By Mohamed Rami El Kurdi and Khalil Faraj In Book X, section 7, Aristotle talks first about happiness and contemplation, he uses his logic and perspective vision to show that the highest happiness is the contemplative life. According to book I, happiness is an activity in accordance with virtue, we can assume that it is also accordance with the highest virtue which is the intellect, in other words, and activity of intellect is the best human activity. To his point of view, he uses many reasons such as that it corresponds to the highest part of men, it’s concerned with the best objects, most continuous, self-sufficient and it’s also loved for its own sake. In addition pleasure has been shown to be a part of happiness, and Aristotle has proved that intellectual activity gives the most pleasure. Also, happiness is thought to imply leisure so it must be an intellectual and not a practical activity. He used the example of politics and military to show his point of view. Practical virtues are in accordance with politics and military profession that are incompatible with leisure, whereas the activity of intellect take its form as a contemplation, it possesses pleasure to itself which intensifies its activity which will create the leisuredness that with all the other attributes will make the perfect happiness for the human being and will let them have the contemplative life. However such life is humanly impossible. Such a life is above man, for it is possible only insofar as man has something divine in him, since the intellect is a sort of divine element in man. But Aristotle mentioned that even if can’t live that life, we should not forget the divine and to have only human thoughts, which. Man should try to live according to the best of his soul and thus to partake of immortality. He also stated that the best life for man is the intellect life so that life will be the happiest. In section 8, according to Aristotle, moral activity is considered a secondary happiness since it is concerned with human affairs and passions. The virtue of intellect is however separate from the passions it requires less external need than moral. In addition the moral virtues belong to the composite person which is his soul and not his divine. Aristotle used another argument of gods to show that perfect happiness contemplative activity, since gods don’t anything they have all the happiness and they are blessed, they don’t need any addition external needs to be happy. To him, happiness is co-extensive with contemplation and the more people contemplate, the happier they are he used the example of animals to shows his point, that animals have no share in happiness, being completely incapable of such an activity He adds that the human activity closest to the activity of the gods is the happiest which means that contemplation is the most blessed human activity. However, being a human means that he must have external needs like food to live and to stay healthy, so to be happy we need external things. But As Solon stated, happy men are moderately supplied with external means and perform the noblest actions. And the men that use the activity of intellect will be most loved by god. Last but not least, Aristotle said in section 9 that it’s not enough to know goodness, we should practice it. To be a virtuous man, we must possess and practice goodness and must see it in everyday to become a good human being. Men are guided by fear and when someone performs an action that has good effect, he should not examine their motives. To develop a true virtue we should be educated in good habits and characteristics since once has bad habits it will be hard to change them. In other words it is necessary to habituate the human being to enjoy and know what good is and to stay away from the bad and what is disgraceful. To perform these actions the state should practice education moral education on its citizens since it can make the good habits permanent. And in case we have a lack of state, it’s the duty and the responsibility of the parents and persons to make these good habits permanent for their children and friends and the coming generations. These persons will become lawgiver and from here Aristotle continues his discussion about laws in The Politics. Moving on to Virgil and the Aeneid, the author begins by announcing his theme. He is going to be telling the story of how Aeneas made his way from Troy to Italy and founded the precursor to the modern city of Rome. He asks a certain muse about why Juno (The queen of gods) is so mad against Aeneis and the Trojans. Juno is upset for two reasons: first of all because once upon a time, a Trojan prince named Paris chose Venus over her in a beauty contest, second of all, because Juno is in love with a city named Carthage. In addition she knows that many years later there will be a war between Rome and Carthage which will results in the complete destruction in Carthage. Juno first catches sight of Aeneas and his fleet as they are sailing past Sicily. Juno tells Aeolus (King of winds) to stir up the sea against the Trojans; she says she'll give him one of her nymphs to marry, in return for his trouble. He takes his spear and pounds on the mountain where the winds are locked up. Outcome the East Wind and the South Wind. They speed down to where the Trojans are sailing and stir up a storm against them. At that moment, Aeneas thinks back on his time in Troy and wishes if he had died there instead of sailing in the sea. Just then Neptune God of the sea detects turbulence in his domain, and orders the storm to stop at once thus saving Aeneas. After that Aeneas and his remaining ships decide to head for the nearest land and set camp. This happens to be Libya. He goes hunting with his friend Achates and brings back to the crew 7 dears (one for each ship they had lost). He gives his men a speech reminding them of how much they have suffered already. He tells them to look on the bright side that one day they might even look back nostalgically on these hardships. That night, Venus the goddess of love, who also happens to be Aeneas's mom, comes to Jupiter the king of gods. Venus complains to Jupiter about how Aeneas and his men have to suffer so much, when other Trojans, like a guy called Antenor, have already been able to settle in various parts of Italy.
