Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Aristophanes' Clouds

So, Clouds. It turns out that Aristophanes' play is the most lewd and vulgar play I have ever read - potty humor, penis/fart/poop jokes left and right. It is hilarious, but what is astounding is how much there is beneath the crudities and masturbation humors.

Mostly I took away from Clouds was a picture of Justice as caricatured by the play's Socrates. In the argument, Injust Speech defeats Just Speech by means of numbers. That's right, numbers. Not only does this contradict Socrates' actual teaching, but it indirectly states that Justice is impossible in a materialist society. I jumped too quick there, let me explain.

Because the former defeats the latter by numbers, in what context could that be true? Not in Socrates' world, certainly. Not in ours either. (not yet, at least - we're very close) I may be wrong here, but in what context could Injustice defeat Justice by numbers? Materialism, that's what. If there is another system that allows for this, I would be glad to hear it.

But if Justice is whatever we think it is, the logical conclusion is that is good to cheat, swindle, and deceive your fellow man in society as long as you can get away from it. A materialist society would still value comfort and everything 21st Century society offers, but to enforce that without a concept of Justice or Virtue (both of these are renamed "pragmatism"), all it can do is use the truncheon, the mace, the blackjack. We end up in Stalinist Russia. Without Justice and Virtue, we wind up in a police state if we try and control people to act the way they would in a virtuous and just state. I find that to be a horrifying idea and it makes me cling to Justice and Virtue all the higher.

This is a very badly written post so please forgive me. I would write more, but I must get to Plato's Apology and Crito next. Toodles!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

The Republic Part II - Immortality of the soul.

We finished Plato's Republic (or Platonos Politeia as I should say in Greek) and quite honestly, I was blown away. Through the linking of democracy to tyranny, to the discussion of the afterlife, to Mr. Carey and Ms. Ames blowing my mind, The Republic rocked. It was easily as good as, if not better than, the seminars we had on my favorite book, The Iliad. I think The Iliad might still be my favorite, but The Republic takes a close second.

We talked mostly about the afterlife on Thursday. "Does Socrates make a convincing case for the afterlife?", Mr. Carey asked. We talked about forms and justice, and Socrates' motivation for these dialogues. We came to the conclusion that Plato wanted people of all abilities to becomes better persons - thus the unexplained myths, the logically wrought arguments, and the impassioned rhetoric. There's something for everyone.

I really like the idea of forms. The material world is not reality. That might sound really Buddhist so let me explain. The material world is only in the process of becoming so can it really be said to be? I am not sure. Mr. Carey presents this better than I do, but I think I believe in forms. There is the material object, and then there is the form of the object - the object-ness. We can know things about the form of a dinosaur though we have never seen one. We know things about a white rhinocerous though they could become extinct at any moment. They all have something in common. That "something in common" is what we call forms.

To fully explain the idea of forms I need to re-read The Republic. I think I will do so, in fact. There is so much there... it is an amaazing dialogue.

I have to admit my opinion of The Republic has been changed by 180 degrees. I have learned my lesson. Ben sort of made me dread it by calling my attention to the ridiculousl left-wing assertions, but I found few of those and didn't think they were the most important aspect of Socrates' dialogue. Far more important is Justice and how best to serve Her.

These are at best the tangles thoughts of a guy who just had his mind thoroughly blown. Gibbon was surely right when he said "The only education comes from what is contrary to oneself". I also know what Mr. Carey (God bless him) meant when he said "I've been reading The Republic for 50 years and there is more to it." I too will make it a point to read The Republic for the rest of my life. It is a monumental, life-changing book.

The biggest question I have for Socrates is: "What argument do you show us that we have a soul?" I will ask Ms. Ames or Mr. Carey that question.


Onward, then, to Aristophanes' The Clouds!


Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Republic Part I - A Critique of Democracy.

I am loving The Republic. There, I said it. What's more, I meant it. Plato was a genius and so was Socrates. The Republic is a masterpiece; possibly the best book I have read this year (maybe even -gasp- replacing The Iliad as my favorite!)

What hit me pretty hard was how intensely Socrates attacked democracy. That is a dangerous, dangerous thing to do nowadays. Don't we all praise and glorify democracy every chance we get? It is a huge (if not the) reason the United States is occupying Iraq as of this writing. The President holds democracy on a pedestal and represents the people when he does so. No doubt the future President will do the same.

Before I continue it is necessary to compare Greek (Athenian) democracy with American democracy. I find that they are very similar. The Greek democracy was in a more pure form than ours because they did not elect representative officials - every citizen voted on every issue. Granted, they did exclude women from voting but that is not different from the American system - what difference does it make if half of the population does not vote by choice or by coercion? I see little difference. Aside from that fact (which riles feminists to this day), Greek democracy in Athens was very close to the idealized form of American democracy.

That said, Socrates attacks it ruthlessly. He calls it "rule of the appetite" because people are ruled by their appetites and democracy is rule of the people. True justice and moderation are not to be found in a democracy, and wow, that looks horrible but I said it anyway. Socrates believes that the philosophers must rule as kings and gives very concise yet very elaborate reasons why this is the case. And indeed, if you share his premise (human beings all desire what is good - evil is but a matter of ignorance), everything else follows. Everything, even censorship and the abolition of the family.

Naturally I disagree with Socrates there - I believe human beings knowingly and willingly choose the ugly and the evil over the beautiful and the good - we are both deceived and will to commit evil. I can still see the validity of Socrates' position however - it makes perfect sense to me.

I do think he is right about democracy. I agree with him in the Meno that not all men (in fact few) desire the True, the Beautiful, and the Good - that is, desire philosophy. Certainly we see that with Callicles and Meno. I agree with Socrates that most men are indeed ruled by their appetites - pleasure, sex, food, drugs, etc. That can certainly be seen in popular American culture - go to Chicago, New York, Los Angelos, San Fransisco, and Las Vegas. Most Americans, I think, live for pleasure, especially the young.

Man there is so much to write about in The Republic - there is the idea that justice in a city merely arises from out of what is inside man - harmony. When a man's soul is harmoniously sound, when his intellect rules his passion by means of courage, then he is just. Because he is inwardly just, he is truly externally just. Therefore a city, which is constructed upon the individual, is both inwardly and outwardly just. I find that idea very intriguing.

It is a good thing we still have three seminars left on The Republic, is it not? Thursday we read the cave and the divided line. I am so exited!