-In Raphael's fresco The School of Athens (1511), Aristotle and Plato are featured prominently (among the other famous Greek philosophers).
-Plato's hand is pointing up towards the heavens (thought to be a reference to his abstract theory of Forms), whereas Aristotle's hand is facing palm-down towards the ground (thought to be a reference to Aristotle wanting to focus on the "here and now" and a more "scientific" approach to philosophy and logic).
-Of course, this is, as always, kind of an oversimplification and popular misconception when comparing these two.
-So, while people sometimes get confused about how much they differ, they definitely have a clear difference of opinion regarding the concept of "substance" (ousia), i.e. that which is.
-This isn't really a term that's associated with Plato because Plato didn't seem to care very much about using specific terminology and shit because he only cared if the concepts were clear. However, Aristotle cared very much about terms and definitions and ousia is a term that is central to Aristotle's teachings.
-According to Plato, the Forms are the only thing that's really real and everything else is an object of opinion. However, according to Aristotle, the Forms don't exist and that what is truly real are the concrete objects around us.
-Two of his works that discuss ousia explicity are Categories and Metaphysics.
-Categories
-Every "thing" that can be observed by humans can fit into at least one of 10 categories (in order of importance)
-Ousia (Substance)
-The most fundamental of the categories; every "thing" falls into this category because something has to exist in order for it to "be"! THIS is where "being" starts; things are NOT derived from the Forms (like Plato argued). Objects (in the philosophical sense) are "primary", not derivative.
-For example, "beauty" comes from beautiful things. If beautiful things didn't exist, then we wouldn't have a concept of "beauty".
-Plato also argued that "true beings" are eternal and unchanging; Aristotle, of course, refutes this by arguing that everything is subject to change and that these changes just correspond to different categories.
-The nine other different categories are all predicated on the first- ousia.
-Aristotle argues that if the Forms are truly separate from the things that they're associated with, then Forms can't really have an influence on these things.
-Aristotle also attacks the theory of the Forms by pointing out that Plato's implied that the Forms are both universal AND particular, which doesn't really make sense.
-Aristotle also argues in Ethics that Plato's "goodness" Form doesn't make any sense, either, because there are too many ways that things can be "good"! There is no one idea of "goodness" that the Form can embody.
-Metaphysics- Aristotle's most complex and difficult work.
-Unclear as to if this is a collection of some of his other works or that it was intended to be a single, unified work.
-It envisions an entire field of "science" devoted to ousia.
-It's worth noting that Aristotle never actually called this concept "metaphysics"; instead, he calls it "first philosophy".
-Gets into Artistotle's concept of "the soul" (to be explored at a later time).
-Aristotle thinks that Parmenides has kind of the right idea in terms of ousia ("something can't come from nothing; something can't become nothing" or something like that), but that Parmenides' conclusion ("nothing ever really changes") is wrong.
-According to Aristotle, it's obvious that categories change in respect to their primary substance.
-Everything that changs involves two components- something that changes because of its nature or property ("form"), and something that takes on the change and becomes something different ("matter").
-For example, a table is constructed from pre-existing matter (wood) and imposing the form of a table upon it. Therefore, the wood that's been turned into a table is still wood (because it's "matter"), but its been changed into a table ("form").
-Another example- a baby is born because pre-existing matter was formed in the mother's womb in order to create a new human. Over time the matter (that is the baby) grows taller, it takes on a new form ("tall"). Thus, just about everything is a composite of matter and form.
-However, this creates a dilemma- is, for example, Socrates primary, or is it just his matter that's primary? Or are his forms primary as well?
-While it makes sense that just the matter should be primary, Aristotle argues that forms can be primary too. For example, Aristotle argues that ousia must be "intelligible" and that it is only through forms that ousia can be intelligible.
-Aristotle tries to explore this concept further by saying that what we're looking for when we examine an object is its "essence"- it is something's essence when we're trying to understand what that thing is.
-Aristotle associates essence with form, not matter.
-Aristotle explores this idea in great technical detail.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Thursday, July 26, 2018
A Principled Stand - Aristotle's Epistemology
-"All men, by nature, desire to know."
-Opening line of Aristotle's Metaphysics.
-Seems as if Aristotle is suggesting that the quest for knowledge isn't just something exclusive to philosophers- it's something that appeals to everyone. Of course, just because we want knowledge doesn't mean we always get knowledge.
-Of course, what exactly is knowledge?
-This is the core question of epistemology (the study of knowledge).
-Epistemology is based on the distinction between knowledge and belief (an idea first introduced to us by Plato in works such as the Meno and Theaetetus, and in the Republic it seems as if Plato is arguing that the average joe has "beliefs", whereas philosophers (who also happen to be elites) use dialectic to attain "knowledge".
-Like Plato, Aristotle sees the attainment of knowledge as something that is both difficult to achieve and reserved for elites (we learn about this in Aristotle's work Posterior Analytics (the "posterior" part of the title is presumably meant to contrast with Aristotle's other work Prior Analytics, which discusses logic and the rules governing valid arguments), which discusses which valid arguments lead to the attainment of knowledge).
-Posterior Analytics seems to be the closest we can get to an Aristotelian treatise on the subject of epistemology.
-What are the conditions in which someone can be sure that they actually "know" something?
-Aristotle says that you can be sure that you know something when you can demonstrate it.
-Aristotle covers what valid arguments are and how to make them in Prior Analytics, which is why that work is such an essential accompaniment to Posterior Analytics; you demonstrate knowledge by making valid arguments (of which satisfy Aristotle's criteria)!
-So, what are the criteria for a valid argument?
-According to Aristotle, a valid argument first needs to have two premises that have one term in common. When put together, these two premises yield a conclusion (this is called a "syllogism" (Greek: "syllogismos" ("conclusion, inference")) by Aristotle). Thus, demonstrations of knowledge are syllogisms.
-These syllogisms should be explanatory. For example: "Giraffes are land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees. Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks. Therefore, giraffes have long necks." As we can see, the middle term ("Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks") links the first premise and the conclusion.
-Additionally, in order to understand something we need to have an explanation for a whole class of things, not just one particular thing. In other words, this understanding must be universal. For example, if we say that Hiawatha, a giraffe, has a long neck because she eats leaves off of tall trees, that doesn't really count as knowledge or understanding according to Aristotle. Instead, if we say that Hiawatha has a long neck because she is a giraffe, then THAT is understanding because we know that having long necks is a universal characteristic of all giraffes.
-Of course, this gets into what Aristotle calls "accidental" and "essential" features.
-"Essential" features are characteristics that something has as a result of its nature. These features are shared with all other members of that thing's kind.
-"Accidental" features are characteristics that something has, but not as a result of its nature.
-Furthermore, premises of a demonstrative argument MUST mention essential (see above) features of the things that they are explaining.
-It is worth noting that based on this logic, Aristotle is implying that there is no knowledge or understanding of accidental features. This is interesting because although Aristotle set the groundwork for modern-day science, "accidental features" are extremely relevant for scientists in terms of understanding something.
-Aristotle actually used the word "epistēmē" for a bunch of different subjects such as math, science, metaphysics, etc., as for him they were all branches of knowledge as a whole.
-Thus, with Posterior Analytics Aristotle sets out to create a sort of scientific "program".
-According to Posterior Analytics, science allows us to acquire explanations for things. These explanations are universal and are based on "essential" (as opposed to "accidental") features.