0 Comments
By Saad Tabche
In this part of The Republic , Plato makes a point. He states that only the philosopher has knowledge. He continues to elaborate that Philosophy is important in society. Plato bases this statement on the argument of completeness. An example of this argument was a beautiful woman. can a beautiful woman be completely beautiful ? Is she beautiful according to all standards , or only to some ? Compared to a goddess , wouldn't she appear normal ? So in conclusion this beautiful woman is not completely beautiful. He adds that no object or person can be complete , because it will always be judged in a way that lacks completeness. As time passes by it will definitely lose its quality and its standards will drop. For example , food will rot , a man will age and die. This concept is difficult to grasp, take the beautiful woman for instance, she is beautiful and normal at the same time and her beauty will fade with time. So how can we know that she's beautiful when she isn't completely and permanently beautiful ? So to think that this beautiful woman cannot be knowledge since it is half false and not permanent. But why must we be vague an not know in what ways she's beautiful and in what ways she's not ? This doesn't work since the woman changes and is not permanent. Since she changes and isn't permanent then our understanding of her must change as well. Plato insists that knowledge is unchangeable, and that is consists of eternal non changing truths. Since knowledge is unchanging absolute truths then it cannot apply to the real world where things change, it can only apply to complete stable unchanging things. Considering previous philosophers, there are 3 types of existence: What is complete, What is not at all, What both is and isn’t. Parmenides (5th century Greek philosopher) spoke a lot about What is and What is not . He stated that everything that is “What is” , is a single unchanging thing. “What is not” is a single changing and shifting thing. Parmenides did not agree with Plato though about the middle realm , “what is and isn’t” , he believed the existence of such a realm would defy logic. Plato moves on to the concept of Good. He stated that the form of Good is inexplicable. Plato stresses on the importance of unity in the soul and city, adding that a city without unity is no longer a city. Even though Plato praised unity he praises harmony, order and balance even more. Harmony between the 3 classes of society makes for a healthy city, and harmony in the soul makes for a just soul. Another argument brought forth was the superiority of forms, Plato brings up their supreme order. The Good in everything is simply its harmony, order and its balance. Plato is unable to define the form of Good, but he knows that there is a way to harmonize it. To Plato, art belongs to the category of imagination. Numerous scholars and philosophers understood imagination as a state of mind that produces art. This analysis isn't as implausible as it may seem. For example a person who bases his behavior on a television series character and is heavily influenced by him is someone rather easy to imagine. Some scholars debated whether Plato does truly believe that art belongs to the category of imagination. Some other understandings of imagination do not refer to art at all. According to these other understandings imagination is when our perception isn't completely correct, in other words we do not relate one perception to another. Thought and Understanding are easier to identify since Plato is more clear about them. plato stated that Thought is the reasoning that utilises images and undemonstrated assumptions. For instance in geometry the use of diagrams and triangles in order to prove theorems the need to use certain axioms that are taken as true without any proof. Understanding makes the axioms unnecessary by basing the entire body of knowledge on a single universal proposition. By Hussein Zayour We have been discussing Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics for the past week in class. We started by saying that ethics to Aristotle is about action. People should be taught ethics and should act according to these ethics too; it is not only sufficient to learn and know about these ethics, but people should also act ethically to reach those ethics. For as we said in class that it is not just important to see a target on a field, to that everyone can see it, but what is more important is to hit the target; we should act in the way that will take us to our goals. This leads us to the discussion about good, and to that it is not only important to find the good, but it is also important to find the way that makes us able to integrate this good in our lives and actions. Then we discussed how Plato claimed the existence of only one form of good, one that all goods are related to, and which is unique to all goods in which all goods will feel the same like it to a certain extent. However, this claim can be counter argued against by the fact that good is relative. Our account of this science will be adequate if it achieves such clarity as the subject- matter allows; for the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions, any more than in all products of handicraft (Book 1, ch.3). This quote takes into account what we said in class about how the study of good can never be precise and can never have a unique code or rule due to the diversity of human kind. What seems good to someone might be bad for another. Aristotle argues that it is dangerous to be too specific in the knowledge of the good, to that can stiffen the flexibility of goodness and thus it will no longer fit all people. This is where we stated the particular wisdom, as it says that one should act in the good way that suites a situation at hand, and thus there can be no book that states precisely a unique act that one can generalize on a bunch of situations; every situation is unique and thus needs a unique act of good that suites it. Then we jumped to the discussion of Aristotle’s good. We started by saying that good is all about activity, for that the good is the perfect form of activity of a certain body. And here lye the difference between Plato’s forms that are found in another world and Aristotle’s that are in this life and are the forms of perfect activity. Thus the good for human beings is the perfect form of human activity, the activity of both the body and the mind. The body for Aristotle is important for the perfect activity along with the mind and soul, unlike Plato that neglects the physical body. Human activities aim at ends which humans consider good, and this led to the distinction of two types of activities and ends. One of which is the activity that is the end of itself, and the other is one which its end comes when the activity itself is done. For example, someone playing the piano keeps on practicing the piano to get better, but when he gets better he keeps on playing to stay at this level he achieved and does not stop to say I am better now so I will stop, thus this act of playing the piano is itself its own end. On the other hand, the activity of building a house gets to its end when the house is complete, and thus activity of building stops. The activity however, that is its own end is the higher end according to Aristotle, and thus this end must be the supreme good. We quickly mentioned at this point that since politics is related in securing people’s highest ends, then it must have something to do with the supreme good; it searches for this good and tries to aim people towards it. A distinction between two types of good was made: goods that are pathways to reach the supreme good and these get there good character from the fact that they aim at the higher good, and a good that is good itself, those are the highest ends. However, we didn’t find one rule to follow on relating these goods to the two types of activities mentioned earlier; we just accepted that the higher goods are related to the activities that are their own ends. In addition we said that if there are good things, and which there are since we can recognize good actions in the society, then there must be an ultimate supreme good. These goods must be existing or else we would be striving for nothing. Aristotle agrees that this ultimate end, the supreme good, is happiness. All other goods like being honored or intelligent or virtuous are all means to reach happiness. Then Aristotle said that when something is good then it is good at what it does: its activity (as argued earlier). For example, a warrior that is of a steady grip and a sharp sight is a good warrior, since he does his activity in a good way. However, what distinguishes us human beings from other bodies is our rationality, so being good in rationality is our supreme good, it is our ultimate end, our happiness. This should also be in co ordinance with other goods like virtue, intelligence… This is the reason behind the fact that the most rational man that uses his virtue and other goods is the happiest man. This quote below further emphasizes this idea. The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind. (Book 1, ch.7) A good scheme would be as following: activity that is its own end is the highest end, and the highest ends are the supreme goods. Our supreme good, the higher end, is happiness. However, good is related to what we are unique at and this is rationality in our case, so our supreme good, that is our happiness, is our best activity of being rational, and this must come along with having other goods like virtue. We then came to discuss virtue from Aristotle’s point of view. So virtue is a purposive disposition lying in a mean that is relative to us and determined by a rational principle, by that which a prudent man would use to determine it. (Book 2, ch.6) This latter quotation explains Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, to that virtue is the disposition towards a mean between two vice extremities, the excess and the deficiency, and it is not a feeling. In addition, virtue is not just a mean, but it is the active action towards this mean rather than just being in it. Moreover, one can act in a certain situation according to this doctrine by aiming towards the extremity that is farthest from him in order to reach the mean. For example, being in a moderate mood comes in a mean between utter sad mood and ultimate happy mood, so when is sad, one should aim towards being happy by doing things that make him happy and thus will reach a point where he will be of a moderate mood again, which is the mean; one should also slightly aim more towards the extremity that seems better, and it is happiness in this case.
