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.

Noob-eo Platonism

The neoplatonic implementation of Stoic monism brings forth a certain example of the circular movement of the cosmos, starting with the one (Not Keanu Reeves). But the first example given in class today placed a line between the one and intellect principle, then a line from the intellect principle to the soul, and thus the soul emanates to to matter closesly surrounding the previous circles formed between the aforementioned areas due to their reciprocity. Yet the one is of more significance then the intellect principle, but when I drew out these circles, the intellect principle seemed more centered. Now it may just be me and my rediculous tendencies, but I feel that a better discription through a similar fashion dealing with a circle could be done with the one at the center, since it is the source. From this center, the line to the intellect principle should be straight and to the outside of the circle. After that, a line should then go from the intellect principle to the soul, which is also located on the outside of the circle. And you can only guess from this pattern that the soul then has a line to matter, which is also located on the outside of the circle. This shape thus forms an equilateral triangle within the circle that is split in half (two triangles with a 60,30,90 setup) with each line flowing in reciprocal fashion.

Now if you look at the circle I've posted above, you can see this represented, in a way considering it was best image I could find and I am not very good at creating something of the like on my own. For all intents and purposes, ignore D and the line from it to E. E is the one, being that it is in the center. It first goes to A, Intellect Principle, which has a line to B, the soul, then from there a line to C, matter. They all work in and out of each other, and flow back and forth. Now there is time for criticism.

I feel Christianity Coming

If I've ever lived a philosophy its Catholicism. And in today's brief lecture on neo-Platonism, I really felt that Christian theology was coming. Like the film Agora, to sack the more vocal and open body of Hellenistic philosophy, it took a little time, but, the majority of people stopped discussing big questions they couldn't answer. Consider it mission accomplished.

Not to say discussion was put down. In my past religion classes we always got a little philosophical, but at some point skepticism and cynicism would set in and dialogue would get stuck in the mud, unable to move further. It went Good (purpose) to Happiness to God; they were all suppose to be the same thing and you should see each of them together, if seen in the right way. Someone might say, 'but what if I don't believe in God?' but it wouldn't go any further.

With the neo-Platonism of early Christian thinkers what I understood was this:

the one ----> duality.

As soon as we say that something is this or that, then we attribute unity to it.

So for example,

In x is y we attribute unity, and that seems to be enough for Plotinus.

But further in my reading, the insight was set again in Schopenhaur, Sartre, or even Camus or Dostoyevsky:

x is...? When did we decide that?

All things try to preserve one's existence. We use this simple logical trap though. We haven't proven anything.

one= being
one= good

good= being


I don't think that Plotinus is a poor thinker, and I have so much respect for him. I am reading him with preconceptions though. And I feel, even more so, that towards the end of the semester, coming full circle, I can be ok with skepticism. It isn't the best way to get around, as Jared pointed out, but it seems a necessary precaution to fight off dogmatism. That philosopsy, in order to reconcile the Good of Plato, the thought thinking of itself in Aristotle, and the Nature of the Stoics, that the ellipsis of the legendary Hypathia are only forged in the midst of fighting the Skeptics and Cynics off of their backs.

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.

Egoism, Hedonism, and the Jains

I am slowly falling asleep in class as the professor continues to lecture on Karma in the Jain religion. She mentions that Karma in the Jain religion is broken up into two different kinds, ghati ("destructive") and aghati ("non-destructive”). Aghati Karma affects only the soul and ghati Karma affects the body and can be broken up into four types of Karma: Happiness-determining, Body-determining, Status-determining, and Longevity- determining. You accumulate these four types of Karmas by doing bad deeds against others; such as fining happiness in hurting someone or making fun of someone’s lower status. She talked on for a bit about these four types of destructive Karmas and just as I am about to move from my “I’m just resting my eyes” stage to “I am now asleep” stage she says that based on what we know about the Janis we can clearly see that they were very egoist. Egoistic? I was shocked. I may be wrong in saying this, but I thought that Egoism was defined as each person having one goal: looking out solely for one’s own welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself. I didn’t, and still don’t, think that Jains can be egoistic when one of their “natural laws of the universe” says that you accumulate destructive karma (energy) if you treat others badly: you gain happiness-determining karma by finding happiness in hurting others, like seeking revenge; you gain body-determining karma by not loving the ugly or making fun of the unattractive; you gain status-determining karma by making fun of the people below you or praising you own elevated status; and you lose longevity-determining karma by killing someone (leading to a shortening of your life). I think that none of this sounds very egoistic. If anything it sounds hedonistic. Hedonism is defined as having the goal of looking out for one’s welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself but with the consideration of others. This “consider of others” is what the belief of destructive karma is based on. From that moment on in class I couldn’t even pretend to be uninterested in what my professor was saying because I kept on thinking to myself, “This can’t be right. Jainism isn’t egoistic it’s hedonistic.” I was just about to ask this one little twist in words that was bothering me it was time to go. On Monday the first thing I’m going to do is bring this issue up. Maybe I don’t understand hedonism/egoism too much or maybe I don’t understand the Jains. And then again maybe I do. I can’t even finish this blog and be satisfied with my answer. I will definitely follow up on this Monday night.

Agora

This film had me thinking about the possibilities that could have been had events such as the destroying of the library in Alexandria had never occured. Although there is no certainty about Hypatia's discover of the planets orbits on elipses rather than perfect circles, it seems very likely that such ideas could have become more concrete within the world much sooner than when Johannes Kepler finalized it over a milennia later. This film certainly sheds such a negative light on early Christianity, but there is a significance to this in my opinion. The elimination of the polythiestic religions within the greater Helenic world is such a foreshadowing to the dark ages, where man lost connection to the thoughts and ideas of some of the brightest thinkers in the past. But would be it possible to sense such a change, or foreshadowing, even today? Texas, the biggest distributer of school text books, has decided to eliminate key figures and moments in recent history which bring back this age of Helen through exogesis of surviving texts. If the enlightenment is no longer taught, then even that connection to this great era of philosophy of the Greeks and Romans seems to be cut. Now it may be likely that such an event would occur within texas and some other parts of the U.S., but I put much faith in other countries to keep with such traditions even if we dip into a modern dark age.

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.