-One interesting point Aristotle makes in Posterior Analytics is that we can only "know" something if it is true. Thus, he concludes that if the things I know can't be false, then they are NECESSARILY true; when he demonstrates something, not only will he have premises and a conclusion which address with universal and essential features of things, but he will also have premises and conclusions that are ALWAYS guaranteed to be true.
-For example, we can know that giraffes have long necks because having a long neck is an essential feature of a giraffe; giraffes must NECESSARILY have necks in order for them to be giraffes. A giraffe MUST have a long neck in order for it to be a giraffe.
-Of course, this can be challenged by modern science because we now know about evolution and shit like that. According to Aristotle's logic, the idea that giraffes at some point in time didn't exist and that at some point in the future they will most likely be extinct is impossible because all knowledge is based on eternal truths. If giraffes didn't exist at some point in the past then how could we have any knowledge of them in the present?
-A modern day update of this would probably say something along the lines of- "IF something is a giraffe, then it has a long neck."
-Aristotle also writes that the knowledge gained from a conclusion can only be as good as the knowledge of the premise(s) used to support it.
-For example, let's use the demonstration that giraffes have long necks (conclusion) because they eat leaves off of tall trees (premise). However, if we don't know why giraffes eat leaves off of all trees, then it seems like we don't know why giraffes have long necks, either.
-Thus, our understanding of the conclusion can only be as good as our understanding of the premise(s).
-Of course, this can become a huge problem- if a demonstration's premises also involve a demonstration, then we could just do this forever in a never-ending loop of demonstrations followed by premises which require demonstrations.
-Aristotle addresses this problem at the very end of the text by saying that eventually this seemingly never-ending loop must come to an end; however, it must also not be circular.
-Aristotle makes the point that every demonstrative argument must ultimately derive from a "first principle", and that our understanding of these first principles must be stronger than our understanding of what we are demonstrating (through these first principles).
-This is the beginning of a school of thought that would eventually come to be known as Foundationalism- the idea that all knowledge is grounded upon "fundamental truths.
-Of course, these fundamental truths aren't demonstrated (what a cop-out!), but Aristotle argues that everyone already knows these fundamental truths, although he dismisses the argument that we know these fundamental truths BUT are unaware of them (i.e. Plato's "Theory of Recollection"). Instead, Aristotle argues that we know these fundamental truths through repeated experiences based on our senses.
-Aristotle expands upon this by using a phalanx as an analogy: as a phalanx turns to fight after retreating for some time, its formation is restored. Each hoplite that turns to fight may seem like he is having is own individual experience, but when the phalanx snaps back into formation as a whole that is like universal knowledge entering our minds.
-So, is Aristotle an empiricist (believing that all knowledge is based on sense-experience)? It would be a mistake to say so, as the empiricists were influenced by skepticism. Aristotle believed that all of our minds were able to perceive the world as it is without any problems. Additionally, Aristotle didn't believe that all of our knowledge comes from sensation, as Aristotle was could still be critical of commonly-held opinions.
-Aristotle wanted to focus on arguing from what already seems plausible, even though it's possible that what may seem plausible can ultimately be proven wrong.
-Opening line of Aristotle's Metaphysics.
-Seems as if Aristotle is suggesting that the quest for knowledge isn't just something exclusive to philosophers- it's something that appeals to everyone. Of course, just because we want knowledge doesn't mean we always get knowledge.
-Of course, what exactly is knowledge?
-This is the core question of epistemology (the study of knowledge).
-Epistemology is based on the distinction between knowledge and belief (an idea first introduced to us by Plato in works such as the Meno and Theaetetus, and in the Republic it seems as if Plato is arguing that the average joe has "beliefs", whereas philosophers (who also happen to be elites) use dialectic to attain "knowledge".
-Like Plato, Aristotle sees the attainment of knowledge as something that is both difficult to achieve and reserved for elites (we learn about this in Aristotle's work Posterior Analytics (the "posterior" part of the title is presumably meant to contrast with Aristotle's other work Prior Analytics, which discusses logic and the rules governing valid arguments), which discusses which valid arguments lead to the attainment of knowledge).
-Posterior Analytics seems to be the closest we can get to an Aristotelian treatise on the subject of epistemology.
-What are the conditions in which someone can be sure that they actually "know" something?
-Aristotle says that you can be sure that you know something when you can demonstrate it.
-Aristotle covers what valid arguments are and how to make them in Prior Analytics, which is why that work is such an essential accompaniment to Posterior Analytics; you demonstrate knowledge by making valid arguments (of which satisfy Aristotle's criteria)!
-So, what are the criteria for a valid argument?
-According to Aristotle, a valid argument first needs to have two premises that have one term in common. When put together, these two premises yield a conclusion (this is called a "syllogism" (Greek: "syllogismos" ("conclusion, inference")) by Aristotle). Thus, demonstrations of knowledge are syllogisms.
-These syllogisms should be explanatory. For example: "Giraffes are land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees. Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks. Therefore, giraffes have long necks." As we can see, the middle term ("Land animals that eat leaves off of tall trees have long necks") links the first premise and the conclusion.
-Additionally, in order to understand something we need to have an explanation for a whole class of things, not just one particular thing. In other words, this understanding must be universal. For example, if we say that Hiawatha, a giraffe, has a long neck because she eats leaves off of tall trees, that doesn't really count as knowledge or understanding according to Aristotle. Instead, if we say that Hiawatha has a long neck because she is a giraffe, then THAT is understanding because we know that having long necks is a universal characteristic of all giraffes.
-Of course, this gets into what Aristotle calls "accidental" and "essential" features.
-"Essential" features are characteristics that something has as a result of its nature. These features are shared with all other members of that thing's kind.
-"Accidental" features are characteristics that something has, but not as a result of its nature.
-Furthermore, premises of a demonstrative argument MUST mention essential (see above) features of the things that they are explaining.
-It is worth noting that based on this logic, Aristotle is implying that there is no knowledge or understanding of accidental features. This is interesting because although Aristotle set the groundwork for modern-day science, "accidental features" are extremely relevant for scientists in terms of understanding something.
-Aristotle actually used the word "epistēmē" for a bunch of different subjects such as math, science, metaphysics, etc., as for him they were all branches of knowledge as a whole.
-Thus, with Posterior Analytics Aristotle sets out to create a sort of scientific "program".
-According to Posterior Analytics, science allows us to acquire explanations for things. These explanations are universal and are based on "essential" (as opposed to "accidental") features.
-One interesting point Aristotle makes in Posterior Analytics is that we can only "know" something if it is true. Thus, he concludes that if the things I know can't be false, then they are NECESSARILY true; when he demonstrates something, not only will he have premises and a conclusion which address with universal and essential features of things, but he will also have premises and conclusions that are ALWAYS guaranteed to be true.
-For example, we can know that giraffes have long necks because having a long neck is an essential feature of a giraffe; giraffes must NECESSARILY have necks in order for them to be giraffes. A giraffe MUST have a long neck in order for it to be a giraffe.
-Of course, this can be challenged by modern science because we now know about evolution and shit like that. According to Aristotle's logic, the idea that giraffes at some point in time didn't exist and that at some point in the future they will most likely be extinct is impossible because all knowledge is based on eternal truths. If giraffes didn't exist at some point in the past then how could we have any knowledge of them in the present?
-A modern day update of this would probably say something along the lines of- "IF something is a giraffe, then it has a long neck."
-Aristotle also writes that the knowledge gained from a conclusion can only be as good as the knowledge of the premise(s) used to support it.
-For example, let's use the demonstration that giraffes have long necks (conclusion) because they eat leaves off of tall trees (premise). However, if we don't know why giraffes eat leaves off of all trees, then it seems like we don't know why giraffes have long necks, either.