We then discussed the two types of virtues: the intellectual and the moral. The intellectual is learned by following given instructions, while moral is learned by habituation and practicing being virtuous. Thus behaving virtuously and practicing this behavior is the way to be virtuous. It is also only after practicing an action that one can know if he is good or not at doing this action; one cannot simply decide if he is good or not at something without trying it. Then come pain and pleasure that affect our virtues in which we do bad things to get the pleasure found in them, and we avoid doing the good things that are our job to avoid the pain that is found in them. This idea however, that good things are related to pain and bad things bring about pleasure is due to the fact that we were raised in this manner; we were taught this thing and we act according to what we were taught. Finding the mean can be associated with pain and pleasure by associating pain with the extremity one would like to get away from and the other way around. Lastly, the quality of the habit comes from the quality of the act, to that a good action leads to a good habit and a bad action leads to a bad habit. Lea Hanna Doumit Sakr and Ahmad Chahine. After having defined Justice as fulfilling one’s appropriate role in his society, Socrates turns to examine what it takes to form an ideal state. For him, this kind of state can only be attained by finding an ideal ruler, one that can assemble many good characteristics into one human being, a philosopher. They don’t understand that a true captain must pay attention to the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds, and all that pertains to his craft, if he’s really to be the ruler of a ship. And they don’t believe that there is any craft that would enable him to determine how he should steer the ship, whether the others want him to or not, or any possibility of mastering this alleged craft or of practicing it at the same time as the craft of navigation. Don’t you think that the true captain will be called a real stargazer, a babbler, and a good for nothing by those who sail in ships governed in that way? Socrates and the other debaters start then by listing the several characteristics that would make a man able to be an ideal ruler, in other words, they start searching for the definition of a philosopher, and its etymology. Socrates and his disciples emphasize the idea of wisdom and truth loving: - Wisdom: they compare forms, intelligent objects, to opinions, statements based on the senses. Wisdom must not be based on the senses, but on the contrary; it should be the manifestation of intelligible unseen objects that are the roots of knowledge and understanding. Forms are the objects of philosophers’ knowledge. - Truth: just like a person who loves wine must love all sorts of wine, a person who loves truth must love the whole truth, and nothing less. Philosophers follow the truth no matter what, and do what is just simply because it is just. However, Glaucon doesn’t seem to agree with Socrates’ statements, saying that artists, musicians and painters too love wisdom and truth. Socrates then comes back around to infer to artists as imitators of philosophers, where they only love appearances, and can never see the essence of beauty, only the appearance of things. Whereas philosophers want to know what beauty is, artists only want to know what beautiful things are, inferring to the Platonic love: beauty is in the love of the mind, it is a love that we cannot see. Socrates distinguishes between the one who loves true knowledge, as opposed to basic experience or education. He proceeds by saying that the philosopher is the only person that has access to ideas ― the true entities, the forms (example Beauty itself instead of one particular instance of beauty) ―. To support the idea that philosophers are the ideal rulers, Socrates puts in the metaphor of the ship of the state: "[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship" Philosophers should also be clear-sighted, and have self-control (self-discipline): their only desires should be those of knowledge, wisdom, and truth, and not money and pleasures. He also adds that an ideal ruler should have courage in order to know what to fear and what not to fear. Socrates has then given the main characteristics of a philosopher, and for him, this is what an ideal ruler should be in order to attain an ideal state. However, he concludes that no man can ever be such, for this is too ideal of an image of a person, and thus one can never find an ideal ruler, and one can never have an ideal state. Furthermore, he says that if ever such a man (or woman) were to be found, they would soon be corrupted by society and would no longer be able to rule efficiently. Socrates argument then is that in the perfect state, a true Philosopher with comprehension of forms will facilitate the congruent cooperation of all the citizens of the city. This philosopher-king must be intelligent, reliable, and willing to lead a simple life. However, these qualities are so rarely present in an individual, and so they must be heartened through education and the study of the Good. “The highest form of knowledge is knowledge of the form of the good.” Socrates explains that in order for a ruler to be an effective ruler, he has to have knowledge, but also has to be stiff and steady. One cannot be a ruler if he possesses only one of these two characteristics. The guardians for example, are steady: they are able to stand solid in the face of fear and danger, but they lack knowledge, which makes them inadequate to undergo big imperial decisions.
