other hand, I can see how, ultimately, "training" an alcoholic to overcome those desires once and for all would the the ideal outcome of practicing temperance. In practicing and training one's will, which requires a great deal of strength, an alcoholic could possibly overcome that desire absolutely. Would Socrates give merit to someone who was able to do this, though?

Alcibiades and Socrates Duke it Out... the Intellectual Way

After reading the dialogue between Socrates and Alcibiades, I have come to the belief that Socrates was challenging the origin of Alcibiades' knowledge in addition to the source and merit of his political power. Socrates seemed bothered by the fact that Alcibiades was living a life that, while it may have been full of material wealth, was lacking spiritual and emotional truths. Socrates challenged Alcibiades, throughout the dialogue, to think in ways other than he had been previously taught or conditioned to do so. In the very first pages, for example, Socrates inquires about Alcibiades' sources of knowledge, asking how Alcibiades had come to know certain truths or virtues. Furthermore, Socrates challenges Alcibiades on the issue of justice. He provokes Alcibiades to speak of how he came to know what is just and unjust, seeing as Alcibiades judges matters of war and peace on a daily basis as a higher member of the state. Additionally, Socrates and Alcibiades dialogue about cheating, the need for proofs in knowledge, the virtue of courage versus its adverse-cowardice, and spiritual matters such as heaven. Overall, however, I was under the impression that Socrates was basically challenging Alcibiades' political power, as previously mentioned. Although Socrates did not directly claim that Alcibiades was not worthy of the material wealth or power that he had acquired, I was under the impression that, as Socrates seems to do in most of his dialogues, he was attempting to provoke a higher level of thought within Alcibiades, ultimately requesting that he attempt to live a better, more virtuous life.

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY… PLEASE HELP ME!!! I had difficulty understanding what Plato meant when he claimed something to be expedient. I did some research, but I have yet to come up with a definitive definition relevant to the dialogue between Socrates and Alcibiades.