-Thus, our understanding of the conclusion can only be as good as our understanding of the premise(s).
-Of course, this can become a huge problem- if a demonstration's premises also involve a demonstration, then we could just do this forever in a never-ending loop of demonstrations followed by premises which require demonstrations.
-Aristotle addresses this problem at the very end of the text by saying that eventually this seemingly never-ending loop must come to an end; however, it must also not be circular.
-Aristotle makes the point that every demonstrative argument must ultimately derive from a "first principle", and that our understanding of these first principles must be stronger than our understanding of what we are demonstrating (through these first principles).
-This is the beginning of a school of thought that would eventually come to be known as Foundationalism- the idea that all knowledge is grounded upon "fundamental truths.
-Of course, these fundamental truths aren't demonstrated (what a cop-out!), but Aristotle argues that everyone already knows these fundamental truths, although he dismisses the argument that we know these fundamental truths BUT are unaware of them (i.e. Plato's "Theory of Recollection"). Instead, Aristotle argues that we know these fundamental truths through repeated experiences based on our senses.
-Aristotle expands upon this by using a phalanx as an analogy: as a phalanx turns to fight after retreating for some time, its formation is restored. Each hoplite that turns to fight may seem like he is having is own individual experience, but when the phalanx snaps back into formation as a whole that is like universal knowledge entering our minds.
-So, is Aristotle an empiricist (believing that all knowledge is based on sense-experience)? It would be a mistake to say so, as the empiricists were influenced by skepticism. Aristotle believed that all of our minds were able to perceive the world as it is without any problems. Additionally, Aristotle didn't believe that all of our knowledge comes from sensation, as Aristotle was could still be critical of commonly-held opinions.
-Aristotle wanted to focus on arguing from what already seems plausible, even though it's possible that what may seem plausible can ultimately be proven wrong.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
The Philosopher's Toolkit - Aristotle's Logical Works
-Back in Antiquity, "logic" was considered to be a "tool" or "instrument" for philosophy, but not an actual part of philosophy itself.
-Aristotle's works on logic are referred to as "The Organon" ("The Tool" or "The Instrument").
-Includes 6 works:
-"Categories"
-"On Interpretation"
-"Prior Analytics"
-"Posterior Analytics"
-"Topics"
-"Sophistical Refutations"
-Additionally, there are two other surviving works that we have (but are not included in the Organon, although they do involve logic)- "The Rhetoric" and "The Poetics".
-"Prior Analytics" is the only one that deals with logic in terms of how we would understand it today.
-It analyzes the forms of logic separate from their content. For example, "If every A=B and every B=C, then every A=C."
-"Categories"- comes from the Greek word "katēgoria" ("blame", "statement", or "accusation"), but Aristotle uses it to mean "predication" (i.e. saying one thing about another thing).
-Makes points about words that are predicated (e.g. difference between synonyms and homonyms).
-Also makes a distinction between what is an essential feature of something and what is accidental. A feature or predicate is essential if it has to do with the nature of the thing being discussed. For example, it is essential for a giraffe to be a) a giraffe, b) an animal, c) have other features required for membership in the giraffe species. However, if the giraffe is painted blue, this is characteristic that is "accidental" or "present" in it. It is also "accidental" if it happens to be sick, especially strong, etc.
-Therefore, if you can change a feature of something without "destroying" the whole thing, then that feature is "accidental".
-The work goers on to provide a list of "categories" (i.e. types of things that can be predicated): substance, quality, quantity, relative, place, time, position, state, action, and being acted upon.
-It's possible that this is not something new that Aristotle came up with on his own, and is entirely likely that he learned a lot of this stuff at the Academy under Plato.
-"On Interpretation"- focuses more on the philosophy of language.
-Plato explored this in his dialogue "Cratylus" (the theme: do words have significance by nature or convenience?).
-Aristotle states immediately that words have meaning by conversation, not nature. However, not only are words symbols of meaning (but are not the meaning in and of themselves), but they also represent a thought in one's own soul.
-In fact, there is a CHAIN of representations! If you write down a word, that word represents the spoken word, which represents the thought in your soul. Therefore, verbal language is more "fundamental" than written languages. Additionally, the thought in your soul represents whatever thing in the world you are trying to express.
-However, the main focus of the work is the study of sentences that assert or deny something.
-Also makes the distinction that some predications are universal, where others are particular. Aristotle uses this concept to explore which sentences are opposed to which.
-A statement is contradictory to another if it is an exact negation of it.
-This can be confusing. For example, the contradictory statement to "All humans are white" is NOT "All humans are not white", but instead "Some humans are not white." This is important because for every pair of contradictions, one (and ONLY one) can be true. For example, either there is at least one non-white human, OR all humans are white. It can't be both; it has to be one or the other.
-Aristotle then says that with any pair of contradictory statements, one will be true and the other will be false.
-The only problem is- what if we're discussing the future? If you make a statement about the future and it is indeed true, does that mean that the future is already decided and that everything that happens has happened regardless of any choices we make?
-Aristotle's solution to this troubling idea is that any statements about the future are neither true nor false, so with this he makes an exception to his rule about contradictions.
-Unfortunately, this isn't a satisfying answer for the reader because what happens when someone accurately predicts the future? Obviously, this creates some headaches.
-"Prior Analytics"- contains information on "logic" in terms of how we would describe it today.
-Discusses sentences put together into arguments.
-In this work Aristotle introduces the concept of the syllogism ("syllogismos").
-For example, "All mammals are animals. Some mammals are giraffes. Therefore, some animals are giraffes." However, Aristotle uses variables (e.g. "All A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C.
-This stuff all may seem obvious for us now in the modern-day, but it was a major breakthrough in the ancient world and forms the very basic foundation for logic as we understand it today.
-Allowed for Aristotle to state abstract arguments clearly as opposed to getting bogged down in confusing language.
-For example, he considers the problem: "All A is B." "No A is B." "Some A is B." "Some A is not B" (to make it easier for us, let's suppose that A=giraffes and B=animals).
-Aristotle analyzes these statements and their combinations to find that some of these combos will immediately produce a conclusion. If this is the case, these syllogisms are "complete". Others need some argument to produce a conclusion, while others are not productive at all.
-This is considered to be one of Aristotle's greatest achievements and sets the stage for 2000+ years of logic (it was only finally challenged in the 19th century by the German philosopher Gottlob Frege)!
-Aristotle knows that this is still a rather limited model, so he tries to demonstrate that all productive arguments can be reduced to these syllogisms (which was later refuted by the Stoics).
-Also spends a lot of time discussing the fact that the premises and conclusions of an argument can be either possible or necessary.
-For example, "Giraffes are necessarily mammals, and all mammals nurse their young." Does this mean that giraffes necessarily nurse their young? Does the necessity transfer from the premises to the conclusion?
-Aristotle believes that if a statement is necessarily true it must always be true. However, he also believed that if something was always true, then it was also necessarily true.
-But this doesn't make sense. For example, Peter Adamson doesn't have a sister and (unless he's mistaken and does SECRETLY have a sister) he will. However, is it necessarily true that he doesn't have a sister? That doesn't make sense.
-Aristotle's works on logic are referred to as "The Organon" ("The Tool" or "The Instrument").
-Includes 6 works:
-"Categories"
-"On Interpretation"
-"Prior Analytics"
-"Posterior Analytics"
-"Topics"
-"Sophistical Refutations"
-Additionally, there are two other surviving works that we have (but are not included in the Organon, although they do involve logic)- "The Rhetoric" and "The Poetics".