In the next parts of the readings, Socrates focuses on the definition of Good, and how it helps a person to become a good ruler. By: Ryan Chami & Omar Kadi,
Unfortunately, this week we were only able to have one CVSP Class. Through the duration of the class; however, we covered the ending of Plato II – The Republic. Therefore, throughout this blog post one can find useful information regarding the Divided Line and The Simile of the Cave. The Divided Line:
Imagine that the lines were separated in to two parts. According to Plato they were not of equal proportion; however, the upper level was referred to as Knowledge and realism part, while the lower level was the referred to as the opinion part. The whole line falls under the big categories of visible realm and Intellectual realm. The visible realm can be thought of as the realm where there is light portraying that we can have an opinion unlike the prisoners whom were trapped in the cave. On the other hand, the intelligible realm can be depicted through an example, which is given from Socrates stating, “students that know math and geometry goes from the known facts to the unknown facts so that the unknown will be known.” Plato groups, according to this diagram, C-E together called the intelligible realm and A–C grouped together as the visible realm. On page 237-238 sections 509d – 510a, while Plato describes the line in the sense being that it is divided into two parts, being knowledge and opinion, that are not of the same size. One the contrary, he seems to stress deeply on the knowledge part and in my opinion it would be the larger dividend. When one sees a shadow, he/ she will not know the exact shape of the object until it is seen as whole, which falls under the category of illusion and can be related to what the slaves were going through most of their life if not all. Additionally, if one were to hear a voice he/ she would believe someone is there; however, according to Plato senses do not give us any sense of knowledge meaning this example would fall under the Belief category where one comprehends physical objects. Together the following two dividends give us Opinion. Plato sees math as one of the closest things to knowledge in this world, where the mind accesses things that are impossible to experience in the physical world. That is one of the main reasons why mathematical reasoning is placed higher along the line than the physical concepts. According to Plato the top aspect one can have is intelligence, if we are intelligent then our mind can comprehend different forms in our mind without anything in the physical world, for example triangles or perfectly straight lines. Together these two dividends combine to give us knowledge, man’s greatest aspects according to Plato. The Simile of the Cave: In the “Simile of the Cave”, Socrates is giving an example of people living in cave as prisoners, and they can only see what is in front of them. He continues by saying that the prisoners can only see a shadow from the light of a burning fire. Furthermore, he is also stating that if the prisoners can only see the reflection that comes through the thin wall in front of the fire then the prisoners will only be able to see the shadows. Leading to the assumption of, if they were able to talk to each other would they not assume that the shadows they saw were the real things? Prisoners only have an opinion since they cannot do anything but see things and give their thoughts towards how they saw it. If a prisoner were to be freed out of the cave, he will go through a series of hardships upon exiting the cave and heading into the real world. First, he will be barely able to see as he/ she will be blinded by the sun. Secondly, he/she can see his/her reflection on the water. Thirdly, he/ she can now see living things and objects abstractly. Lastly, the best feeling to the prisoner is that he/ she will be able to gaze and question the sun like any normal person living in the real world. At this stage if he/she were to go out and figure out the truth being that the shadows aren’t real, upon being forced back in the cave he would think that his friends are stupid not knowing what is truly behind them. The bad part for he / she is that he/ she will now be, in a sense, blinded by the darkness because he can see the light, but his friends can see the darkness not the light, so if they do some competition in the darkness he would lose. The remaining prisoners would now believe that the upper world had ruined his sight, and they would not even think to leave the cave. In the dark cave, it is all about opinions. Meaning that the prisoners had opinions concerning what they saw, but it truly was not knowledge. Knowledge is what is outside the cave, which is in the upper world (real world). There is a difference between one having opinion followed by knowledge than someone who has knowledge or opinion. In our reading, it is like passing from the dark to the light and vice versa. Knowledge is native in the mind of each and every one of us. If you want to put knowledge into one’s mind, you must turn his body to knowledge opposing dark. Socrates believes that we should not be born in the dark and go to the upper world, we should directly make our way into the light (Knowledge) and never go to the cave. However, Plato’s brother argued that not everyone should live in the light, because some people have to live a poorer life. Socrates argued that everyone should live in a democratic society, and that in mind unite to make the world a better place. After the discussion about life and darkness, Socrates talked again about the characteristics of philosophers, regarding how they should rule. Socrates is saying that philosophers should, after absorbing all the knowledge (light) they ought to go into the cave (darkness), so they can be enlightened to an extent and have a better understanding towards how knowledge is formed and can be used. Concluding the simile of the cave, Socrates also states that other philosophers from other states should go through the same process to have maximum potential. All in all many along with myself would agree to Plato’s quote, which states “Better to be the poor servant of a poor master and to endure anything rather than think as they so and live after their manner”. By Mohammad Ali
We have discussed in CVSP last week, the Republic of Plato, which was since the mid-nineteenth century, Plato’s most famous and widely read dialogue. The main character of Plato’s republic has been “Socrates” as always. In Plato’s early dialogues, Socrates was always refuting the opinion of his interlocutors where the discussion was always ending with no satisfactory answer to the matter investigated. In the Republic however, we encounter Socrates developing a position on justice and its relation to eudaimonia (happiness). He provides a long and complicated, but unified argument, in defense of the just life and its necessary connection to the happy life. Plato’s Republic is presented in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and 3 different interlocutors’. These four men have discussed the different notions that can make our community perfect and his individual ideal. They raised several questions in their conservation: What is goodness? , what is justice? , how can we achieve justice in our state (Kallipolis)? Which one is better being a just man or unjust? What is the relation between “Happiness” and” Justice”? .So we can simply understand Plato’s Philosophical concern in the dialogue is ethical and has a praised aim , which is “Democracy”. We have discussed in class last week the definition of goodness , where according to Glaucon there are 3 kinds of good :First kind of good he has discussed is that when we want to have this kind of good not because of its consequences , but because it is better for its own sake, which is in this case the feeling of enjoyment and pleasure .The second kind , is what we desire , both the being good for itself and the consequences of being good , and the third kind of goodness , that includes all things that we do for others and , considered painful , but beneficial . After Glaucon has introduced these three types of goodness , he gave his personal opinion that we should follow what brings us happiness , which is in this case is the type of goodness that is beneficial , and gives us a good reputation . On page 41 , we can see this clearly where Glaucon has said that “It is normally put into the painful category , of goods which we pursue for the rewards they bring and in the hope of a good reputation , but which in themselves are to be avoided as unpleasant .” After Glaucon has finished his argument about goodness, he talked about the origins of justice, where he proclaimed that a just man , are always aware of the consequences of being unjust , and that they shouldn’t follow , but in reality we are unjust , because being unjust is more beneficial for the one than being just , but yet he has to be submitted to his own society , by being and seeming just. So Glaucon simply thinks that we are going to do the wrong thing always when we have the chance of doing it . So he set a picture of a just man and the unjust man, then he said that we would see then which one is better, being just or unjust. But Glaucon agree that Justice is being just, so a just man is better than the unjust man, so he agrees with Adeimantus that justice is only beneficial if one seems to be just, but in reality he do unjust thing, because the injustice is that what brings us a good reputation, and a good life, and the just man is a simple man, who does not get any benefits from injustice. Adeimantus believes