Conceit to Knowledge

The other day I was studying for Thomas Aquinas test and there was one thing that really stood out to me as I was going through my notes.  Thomas Aquinas said one reason believers-in-God have faith is so they won't seem irrational to nonbelievers by trying to prove something with reason that can't be proven in that way.  A few days later I was thinking about this and also about our discussion of men of knowledge, men of simple ignorance, and men of double ignorance.  Before considering faith as something to prevent a nonbeliever from seeing a believer as irrational, I thought of belief in God as a conceit to knowledge.  But after considering the faith thing I would put a belief in God could into the simple ignorance category since the believer is not really making an irrational claim that he or she doesn't understand, but admitting that his or her belief is not completely proven by reason, but by his or her strong feelings about God (I don't know if that's exactly right, but do you get the idea sort of?).  It think it's beautiful when people feel so strongly about certain things that they don't need to justify them with logical explanations.

Philosophy

When I heard the title Philosophy for Sale, I immediately thought of something Nietzsche said, which is that all philosophers have certain intentions in their work.  This is something I think is very important to consider when studying philosophy, and try to always keep in mind.  Philosophers have a variety of different intentions.  Some search for truth, some seek to justify their own actions and behavior, some seek honor and prestige, some seek a better world.  Whether they realize it or not, everyone has some sort of philosophical viewpoint.

I think the idea of philosophy being for sale is really interesting.  People come up with philosophy that fits the way they want to think of things, and the way they want to live their lives.  They use philosophy to justify their lifestyles.  Everyone "shops" for philosophy.  If someone has something they want to do, or a way they want to view the world, they can always justify it with something some philosopher said.  Does philosophy shape us, or is it simply our means of justifying who we are?  Wittgenstein said philosophy is the logical clarification of thought.  I think of it more as a way to defend our feelings.

What is the Stoic missing out on?

I think that to be a Stoic is to suppress one's personality and limit one's life.  Living with the intent to avoid suffering is very limiting, and the most boring world would be one in which everyone followed the Stoic philosophy.  The greatest works of art have been created by people in states of ecstasy and agony, and the most interesting stories in history are about people who fully experienced and lived with their emotions.  I think that the real way to live is to feel all your feelings to their highest capacities, and that experiencing something really exhilarating at the expense of feeling misery later is absolutely worth it.
I hate the idea of not favoring one's loved ones.  I think that strong connections between people are really beautiful, and to say,"I don't really love my son specifically, I just love humans in general," is to miss out on an important aspect of life.  I'm not religious, but I think it's beautiful when people say they can feel their loved ones are watching down on them, or that they feel their ghosts.  Nobody would ever feel this way if it weren't for these intense bonds between people.

"One's lesser talents might lead to success in craft or business, but then one might never find out what one's more playful capacities might have been."-Gary Snyder

One thing I found really interesting in the Enchiridion is where it said that if you, "confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse."  This doesn't relate perfectly, but reading this made me think of something I have heard many times before, which is that in order to live up to your full potential you should not focus on trying to fix things you're bad at, but instead focus on what you're good at.  For example, say you're terrible at math but you're an amazing artist.  You shouldn't try to get an A in your math class because by doing that you'll expend all your energy on something that you can probably become mediocre at at best.  Instead you should put all of your energy into you art, because if you do that you can accomplish really amazing things.  This also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by the poet and environmental activist Gary Snyder:

"One's lesser talents might lead to success in craft or business, but then one might never find out what one's more playful capacities might have been."

This quote has really affected me, and kind of relates to what I was just talking about, but would relate even more if you thought of it like this: "One's lesser talents might lead to success in something one doesn't care about and isn't that great at, but then one might never find out what one's natural, passion-fed capacities might have been."  That's kind of the same idea, I think.  So basically just do what you like to do.

Going back to the Enchiridion, I don't necessarily think you should "confine your aversion to those objects only which are to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control," because there are certain cases where I think you should show your aversion to things that don't seem to be in your control.  For example, though you yourself might not have the ability to get rid of a corrupt ruler, by expressing your aversion to this ruler you might end up contributing to a larger group of people who can collectively get rid of this ruler.

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.

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.  

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.

the one and the many

I really like the concept of the one and the many, or the one over the many.  

This summer I traveled to Costa Rica with a group from Loyola, and one place we visited was a school called Earth University.  At the front of the school there was a sign that said EARTH in giant capital letters.  We played a game in which we tried to find as many words as possible using the letters in the word “earth.”  We found words such as “ear”, “heart”, “art”, “eat”, “hear”, and several more.  I thought it was neat that all of the words we found in the word "earth" were representative of things that are found on the actual earth.  "Earth" was the one, and the words we found constituted the many.  The one and the many was demonstrated both in the spelling of these words, and in the actual things they represented.

Another way to think of the one and the many is in terms of one's feeling a city.  If you think of a town or city you've never been to and know nothing about, your feeling of that city might be considered in terms of the one.  You think of it as one name, as one dot on a map.  But when you think of a town or city you've lived in and actually experienced, you probably think of much more than just a small dot.  When you're there or even just when you think of its name, it feels like more than just a single entity.  You think of people, music, streets, festivals, parades, schools, trees, restaurants, sidewalks, signs, sidewalks, and much more.  You think of the experiences you have had there, and how the city has affected you.  You feel it in terms of the many.  

"Suicide cannot be considered an end of life for which I should be the unique foundation. Since it is an act of my life, indeed, it itself requires a meaning which only the future can give to it; but as it is the last act of my life, it is denied this future. Thus it remains totally undetermined. If I escape death or if I "misfire," shall I not judge later that my suicide was cowardice? Will the outcome not show me that other solutions were possible? But since these solutions can only be my own projects, they can appear only if I live. Suicide is an absurdity which causes my life to submerged in the absurd." - Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness

Socrates' bit on suicide reminded me of the above passage.  Here is what Socrates had to say on the subject:
"...as most things which are evil may be accidentally good, this is to be the only exception (for may not death, too, be better than life in some cases?), and why, when a man is better dead, he is no permitted to be his own benefactor, but must wait for the hand of another...  There is a doctrine uttered in secret that man is prisoner who has not right to open the door of his prison and run away; this is a great mystery which I do not understand.  Yet I, too, believe that the gods are our guardians, and that we are a possession of theirs.  Do you not agree?"

Socrates and Sartre both frown upon suicide, but for different reasons.  One major reason that Sartre frowns upon suicide was that he believes that death in general takes all meaning away from life, but Socrates believes that there is something even better after death if is prepared for it as a result of practicing philosophy.  Socrates' reason for not supporting suicide has to do with respect for the gods, while Sartre's reason has to do just with one's own life.  Socrates is unsure of why he believes that man "has no right to open the door of his prison and run away" as he says that it is a "great mystery," while Sartre never discusses man's "right" to do so.  Socrates expects there to be something else after life, while Sartre does not.

I was hoping to find some interesting connections between these viewpoints, but am having trouble.  Maybe I missed something, and maybe someone else can find some(?)