-"Prior Analytics" is the only one that deals with logic in terms of how we would understand it today.
-It analyzes the forms of logic separate from their content. For example, "If every A=B and every B=C, then every A=C."
-"Categories"- comes from the Greek word "katēgoria" ("blame", "statement", or "accusation"), but Aristotle uses it to mean "predication" (i.e. saying one thing about another thing).
-Makes points about words that are predicated (e.g. difference between synonyms and homonyms).
-Also makes a distinction between what is an essential feature of something and what is accidental. A feature or predicate is essential if it has to do with the nature of the thing being discussed. For example, it is essential for a giraffe to be a) a giraffe, b) an animal, c) have other features required for membership in the giraffe species. However, if the giraffe is painted blue, this is characteristic that is "accidental" or "present" in it. It is also "accidental" if it happens to be sick, especially strong, etc.
-Therefore, if you can change a feature of something without "destroying" the whole thing, then that feature is "accidental".
-The work goers on to provide a list of "categories" (i.e. types of things that can be predicated): substance, quality, quantity, relative, place, time, position, state, action, and being acted upon.
-It's possible that this is not something new that Aristotle came up with on his own, and is entirely likely that he learned a lot of this stuff at the Academy under Plato.
-"On Interpretation"- focuses more on the philosophy of language.
-Plato explored this in his dialogue "Cratylus" (the theme: do words have significance by nature or convenience?).
-Aristotle states immediately that words have meaning by conversation, not nature. However, not only are words symbols of meaning (but are not the meaning in and of themselves), but they also represent a thought in one's own soul.
-In fact, there is a CHAIN of representations! If you write down a word, that word represents the spoken word, which represents the thought in your soul. Therefore, verbal language is more "fundamental" than written languages. Additionally, the thought in your soul represents whatever thing in the world you are trying to express.
-However, the main focus of the work is the study of sentences that assert or deny something.
-Also makes the distinction that some predications are universal, where others are particular. Aristotle uses this concept to explore which sentences are opposed to which.
-A statement is contradictory to another if it is an exact negation of it.
-This can be confusing. For example, the contradictory statement to "All humans are white" is NOT "All humans are not white", but instead "Some humans are not white." This is important because for every pair of contradictions, one (and ONLY one) can be true. For example, either there is at least one non-white human, OR all humans are white. It can't be both; it has to be one or the other.
-Aristotle then says that with any pair of contradictory statements, one will be true and the other will be false.
-The only problem is- what if we're discussing the future? If you make a statement about the future and it is indeed true, does that mean that the future is already decided and that everything that happens has happened regardless of any choices we make?
-Aristotle's solution to this troubling idea is that any statements about the future are neither true nor false, so with this he makes an exception to his rule about contradictions.
-Unfortunately, this isn't a satisfying answer for the reader because what happens when someone accurately predicts the future? Obviously, this creates some headaches.
-"Prior Analytics"- contains information on "logic" in terms of how we would describe it today.
-Discusses sentences put together into arguments.
-In this work Aristotle introduces the concept of the syllogism ("syllogismos").
-For example, "All mammals are animals. Some mammals are giraffes. Therefore, some animals are giraffes." However, Aristotle uses variables (e.g. "All A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C.
-This stuff all may seem obvious for us now in the modern-day, but it was a major breakthrough in the ancient world and forms the very basic foundation for logic as we understand it today.
-Allowed for Aristotle to state abstract arguments clearly as opposed to getting bogged down in confusing language.
-For example, he considers the problem: "All A is B." "No A is B." "Some A is B." "Some A is not B" (to make it easier for us, let's suppose that A=giraffes and B=animals).
-Aristotle analyzes these statements and their combinations to find that some of these combos will immediately produce a conclusion. If this is the case, these syllogisms are "complete". Others need some argument to produce a conclusion, while others are not productive at all.
-This is considered to be one of Aristotle's greatest achievements and sets the stage for 2000+ years of logic (it was only finally challenged in the 19th century by the German philosopher Gottlob Frege)!
-Aristotle knows that this is still a rather limited model, so he tries to demonstrate that all productive arguments can be reduced to these syllogisms (which was later refuted by the Stoics).
-Also spends a lot of time discussing the fact that the premises and conclusions of an argument can be either possible or necessary.
-For example, "Giraffes are necessarily mammals, and all mammals nurse their young." Does this mean that giraffes necessarily nurse their young? Does the necessity transfer from the premises to the conclusion?
-Aristotle believes that if a statement is necessarily true it must always be true. However, he also believed that if something was always true, then it was also necessarily true.
-But this doesn't make sense. For example, Peter Adamson doesn't have a sister and (unless he's mistaken and does SECRETLY have a sister) he will. However, is it necessarily true that he doesn't have a sister? That doesn't make sense.
Mr. Know-it-all - Aristotle's Life and Works
-Aristotle (c. 384-322 BC) - Most influential philosopher in the history of Western civilization.
-Covered and wrote about a wide range of topics; he was arguably the first to do so in a way that covered subjects which were explicitly divided into categories.
-Born in northeast Greece in the ancient city of Stagira (in modern-day Chalkidiki, Central Macedonia).
-Father was Nicomachus, a physician of Amyntas III, King of Macedonia, and allegedly a descendant of the legendary physician Machaon and the god-hero Asclepius. Aristotle also eventually had a son named Nicomachu as well.
-Came to Athens when he was 17; he soon became a student of Plato's.
-When Plato died in 347 BC, Aristotle traveled with a classmate, Xenocrates, to the court of Hermias of Atorneus (modern-day Dikili, Izmir Province). Although Hermias was the ruler of the city, he was a former classmate of Aristotle and Xenocrates' and a good friend as well.
-After this, he traveled with his buddy (and also former classmate) Theophrastus to the island of Lesbos.
-Returned to Athens in 335 BC. It was during this time that he opened his own school- the Lyceum.
-Aristotle di this because he was pissed that he had been passed over as head of Plato's Academy (which had been passed on to Xenocrates, instead), so Aristotle opened the Lyceum, a rival school.
-Allegedly, at the Lyceum the students would walk around while having dialogues, so that's why Aristotle's followers were/are known as "the Peripatetics" (or students/thinkers who belonged to the Peripatetic School), which comes from the Greek word "peripatêtikos", which means "of walking" or "given to walking about".
-Around 323 BC Aristotle (now an old man) left Athens, relocating to the town of Chalcis on the island of Euboea (in modern-day Central Greece), where he soon died.
-He left Athens because he either a) wanted to avoid violence against him following the death of of Alexander the Great (whom the Greeks despised since Alexander had conquered all of Greece under the banner of Macedon), as it's possible that the Greeks blamed him for Alexander's success, or b) because he feared that Athens viewed him and his school as a nuisance in the same way that they had viewed Socrates and his followers (which, of course, had resulted in Socrates' executions).
-Aristotle's works- unfortunately, it looks like a bunch of his work has been lost forever.
-He and his students wrote approximately 160 political works, but only ONE ("The Constitution of Athens") has survived.
-Apparently, Aristotle wrote two kinds of works:
-Exoteric writings- unclear as to what these really containted, but contemporary writers wroe that these works were written very stylishly, so it's possible that they were meant to be accessible for a mainstream audience and perhaps even imitated Plato's dialogues.
-Esoteric writings- we have fragments of these writings; however, "esoteric" is a misnomer in this case, as these writings do not contain "hidden" or "occult" or whatever. They were just meant to be read by his students and not the general public.