that no one wants to be just only because he wants to , so he only wants to be just because it would pay him back in the afterlife, So if we were unjust in this life, you would be punished in the underworld. But yet people are still respecting the word “Bad” and they think that if you are bad, then you can live a happy life . so the best life is to seem just and be unjust in this life time , and wait till the last possible moment to be good, and just I order to guarantee this life and the afterlife. He also blames the generations of the past, because they did not taught their kids that, justice is the best thing that one could ever achieved, because if people have been taught that every one of them would mind his own things .He ends his discussion, by asking Socrates to give an unbiased definition of the word “Justice” and introduce some evidences about his definition.. Socrates was not agree at first , when he started his discussion started to talk about justice .He begins his talk this time , but not at the individualistic level, where he started to talk about it in the large scale , which is the community , so in his opinion justice is both an individual behavior and a society one .He talked about the division of the state , which might have an effect in the division of the soul , so as we see we do different things in the society , where there is leaders, soldiers, producers, teachers, farmers ,and as a result of this division , people would have different natures and skills , so a leader would have the most acknowledged and wisdom part n he soul .Socrates wanted to build first the ideal state , which should have justice would present , so if the state is ideal it would emit justice. Then Socrates has talked about the importance of specialization, which is everyone do his own task. Specialization is very efficient in a sense that it is more efficient if one does a thing that he is quick and good at , then a punch of people who has no idea about it and by doing so people would benefit from each other by exchanging it through trade , thus strengthen society bonds and make it more just . He talked about the human nature of loving their luxuries, which will lead to a fighting over lands, in order to make our empire much bigger, so people would attack us so we need someone to protect us (The Guardian class) (In Greek it is Phulakis) . We have discussed the concept of guard dog, in which the guardians class has been described earlier in the republic (page 64-66) as a guard dog , who hates everything that doesn’t know , so just as the guard dog they would attack foreigners , but not their masters , so eventually a guardians must have a knowledge , like a Philosopher king. Also we have talked about what did Socrates and his interlocutors did after they build their perfect state , that is formed of three classes :The philosopher class(rulers),Auxiliaries(Soldiers) and the producer(workers), in which the minor superior class(best) is the philosophers and the majority inferior class(worst) is the producers .Then the great philosopher , Socrates, has said that there are four important qualities(on page 131) “I think we shall probably find what we want as follows. If we have found it properly, our state is presumably perfect, and then it will obviously have the qualities of wisdom, courage, self-discipline and justice.” They first went to find where is wisdom stand, so they built first an opinion that if our state is wise, then it might have a good judging on things, and if we are good at judging then we are acknowledged. Then Socrates said that we have many different kinds of knowledge in our city, so we can’t say that a carpenter is wise, because he has knowledge of making furniture; he is just good or wise, so Socrates sum up his argument about wisdom by saying that “the state founded on natural principles is wise as a whole in virtue of the knowledge inherent in its smallest constituent part class , which exercise authority over the rest” (page 132), thus wisdom belongs to the upper class . Then they went to seek courage , that make them call their city brave, so Socrates said that courage should lie in a class , In which they are coward about some things and brave in the others, thus basically they should know how to protect their state from any foreign attack , and they all approved Socrates opinion that courage is a quality of being brave and protect the city , and they all agree that it should lie in the auxiliaries class , because of their knowledge in war field and their brave . Then Socrates went to define what is self-discipline , so he started his argument , by simply saying that self-discipline is a kind of order , that controls over our desires , so mainly” being a master of oneself”, but the concept of master of yourself is mainly a struggle in one’s personality , that leads to the control of the worse element over the better one , so we must get rid of this concept .Then Socrates said that we know that the greatest number of desires is mainly present in woman ,slaves and child ,while the moderate desires is present in the superior minority , so we can see that the desires of less respected class is controlled by wisdom and desires of the minority class . Socrates sum up everything by saying that self-discipline is being the master of your desires and the master of your own wisdom and this quality lies in the upper and lower class , where there is a harmony between these classes in order to achieve self-discipline By achieving these qualities in our state, we can simply find the leftover in our state, which is justice that need a harmony between all these qualities in order to reach, because if we are wise, then we can reach self-discipline and being disciplined we will achieve justice in our state and if we were courage, then we would not allow injustice in our state. By Jad Hallal
The Republic was the subject discussed in class this week. Different aspects and principles were presented in the text. The case of justice was deeply investigated in the text in the first part of the reading, and it continued to be the main subject of discussion throughout the text. In the second part, Socrates and the other individuals investigating with him the case of justice tried to point out the main factors that are necessary to build a society. This society is a healthy society because it satisfies the needs of its individuals. The other individuals involved in the discussion are Glaucon and Adeimantus. One main aspect of the book to keep in mind which we discussed is that Plato does not give answers immediately, but he keeps asking questions and debating. Glaucon gives his view on the case of justice and injustice. As mentioned in the book, Glaucon argues that justice, or morality, is merely a matter of convenience. Glaucon believes that there are three kinds of good which are:
Adeimantus supports the argument of Glaucon. He believes people support justice not for its sake but for its benefits. He states the common situation in which people respect the bad man and call him happy while they despise the poor and powerless even if this poor man is better. The debate focused on injustice as an origin of justice. After Adeimantus, Socrates presents an easier way to study things. He believes that it is easier to study things on a large scale than on a small, and he therefore suggests studying justice in the community and then applying the conclusions to the individual. Socrates first states the two principles of any society. The first principle is mutual need because people need each other. The second principle is the difference in aptitude between people. Each individual can excel in one skill and does what he naturally fits to do. This principle is related to the specialization in jobs. Socrates then states the five main economic classes to build a simple economic structure of a society. These five classes are:
The three main needs of people are food, shelter, and clothing. This shows that a simple society must consist of four or five individuals, a farmer, a builder, a weaver, and a shoemaker. However, the principle of specialization and the focus on quantity and quality require having more individuals. These include smiths, craftsmen, cowherds, and shepherds among others. Another important aspect is the need for imports. Therefore, there must be an increase in the number of farmers and other workers to produce enough for the society and other states. The need for exports and imports also requires agents and merchants. This expanded economy will require a market and a currency. Overall, the city will expand, and it will need doctors and artists. Doctors will be needed because of the luxuries the city needs since Glaucon said that the city will need luxuries. An additional class is needed for the society civilized society. This class is the class of guardians which are the soldiers and protectors of the city. The guardians must have several characteristics that are present in a watch dog. Socrates said,” Don’t you think that the natural qualities needed in a well bred watch dog have a certain similarity to those which a good young man needs for Guardian duty?” These characteristics are keen perceptions, speed in pursuit of their quarries, strength to fight, courage, and high spirits. In addition to these characteristics, the guardians need the disposition of a philosopher. This quality is found in watch dogs. It represents the love for knowledge. Watch dogs are annoyed by strangers even if they do no harm, but they welcome anyone they know even if this person does not do anything kind for the dog. This was the model for a civilized society built by Socrates.
The play starts with Oedipus (married to Jocasta) sending Creon, his brother-in-law, to Delphi – Apollo the Prophet’s oracle – to seek help and obtain advice about how the plague that hit Thebes can be stopped. Creon comes back and informs Oedipus that in order for the plague to vanish, the murderer of their former leader, Laius, has to be caught and punished. Thebes relies heavily on Oedipus, their new king, as he, himself, shows great conviction and determinism to help his people once again (first time is when he solved the riddle and freed them from the sphinx). Oedipus, king, we bend to you, you power– Oedipus is shown to be this righteous king who suffers not solely for himself but for the miserable crowd in front of him as well. He promises to defend the city and find the killer of Laius and thus satisfy Apollo. But is this the case really? In fact Oedipus fears (huge theme in the play) for his safety since the murderer still runs freely in the cities. So his incentives are not entirely selfless. Oedipus curses the murderer (i.e. himself, but he doesn’t know this yet) for what he has done to Thebes. So I will fight for him as if he were my father, There’s a great deal of irony here: (if only he knew that Laius IS indeed his father and well… no need to search the world, Oedipus, the murderer is just CLOSER to you than you think he is…). And now begins Oedipus’ quest for the truth about the murder. First he resorts to Tiresias, the blind prophet, master of the mysteries of life, who refuses to talk or reveal the grim and dire truth, not wanting to inflict pain, letting Oedipus learn the truth later by himself. This causes Oedipus to be enraged (in fact he seems to be angered all the time throughout the play). Oedipus then, fury winning his words, accuses Tiresias along with Creon, of taking part in Laius’ murder (Oedipus thinks everyone has bad motives but him), which leads Tiresias to his outrage: he says to Oedipus that he is the curse and the corruption, that HE is the murderer, and that he’s the only one responsible of his downfall. Oedipus gets even angrier hearing this nonsense; he CANNOT accept being accused, and commands Tiresias to be taken away. Revealed at last, brother and father both Here, we see this direct reference to sexuality, as in other places in the text as well. One important thing to note is the many interferences done by the chorus (thought to be the voice of the Theban mass) over and over again. The chorus brings different views of things and shows the actual reflection of the characters. For example: Zeus and Apollo know, they know, the great masters Creon hears of Oedipus’ hasty accusations and comes to defend himself as he claims that he has no interest in being king in Thebes, and he proceeds with this rational and reasonable calm argument, unlike Oedipus’ brutality and harsh threats (we talked in class about how Oedipus seems less rational than all other characters, he cannot control himself. Even his intelligence must be questioned: solving the riddle and passing was simply fated on him as well). Once again, we witness Oedipus’ constant rage that is easily triggered, and his stubbornness. Creon tells him that he already is praised without being king, he’s not looking after glory or pride, and that he’d much prefer to sleep in peace than live in anxiety as a leader. But Oedipus now refers to him as his mortal enemy, refusing to believe his words. Then comes Jocasta, to ease the tension a bit, blaming the two for their useless quarrels in a land so sick. Then she addresses Oedipus, with the chorus, both urging him to believe Creon and let go of his suspicions. She also tells him not to worry about ANY of the prophet’s sayings (about how he might be the murderer in particular) because she simply believes that no force, not gods not oracles, can predict the future (major anti-religious character) and she gives an example as proof: She and Laius were told that their son would kill his father and marry his mother and yet Laius was killed by strangers at a crossroad so the prophecy failed to become true. But a question must be asked: didn’t SHE herself try to MAKE SURE the prophecy doesn’t come true by sending off her son at birth to be killed? The fact that she wanted to kill Oedipus proves that she shouldn’t have in the first place because, well, prophecies must be wrong –the thing she vehemently argues about! But hearing this story, Oedipus’ thoughts raced back and forth and he asked Jocasta to give more details about the killing of her former husband as well as his physical description. She does and, at this point of the play, Oedipus is linking the story to his own, he is anxious, worried and tortured… He orders that the shepherd (lone survivor of the accident) be brought to the palace for further questioning. He tells Jocasta about the reason that pushed him to leave Corinth: Some man there told him one day that he is not the son of Polybus, king of Corinth. Oedipus went immediately to Polybus and Merope, Polybus’ wife, to get clear answers. They comforted him and kept his adoption a secret, but still he had to be reassured so he went to Apollo in Delphi who, instead, told him about the terror and pain that a prophecy holds for him in the future. You are fated to couple with you mother, you will bring Then, Oedipus, fearing that this might happen, ran and left Corinth behind. But by running away, Oedipus was only getting closer and closer to achieving the ugly prophecy, by reaching the triple crossroad. He killed Laius and his men with cruelty (though they did him no true harm). He claims to be guilty (yet still not knowing it’s his father). Jocasta tells Oedipus not to make any conclusions and have hope while waiting for the shepherd’s arrival. This concludes the first part of the reading (Wednesday 11th March). The second part of the reading (Friday 13th March) is the most interesting part. It reflects the importance of the role of fate and how it can never be changed. As we mentioned above, anything Oedipus tried to do to avoid it would only bring upon him the same fate, it was his own undoing. As we saw, he was sent away at birth by his real parents to avoid the prophecy of him killing his father and marrying his mother, but it came true anyway. When Oedipus learns from the messenger that his father, Polybus, has died from sickness (and he’s told he can be king in Corinth but he refuses to stay away from his parents), he was relieved and so was Jocasta. Since it was prophesized that Oedipus would kill his father, this event proved that prophecies aren’t always right. However, Oedipus was still afraid of the other part of the prophecy concerning his sleeping with his mother. While Jocasta tried to sooth him, Oedipus remained in fear. And as for the marriage with your mother– Next, we talked about lineage. Oedipus discovers that Polybus and Merope