-It's entirely possible that these are just his lecture notes, which is why they're kind of unclear or hard to understand. However, this is kind of unlikely because a lot of this stuff is written in a way that is complete (i.e. they don't seem like notes). The problem is just that they're very fucking dense.
-One notable thing about his works is that for a lot of them he divided into systematic subjects that form the basis for how we divide subjects in schools and shit today.
-Plato had actually kind of done this too, but he wove a lot of these subjects together in his works, so it wasn't quite the same thing. Also, Aristotle speaks to us in his own voice (as opposed to dialogues like with Plato), and there is little in literary flair or drama. Aristotle's shit is a methodical investigation into a topic, much like how philosophical explorations are written today.
-Aristotle does this because of his concept of "dialektikḗ" ("dialectics" AKA the dialectical method).
-In the case of Aristotle, it could be argued that this just means "the process by which philosophers achieve knowledge"). However, according to Aristotle, a dialectic is just an argument that proceeds from an agreed-upon premise.
-An argumentative discussion works like this- a topic is identified, and people try to find a point of agreement as a basis for further arguments. However, if no point of agreement is found, then no argument is possible. Arguing without agreed-upon premises isn't a rational debate; it's just posturing or shouting.
-Aristotle tried to formalize the strategies and rules of debate in a work known as "The Topics". Aristotle calls this practice "dialectic". He says that the premises we must accept for philosophical discussions are those that are either widely accepted OR are accepted by "the Wise" (earlier philosophical thinkers, poets, etc.). These premises are labeled by Plato as "endoxa" (essentially, common knowledge or facts). However, Aristotle doesn't necessarily assume that these endoxa are always true; instead, they are just a good attempt to grasp what is true. They are true in a way, or true from a certain point of view, but they don't capture the truth in a rigorous or perspicuous fashion. Aristotle usually compares and continues various endoxa and then tries to find a common ground or compromise. Essentially, he's trying to come up with a guide for how to be a referee of a Platonic dialogue.
-With this, it could be argued that Aristotle "invented logic" with his study of the dialectic.
-Covered and wrote about a wide range of topics; he was arguably the first to do so in a way that covered subjects which were explicitly divided into categories.
-Born in northeast Greece in the ancient city of Stagira (in modern-day Chalkidiki, Central Macedonia).
-Father was Nicomachus, a physician of Amyntas III, King of Macedonia, and allegedly a descendant of the legendary physician Machaon and the god-hero Asclepius. Aristotle also eventually had a son named Nicomachu as well.
-Came to Athens when he was 17; he soon became a student of Plato's.
-When Plato died in 347 BC, Aristotle traveled with a classmate, Xenocrates, to the court of Hermias of Atorneus (modern-day Dikili, Izmir Province). Although Hermias was the ruler of the city, he was a former classmate of Aristotle and Xenocrates' and a good friend as well.
-After this, he traveled with his buddy (and also former classmate) Theophrastus to the island of Lesbos.
-Returned to Athens in 335 BC. It was during this time that he opened his own school- the Lyceum.
-Aristotle di this because he was pissed that he had been passed over as head of Plato's Academy (which had been passed on to Xenocrates, instead), so Aristotle opened the Lyceum, a rival school.
-Allegedly, at the Lyceum the students would walk around while having dialogues, so that's why Aristotle's followers were/are known as "the Peripatetics" (or students/thinkers who belonged to the Peripatetic School), which comes from the Greek word "peripatêtikos", which means "of walking" or "given to walking about".
-Around 323 BC Aristotle (now an old man) left Athens, relocating to the town of Chalcis on the island of Euboea (in modern-day Central Greece), where he soon died.
-He left Athens because he either a) wanted to avoid violence against him following the death of of Alexander the Great (whom the Greeks despised since Alexander had conquered all of Greece under the banner of Macedon), as it's possible that the Greeks blamed him for Alexander's success, or b) because he feared that Athens viewed him and his school as a nuisance in the same way that they had viewed Socrates and his followers (which, of course, had resulted in Socrates' executions).
-Aristotle's works- unfortunately, it looks like a bunch of his work has been lost forever.
-He and his students wrote approximately 160 political works, but only ONE ("The Constitution of Athens") has survived.
-Apparently, Aristotle wrote two kinds of works:
-Exoteric writings- unclear as to what these really containted, but contemporary writers wroe that these works were written very stylishly, so it's possible that they were meant to be accessible for a mainstream audience and perhaps even imitated Plato's dialogues.
-Esoteric writings- we have fragments of these writings; however, "esoteric" is a misnomer in this case, as these writings do not contain "hidden" or "occult" or whatever. They were just meant to be read by his students and not the general public.
-It's entirely possible that these are just his lecture notes, which is why they're kind of unclear or hard to understand. However, this is kind of unlikely because a lot of this stuff is written in a way that is complete (i.e. they don't seem like notes). The problem is just that they're very fucking dense.
-One notable thing about his works is that for a lot of them he divided into systematic subjects that form the basis for how we divide subjects in schools and shit today.
-Plato had actually kind of done this too, but he wove a lot of these subjects together in his works, so it wasn't quite the same thing. Also, Aristotle speaks to us in his own voice (as opposed to dialogues like with Plato), and there is little in literary flair or drama. Aristotle's shit is a methodical investigation into a topic, much like how philosophical explorations are written today.
-Aristotle does this because of his concept of "dialektikḗ" ("dialectics" AKA the dialectical method).
-In the case of Aristotle, it could be argued that this just means "the process by which philosophers achieve knowledge"). However, according to Aristotle, a dialectic is just an argument that proceeds from an agreed-upon premise.
-An argumentative discussion works like this- a topic is identified, and people try to find a point of agreement as a basis for further arguments. However, if no point of agreement is found, then no argument is possible. Arguing without agreed-upon premises isn't a rational debate; it's just posturing or shouting.
-Aristotle tried to formalize the strategies and rules of debate in a work known as "The Topics". Aristotle calls this practice "dialectic". He says that the premises we must accept for philosophical discussions are those that are either widely accepted OR are accepted by "the Wise" (earlier philosophical thinkers, poets, etc.). These premises are labeled by Plato as "endoxa" (essentially, common knowledge or facts). However, Aristotle doesn't necessarily assume that these endoxa are always true; instead, they are just a good attempt to grasp what is true. They are true in a way, or true from a certain point of view, but they don't capture the truth in a rigorous or perspicuous fashion. Aristotle usually compares and continues various endoxa and then tries to find a common ground or compromise. Essentially, he's trying to come up with a guide for how to be a referee of a Platonic dialogue.
-With this, it could be argued that Aristotle "invented logic" with his study of the dialectic.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Last Judgements - Plato, Poetry, and Myth
-Plato (c 427-347 BC) was quite critical of his contemporary poets, even going so far as to say that certain verses would be censored or banned if they existed in his conceptualized utopian republic.
-Also said that unless the poets can prove how they're beneficial to society, they'll be kicked out!
-Plato did, however, reference poets and their works a lot in his writings.
-Amusingly, his own critiques of poetry and poets could just as easily be applied to philosophers and philosophical literature!
-Also, even though he was critical of the epic mythical works of Homer and Hesiod, he too composed his own epic myths too (haha)!
-"Phaedo", "Gorgias", and "The Republic" all contain myths of Plato's own creation.
-So, what was Plato trying to accomplish exactly if he was being such a hypocrite?
-Was he trying to negate or criticize other myths as a way of promoting his own?
-He was also really critical of the poets in their style of writing, accusing them of imitation.