weren’t his real parents. He was given to the messenger with his ankles pinned together (meaning of his name: pain), and he set him free and gave him to Polybus. Jocasta then realizes the truth and tries to call off the search since her pain was enough, but Oedipus thinks she wants it off because of her pride. He thinks she’s ashamed by this discovery. The shepherd who gave Oedipus to the messenger is then brought to the palace for questioning. Violence takes place when the herdsman resists to tell his story; however, he cracks in the end and says he brought him from the house of Laius. Oedipus then realizes the whole truth and starts crying and shouting (see description: bottom of p.232). We also talked about the pessimistic views that were possessed by the people (through chorus’ passages). They believed that if Oedipus’ fate was doomed, then they have nothing but misery to expect. This showed the faith they had in Oedipus; they trusted him and saw him as the man who has no similar. We then hear what happened through the messenger (violent scenes probably skipped for esthetic purposes). Jocasta was found dead; she hung herself by the bridal bed. Oedipus then enters the room sobbing, and stabs his eyes with her brooches. A visual description (spurting blood…) is given which reminds us of the Cyclops’ scene in The Odyssey of Homer. He believed that his crime is too great for immediate death, and he should suffer, better yet, MAKE himself suffer. With his eyes gone, he won’t see what he’s done, he won’t see the world since nothing would bring him joy anymore and after dying, he won’t see his parents in the underworld. He was too ashamed of his unforgivable doings.
Oedipus then, in deep agony, asks Creon to send him away and exile him out of the land; Creon needs to ask the god before doing that. Then, Oedipus requests to touch his daughters, Ismene and Antigone, for the last time. This was his last wish. He was afraid that their fate would be of suffering because of him; he asks Creon to take care of them. In this part, we see that women suffer more than men; for men can take care of themselves wherever they go. However, women are taunted by their families’ past; Oedipus was worried that his daughters won’t be allowed to be women since no probably no man would agree to be with them. Having Oedipus as their father would bring them shame and disgrace; thus, they need someone to take care of them. The story ends with the chorus’ final view on Oedipus’ fate: only death will free him from his huge pain.
To sum the whole thing up, Oedipus’ power and greatness are worthless now. There is no chance to escape fate no matter what. Moreover, a man carries what he’s done for eternity even if his actions weren’t intended. Oedipus didn’t mean to be a murderer and an incestuous son, yet still holds responsibility. Our hero had a no-win situation in his life. He was at first blind to what a person he TRULY is. Men are blind to what runs beyond their knowledge in the cosmos. We can never know all things, but we have reason, and we might as well use it to know what we CAN know. And one thing for sure: the more you know your capacity and limitations (i.e. can’t change fate), the more your balance in human nature (words inspired from the lecture given by Dr. P. Shebay’a, Tuesday 10th March). By Patrick Hatem Wednesday in class, we started our discussion with questions on the exam that was going to be on Friday, then Dr. Fugate gave the answers to the small quiz about the Odyssey. Now, about the History of the Peloponnesian war: Last time, we went over the speech of Pericles at the Funeral. Now we’re going to look at the Plague. The plague is a disease; Athens was the first to get hit by it. At first the Athenians thought that it was the Peloponnesians who were responsible of that disease because the Athenians thought that they poisoned the water. But when they saw the other towns around Athens getting hit by the plague they started to think what would be the cause of the plague. Nobody knew what the cause was. This passage describes the consequences of the disease. It is said that everyone wanted to live, they all tried to do everything to survive. They were dead bodies everywhere on the street. Nobody abided by the law and they didn’t care about honor anymore because they knew that they might die. And then they started talking about the prophecy, they thought it was coming true. Thucydides thought about the prophecy that it is a dearth, a lack of food. People become superstitious and they rely on oracles and they interpret it the way they want to. It didn’t hit the Peloponnesian , only the Athenians were hit., because it hits mostly ports. The people that were the most helpful (doctors) were hit the most. “virtue doesn’t pay”. The plague tells us lots of things. We see that under stress the Athenians infact don’t abide by laws. Maybe human nature is such that as wonderful people can be and lawful they can be when it comes down to them suffering, no one follows the law. After the Plague, the Athenians were losing the war and they were against Pericles. Pericles had a whole speech to boost their moral again. He discussed the greatness of Athens(it was his main argument). Pericles speaks about the people’s interest. Why should we fight for the common good? Because only through the common good can an individual get the optimal good. We then read page 158 of the book: “My own opinion is that when the whole state is on the right course it is a better thing for each separate individual than when private interests are satisfied but the state as a whole is going downhill. However well off a man may be in his private life, he will still be involved in the general ruin if his country is destroyed; whereas, so long as the state itself is secure, individuals have a much greater chance of recovering from their private misfortunes. Therefore, since a state can support individuals in their suffering, but no one person by himself can bear the load that rests upon the state, is it not right for us all to rally to her defense? Is it not wrong to act as you are doing now? For you have been so dismayed by disaster in your homes that you are losing your grip on the common safety; you are attacking me for having spoken in favor of war and yourselves for having voted for it ” People started to doubt if the common good was the best to choose. It is actually right to go through the common good because individuals will profit more in the long term. It is wrong because you misunderstood, you think you will profit more in the short term overall by protecting your stuff. We then read a passage on page 159. So one thing you need as a leader is someone who has absolutely no material interest. Then we talked about another passage. Dr. Fugate said that this power of ships is better than the power of houses and beautiful things. Ships are completely different, they are very particular kind of possessions because it is on this kind of possession that all your possession depends and if you lose all your other possessions, the ships can get you back all your other possessions. Pericles is in power, he’s leading, people argue against him. Thucydides tells us what is great about Pericles, why he can lead, is his opinions and his intelligence and his integrity; he can respect the liberty of the people. This is a special feature of a leader. Leaders have to respect their own people, and should have the power enough to rule their own people. To be a leader you should be a Tyrant, but a good Tyrant. Pericles was a good tyrant. Another theme of the book is the issue of intelligence. In the Mytilenian debate, the Athenians wanted to kill the entire male population of Mytilenia, they wanted to slave all the women and the children. The problem is that people thought it was too extreme of a choice because they had to kill off so much people, and most of them are innocent, only prisoners are not. Dr.Fugate in the end added that no one ever commits a crime thinking they’re going to get caught. So law cannot prevent crime. He was one of the first historians to write the story of the war, and he wrote it in a way that it would be an epic that would span the years to come and immortalize himself alongside the war with it. He was also one of the first historians who wrote his story with a sense of reason in realism instead of rationality. Unlike the writer of The Odyssey, Homer, he doesn’t exaggerate, and he keeps things to a more realistic level. He also explains that Nature follows the laws that it sets for itself, and that the gods do not have any sort of influence on these rules. He also goes to explain that the gods are unable to stop fate. Indeed, this book shows the human causes behind all these situations and fights that occurred during the war, and did not mention that the gods have any form of influence in this war. The book teaches readers about the general rules that govern things through history, and how we learn more about human nature, such as how the Greeks are very materialistic and always want to keep their stuff. This lead to the Greeks having to face a lot of piracy, which would harass them for a long time. As well, in the introduction, he talks about the history of Greece, and how it came to so much power, as well as the history of Athens. The idea is immortality is important in this book because Thucydides remarks on how people want to be remembered in history and not just die away like they did nothing in their life. This seems similar to The Odyssey because Calypso promised Odysseus immortality if he stayed with her, which, according to her, is what all men want in life. Immortality is also found in Gilgamesh, who the main character Gilgamesh wanted immortality after his closest friend and brother in arms died, and was in fear of death. One example in the book is that there was a soldier by the name of Agamemnon died in shame, and because of this, no one would remember him, which is what he doesn’t want. The war started because Athens and Sparta were at the height of their power, and the war would end up being very large. The Growth of Athens, and the growing fear in Sparta would later on trigger the war to break out. Athens and Sparta were different in forms of facing problems. While Athens was open, innovative, and a Risk-Taker, Sparta was usually careful and closed off. Greece were separated into different states, and thus was not a unified country. In terms of Military Strength, Athens had a more superior navy and sea strength, while the Spartans had more superior soldiers, and land strength. Minos played a role in increasing the strength of Athens navy, and this connects to The Odyssey because Minos is also included in the story. Athens had a different form of fighting ethic; they would fight for Athens, and not for their king that are governing them, this early form of nationalism strengthens their resolve to fight against Sparta and protect Athens. The smaller states in Greece were protected by the larger states that they were allied with. Before the war would be triggered, Sparta would be reminded by Athens about the Persian War, and how it was thanks to Athens and its superior sea power, that they could push back the Persians, and that there are worst people in this world than the Athenians (also referencing Persia). As well, Athens did not charm Sparta, it would show its military superiority to intimidate Sparta to not attack it. And finally, Athens would remind Sparta about how wars are costly, and that they don’t need that bearing down on them. Despite all the tries to keep the peace, Sparta attacked nevertheless because of the fear of the growing strength of Athens. Whenever a speech would be delivered to the people, Thucydides would write the gist of the speech, and what they symbolically represent. However, there could be a hint of bias because he was Athenian, and so could hide some negatives that Athens had. The story was a recollection of the war, and thus did not have any form of Romance. One negative consequence of Athens that was discussed in speech was that Athens was very big on increasing materialistic wealth, which would have negative consequences during warfare. The Athenians had to get rid of some of their material wealth to focus on the war.
On p.45, they discuss what happened to Greece after the Persians (Ancient Iran) were successfully repelled during the Persian War. The Allies split apart, with some following Athens, while others followed Sparta. They held back their rivalry until one of the states became too powerful to be held under control, and action would be taken to ensure peace in Greece. On p.75, in Sparta, conscription existed to increase military strength. Boys as young as 6 or 7 would be drafted into the army, and sent to the war later on once training was finished. Sparta was known to be a war-based country, and had a lot of powerful and strange methods of training. For example, they would sneak out of the Barracks and go meet women in certain part of the city. This was encouraged by the army to test their cunning, and if they were, they would undergo punishment. On p.143, we are introduced to a character by the name of Pericles, who would make very convincing speeches for the people, as well as strong speeches to send of the dead. In a way, he is similar to Odysseus because they both possess silver tongues that would be used to convince lots of people to be on their side. Some of his speeches included things such as how the traditions and inheritance of the city is very important, and worth fighting for, as well as praises to the city, and the dead, and how people should fight for them. |
AuthorThis is created by the Students of CVSP 201 Archives
May 2015
Categories |