-This "imitation" did not reflect his belief that their descriptions were accurate. For example, Homer has the gods say or do things that he (Plato) believed was inappropriate for divine beings to behave. Homer also has someone like Achilles insult the gods, and Plato believed that this instilled in the reader false perceptions about them (the gods).
-This is why Plato has Socrates argue in favor of censorship in his ideal utopian city as a way to keep the youth from becoming corrupted. Gods and heroes should be role models!
-This has led modern-day critics to argue that "The Republic" leans in favor of totalitarianism!
-Plato also wrote in favor of censoring music as well, as music was an important component of the theater. This included the banning of certain musical modes, rhythms, and even instruments, as he believed they inspired unbridled passion, fury, etc. He also frowned on the theater inducing inappropriate or immoral feelings in the audience.
-In a similar way of "imitation", Plato was critical of the sophists because they taught persuasion, not knowledge. Like the sophists, the poets promoted pleasure, but not knowledge.
-An imitator can reproduce the image or likeness of something without actually having knowledge of its true nature.
-For example, a painter can paint a picture of a table, but doesn't actually know how to build one.
-So, couldn't Plato be accused of being an "imitator" himself? After all, all of his works are dialogues between imitated real-life characters, situations, conversations, etc.
-Plus, he also has some characters behaving badly, immorally, etc.
-One argument would be that Plato is "fighting fire with fire"- his audience is obviously intellectuals, other philosophers, etc.
-So what about Plato creating his own myths? Was this hypocritical?
-Plato's myths are detailed primarily in "Phaedo" and "Gorgias". Talks a lot about the afterlife, "Hell", etc.
-Also discussed in "The Republic" is "the Myth of Er".
-In this story, Er is a dude who is killed in a war, but before he's buried he miraculously wakes up and starts talking about the afterlife.
-Er saw two sets of gates, each with an exit and an entrance. One set of gates led to the heavens, the other led to the underworld.
-The virtuous go to paradise, but the assholes are condemned to the underworld for many years. The worst of the bunch go to the underworld FOREVER!
-Eventually, the souls leave through the exits of both the heavens and the underworld, and journey through the cosmos. The souls then encounter the three fates, who designate the souls' next lives on earth. Each soul is allowed to choose which life (including animals) they wish to live on earth. Thus, the gods are not to blame if our own lives suck!
-The moral of the story is that we should study philosophy in this life so we can make a good choice when the time comes to choose the next life.
-Critics have raised an important point regarding the Myth of Er- Plato is basically saying that we should be good "or else", which is weird for him.
-It seems more in Plato's style to argue that we should be good for the sake of being good, or that it's better or more advantageous to be good from a practical point of view.
-An argument against this would be that Plato has already argued the practical reasons for living a good, virtuous life in his other works, so "The Myth of Er" was just an extra thing to prove why it's good to live virtuously.
-In the same way, Plato attacks poets and playwrights not because of the art itself, but because they use their art to perpetuate what he deems to be falsehoods.
-In closing, Plato was a philosopher who combined and covered much- myth, justice, virtue, the cosmos, science, argument, education, etc.
-It's been said that the entire history of philosophy is jut a series of footnotes to Plato's dialogues.
-However, according to at least one student of Plato's, there was still room for improvement. This student would go on to rival Plato's greatness, and is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, if not ALL TIME- Aristotle!
-Also said that unless the poets can prove how they're beneficial to society, they'll be kicked out!
-Plato did, however, reference poets and their works a lot in his writings.
-Amusingly, his own critiques of poetry and poets could just as easily be applied to philosophers and philosophical literature!
-Also, even though he was critical of the epic mythical works of Homer and Hesiod, he too composed his own epic myths too (haha)!
-"Phaedo", "Gorgias", and "The Republic" all contain myths of Plato's own creation.
-So, what was Plato trying to accomplish exactly if he was being such a hypocrite?
-Was he trying to negate or criticize other myths as a way of promoting his own?
-He was also really critical of the poets in their style of writing, accusing them of imitation.
-This "imitation" did not reflect his belief that their descriptions were accurate. For example, Homer has the gods say or do things that he (Plato) believed was inappropriate for divine beings to behave. Homer also has someone like Achilles insult the gods, and Plato believed that this instilled in the reader false perceptions about them (the gods).
-This is why Plato has Socrates argue in favor of censorship in his ideal utopian city as a way to keep the youth from becoming corrupted. Gods and heroes should be role models!
-This has led modern-day critics to argue that "The Republic" leans in favor of totalitarianism!
-Plato also wrote in favor of censoring music as well, as music was an important component of the theater. This included the banning of certain musical modes, rhythms, and even instruments, as he believed they inspired unbridled passion, fury, etc. He also frowned on the theater inducing inappropriate or immoral feelings in the audience.
-In a similar way of "imitation", Plato was critical of the sophists because they taught persuasion, not knowledge. Like the sophists, the poets promoted pleasure, but not knowledge.
-An imitator can reproduce the image or likeness of something without actually having knowledge of its true nature.
-For example, a painter can paint a picture of a table, but doesn't actually know how to build one.
-So, couldn't Plato be accused of being an "imitator" himself? After all, all of his works are dialogues between imitated real-life characters, situations, conversations, etc.
-Plus, he also has some characters behaving badly, immorally, etc.
-One argument would be that Plato is "fighting fire with fire"- his audience is obviously intellectuals, other philosophers, etc.
-So what about Plato creating his own myths? Was this hypocritical?
-Plato's myths are detailed primarily in "Phaedo" and "Gorgias". Talks a lot about the afterlife, "Hell", etc.
-Also discussed in "The Republic" is "the Myth of Er".
-In this story, Er is a dude who is killed in a war, but before he's buried he miraculously wakes up and starts talking about the afterlife.
-Er saw two sets of gates, each with an exit and an entrance. One set of gates led to the heavens, the other led to the underworld.
-The virtuous go to paradise, but the assholes are condemned to the underworld for many years. The worst of the bunch go to the underworld FOREVER!
-Eventually, the souls leave through the exits of both the heavens and the underworld, and journey through the cosmos. The souls then encounter the three fates, who designate the souls' next lives on earth. Each soul is allowed to choose which life (including animals) they wish to live on earth. Thus, the gods are not to blame if our own lives suck!
-The moral of the story is that we should study philosophy in this life so we can make a good choice when the time comes to choose the next life.
-Critics have raised an important point regarding the Myth of Er- Plato is basically saying that we should be good "or else", which is weird for him.
-It seems more in Plato's style to argue that we should be good for the sake of being good, or that it's better or more advantageous to be good from a practical point of view.
-An argument against this would be that Plato has already argued the practical reasons for living a good, virtuous life in his other works, so "The Myth of Er" was just an extra thing to prove why it's good to live virtuously.
-In the same way, Plato attacks poets and playwrights not because of the art itself, but because they use their art to perpetuate what he deems to be falsehoods.
-In closing, Plato was a philosopher who combined and covered much- myth, justice, virtue, the cosmos, science, argument, education, etc.
-It's been said that the entire history of philosophy is jut a series of footnotes to Plato's dialogues.
-However, according to at least one student of Plato's, there was still room for improvement. This student would go on to rival Plato's greatness, and is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, if not ALL TIME- Aristotle!
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Wings of Desire - Plato's Erotic Dialogues
-Unlike modern times, pederasty with young boys was seen as an important part of Greek society.
-Young boys were considered the "beloved", whereas the man was the "lover".
-It's assumed that physical pleasure and attraction were not necessarily mutual.
-What was the benefit of being a "beloved"?
-The lover took it upon himself to teach the beloved about adult society, along with giving the beloved political connections, experience, etc.
-Because of this, the beloved was expected to resist as a sort of "game" between the lover and the beloved.
-Plato (c. 427-347 BC) thought this system was dumb and critiqued it in dialogues such as "Symposium", "Phaedrus", and "Lysis".
-It's from these dialogues that we get the term "Platonic love" (a loving relationship without a sexual element (eros)).
-The concept of eros is addressed primarily in "Symposium" and "Phaedrus".
-"Symposium" takes place at a drinking party (lying down, drinking wine, talking, and listening to music.
-Usually at these things were "flute girls" too (prostitute entertainers).
-Everyone is actually hungover from the night before, so it starts out pretty laid back.
-Eros is discussed in a number of different monologues, by various characters.
-Best speeches are by Aristophanes (Athenian comedian and playwright) and Socrates.
-Phaedrus (Athenian aristocrat) describes eros as a god.
-Pausanius (unclear as to who this dude actually is) describes love as two gods, both called Eros, but are different.
-One is a higher, "heavenly" love, which brings loyalty to his beloved.
-The other is a "lower" love that involves only the satisfaction of sexual gratification.
-Eryximachus (doctor) sees love as a cosmic force which manifests itself in our body's harmony and well-being.
-Aristophanes says that originally humans were joined together in pairs. Some were both male, some both female, and some half-half, but all of them had 8 legs and 2 heads.
-These beings were super-powerful and ended up challenging the gods, so Zeus got pissed off and split them in half with his thunderbolts and this is why we have sex- we're trying to unite with our other halves.
-Therefore, gay men are more "manly" because they come from a body that was 100% man! Also, we better respect the gods, or Zeus will split us again!
-Aristophanes still makes an interesting point though, even if this is meant to be funny- that sex is about union, about making ourselves "whole" again; alone, we are incomplete.
-Agathon (poet and host of the party), gives a speech saying Eros is a beautiful god and blah blah.
-Next is Socrates, who recalls a conversation he had with a woman named Diotima (philosopher and priestess/prophetess) .
-Diotima believes that love is a divine being, but rejects the notion that Eros is a straight-up god because eros is a desire for what is beautiful, an if one desires something then by definition they don't have that thing.
-Therefore, if Eros is a god, then it can't be beautiful and wondrous because he/she/it would embody emptiness and always try to attain things, which doesn't make sense.
-Diotima also said that love can't be simply a desire for union, because you don't have to desire something just because it is a part of you, you can just desire something because it's "good". Love, therefore, is about seeking what is beautiful and good.
-Thus, it doesn't make sense to just seek out hot people for sex, you must seek seek out the Form of Beauty itself! Our desire for beauty is a desire to "give birth in the beautiful and transcend our limitations and finitude by seeking immortality."
-We produce children as a way to live on after we die. Unfortunately, this is not actually immortality, just as hot people are not only "beautiful" people, but actually all people are beautiful because of the inherent beauty of souls.
-A lover will try to "educate" his beloved in this way.
-However, truly seeking beauty is not just finding the beauty in everyone because of their souls, but in seeking beautiful laws in order to educate as many souls as possible.
-For example, Solon (Athenian politician) was considered to be an advanced practitioner of "the erotic arts" :D
-However, even Solon himself had not yet reached the "peak", which Diotima described as a transcendent experience in which the lover arrives at "the Great Sea of Beauty", achieving immortality by realizing immortal truths (e.g. the nature of beauty itself).
-Therefore, true love is love of wisdom- i.e. philosophy!!
-Next, Alcibiades (Athenian politician and general) arrives, and the party gets crazy!
-He ends up making a speech about how awesome Socrates is.
-In the dialogue "Phaedrus", Socrates is walking around in nature when he encounters a beautiful male youth named Phaedrus.
-They start talking about love and what kind of a lover a beloved should satisfy sexually.
-The question arises- is it better to have a lover that is truly in love with him (the beloved), or not?
-Key questions in this dialogue- Is a lover also a friend? Does love really make a lover provide benefits for his beloved, or does it give him reason to ultimately harm his beloved?
-Socrates suggests that love gives a reason to harm his beloved since the lover is expected to work until the beloved "gives in". Therefore, the lover wants his beloved to be weak and dependent, and it's also expected that the beloved will eventually be abandoned once he gets older and hits puberty. A non-lover is a real friend!That's who the boy should give his body to, not just some horny lover who's on the prowl.
-Suddenly, Socrates' "guardian spirit" that keeps him out of trouble appears and Socrates begins to argue the opposite point of view!
-He starts saying that actually, the beloved SHOULD give himself to a lover because our souls are like a pair of winged horses being steered by a charioteer.
-One horse is vicious and wild; the other horse is noble and obedient.
-The charioteer must steer a straight path with these two horses. If he is successful, he can rise up to the heavens to glimpse the gods (or Forms/Truth), but the shitty horse can cause him to fail and he'll fall to earth and join with an earthly body.
-The shitty horse is desire, which defies reason.
-The good horse is honor, which can subdue desire.
-A fallen soul has forgotten what it has seen in the heavens above.
-When we see beauty, our souls are reminded of the beauty we saw in the heavens. Some souls get lost in the trap of being attracted to physical (i.e. imperfect) beauty, but real beauty can make souls want to grow the wings of their horses again. Therefore, the boy must not give in to crude physical unions, but instead hold out for a more true, lasting union- philosophy!
-"Lysis" is a dialogue in which Socrates and friends try to define "friendship" (filia).
-Lysis is, like Phaedrus, another beautiful male youth.
-Socrates wonders whether friendships spring up between people who are alike or different.
-Socrates then posits that all friendships are based on a mutual love for something "good".
-Ultimately, this is seeking out "goodness" with something else- philosophy!
-Young boys were considered the "beloved", whereas the man was the "lover".
-It's assumed that physical pleasure and attraction were not necessarily mutual.
-What was the benefit of being a "beloved"?
-The lover took it upon himself to teach the beloved about adult society, along with giving the beloved political connections, experience, etc.
-Because of this, the beloved was expected to resist as a sort of "game" between the lover and the beloved.
-Plato (c. 427-347 BC) thought this system was dumb and critiqued it in dialogues such as "Symposium", "Phaedrus", and "Lysis".
-It's from these dialogues that we get the term "Platonic love" (a loving relationship without a sexual element (eros)).
-The concept of eros is addressed primarily in "Symposium" and "Phaedrus".
-"Symposium" takes place at a drinking party (lying down, drinking wine, talking, and listening to music.
-Usually at these things were "flute girls" too (prostitute entertainers).
-Everyone is actually hungover from the night before, so it starts out pretty laid back.
-Eros is discussed in a number of different monologues, by various characters.
-Best speeches are by Aristophanes (Athenian comedian and playwright) and Socrates.
-Phaedrus (Athenian aristocrat) describes eros as a god.
-Pausanius (unclear as to who this dude actually is) describes love as two gods, both called Eros, but are different.
-One is a higher, "heavenly" love, which brings loyalty to his beloved.
-The other is a "lower" love that involves only the satisfaction of sexual gratification.
-Eryximachus (doctor) sees love as a cosmic force which manifests itself in our body's harmony and well-being.
-Aristophanes says that originally humans were joined together in pairs. Some were both male, some both female, and some half-half, but all of them had 8 legs and 2 heads.
-These beings were super-powerful and ended up challenging the gods, so Zeus got pissed off and split them in half with his thunderbolts and this is why we have sex- we're trying to unite with our other halves.
-Therefore, gay men are more "manly" because they come from a body that was 100% man! Also, we better respect the gods, or Zeus will split us again!
-Aristophanes still makes an interesting point though, even if this is meant to be funny- that sex is about union, about making ourselves "whole" again; alone, we are incomplete.
-Agathon (poet and host of the party), gives a speech saying Eros is a beautiful god and blah blah.
-Next is Socrates, who recalls a conversation he had with a woman named Diotima (philosopher and priestess/prophetess) .
-Diotima believes that love is a divine being, but rejects the notion that Eros is a straight-up god because eros is a desire for what is beautiful, an if one desires something then by definition they don't have that thing.
-Therefore, if Eros is a god, then it can't be beautiful and wondrous because he/she/it would embody emptiness and always try to attain things, which doesn't make sense.
-Diotima also said that love can't be simply a desire for union, because you don't have to desire something just because it is a part of you, you can just desire something because it's "good". Love, therefore, is about seeking what is beautiful and good.
-Thus, it doesn't make sense to just seek out hot people for sex, you must seek seek out the Form of Beauty itself! Our desire for beauty is a desire to "give birth in the beautiful and transcend our limitations and finitude by seeking immortality."
-We produce children as a way to live on after we die. Unfortunately, this is not actually immortality, just as hot people are not only "beautiful" people, but actually all people are beautiful because of the inherent beauty of souls.
-A lover will try to "educate" his beloved in this way.
-However, truly seeking beauty is not just finding the beauty in everyone because of their souls, but in seeking beautiful laws in order to educate as many souls as possible.
-For example, Solon (Athenian politician) was considered to be an advanced practitioner of "the erotic arts" :D
-However, even Solon himself had not yet reached the "peak", which Diotima described as a transcendent experience in which the lover arrives at "the Great Sea of Beauty", achieving immortality by realizing immortal truths (e.g. the nature of beauty itself).
-Therefore, true love is love of wisdom- i.e. philosophy!!
-Next, Alcibiades (Athenian politician and general) arrives, and the party gets crazy!
-He ends up making a speech about how awesome Socrates is.
-In the dialogue "Phaedrus", Socrates is walking around in nature when he encounters a beautiful male youth named Phaedrus.
-They start talking about love and what kind of a lover a beloved should satisfy sexually.
-The question arises- is it better to have a lover that is truly in love with him (the beloved), or not?
-Key questions in this dialogue- Is a lover also a friend? Does love really make a lover provide benefits for his beloved, or does it give him reason to ultimately harm his beloved?
-Socrates suggests that love gives a reason to harm his beloved since the lover is expected to work until the beloved "gives in". Therefore, the lover wants his beloved to be weak and dependent, and it's also expected that the beloved will eventually be abandoned once he gets older and hits puberty. A non-lover is a real friend!That's who the boy should give his body to, not just some horny lover who's on the prowl.
-Suddenly, Socrates' "guardian spirit" that keeps him out of trouble appears and Socrates begins to argue the opposite point of view!
-He starts saying that actually, the beloved SHOULD give himself to a lover because our souls are like a pair of winged horses being steered by a charioteer.
-One horse is vicious and wild; the other horse is noble and obedient.
-The charioteer must steer a straight path with these two horses. If he is successful, he can rise up to the heavens to glimpse the gods (or Forms/Truth), but the shitty horse can cause him to fail and he'll fall to earth and join with an earthly body.
-The shitty horse is desire, which defies reason.
-The good horse is honor, which can subdue desire.
-A fallen soul has forgotten what it has seen in the heavens above.
-When we see beauty, our souls are reminded of the beauty we saw in the heavens. Some souls get lost in the trap of being attracted to physical (i.e. imperfect) beauty, but real beauty can make souls want to grow the wings of their horses again. Therefore, the boy must not give in to crude physical unions, but instead hold out for a more true, lasting union- philosophy!
-"Lysis" is a dialogue in which Socrates and friends try to define "friendship" (filia).
-Lysis is, like Phaedrus, another beautiful male youth.
-Socrates wonders whether friendships spring up between people who are alike or different.
-Socrates then posits that all friendships are based on a mutual love for something "good".
-Ultimately, this is seeking out "goodness" with something else- philosophy!
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
A Likely Story - Plato's Timaeus
-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Timaeus" contains theories on the origin of the universe and creation.
-Plato describes the creator of the universe as a "craftsman" or "artisan" ("demiurge" in English, "demiourgos" in Greek).
-The demiurge works from a set of plans (the Forms) and uses them to create physical imitations (our physical reality). The physical universe was not created in nothingness, however. It was created in a receptacle (outer space?) for physical objects.
-The demiurge can be considered to be the father of the universe, with the receptacle being the mother.
-The dialogue opens with Socrates talking about a conversation he had with Timaeus (a Pythagorean philosopher and astronomer), Critias (a politician), and Hermocrates (a general) on a previous day, even though most of the dialogue is actually a monologue by Timaeus.
-In "The Republic" they discuss the parallels between the soul and the city, but in this dialogue they discuss the parallels between the city and the UNIVERSE.
-Critias tells a story that he heard from the great Athenian statesman Solon, who heard the following story in Egypt:
-A long time ago, Athens faced an existential threat from an invading army from Atlantis (a nation from beyond the strait of Gibraltar in that Atlantic Ocean).
-Fun note: Atlantis pops up in "Critias", another Platonic dialogue (and sequel to this one).
-Anyway, so then Timaeus takes over telling the story because Critias says that it's important at first to hear about the origin of the universe before continuing the conversation (which actually continues in "Critias").
-Timaeus says that his account of the history of the universe is just his opinion since the physical universe is just a constantly changing, evolving place, and truth and facts can only be applied to the eternal reality of the Forms.
-Anyway, because the demiurge is a force of good, it wanted to create the best universe possible, and wanted for the universe itself to be alive and have a soul and imitate the form of a "living being".
-Also, the demiurge designed the universe in the shape of a sphere, since a sphere is a "perfect" shape. The universe was also created from the four basic elements (an idea introduced by Empedocles).
-To be visible you need fire, to be tangible you need earth, and between these two elements you naturally get water and air.
-Also, earth is the center of the universe, and the movement of stars creates time.
-What about humans?
-The demiurge didn't directly create humans, but it created gods who created humans.
-What about "the receptacle" (space)?
-We can't see it, but we know it has to exist because there has to be space for shit to move around in.
-Thus, the universe is a product not just of divine intellect, but also necessity.
-"The powers that be" do the best they can with the materials they have available.
-Also, everything is made of triangles, which creates solidarity. These triangles at the "molecular level" are made of cubes. The elements are triangles, too.
-This concept is known as "geometric atomism".
-Timaeus then goes on to talk about the soul, reason, spirit, and their corresponding organs in the human body.
-Another question- does the demiurge love humans?
-Not necessarily; the demiurge is just the designer, and is divine and perfect. It doesn't have human emotions like love and shit, as these are connected with "needs", which the demiurge doesn't have.
-This dialogue is interesting because it involves empirical observations with mathematical stuff too, which is like mixing basic Pre-Socratic observations with Pythagorean ideas (like the idea that air and water must exist in order to create a proportion that bonds fire and earth together), plus the "divine mind" theory of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus' concept of constant change.
-Plato describes the creator of the universe as a "craftsman" or "artisan" ("demiurge" in English, "demiourgos" in Greek).
-The demiurge works from a set of plans (the Forms) and uses them to create physical imitations (our physical reality). The physical universe was not created in nothingness, however. It was created in a receptacle (outer space?) for physical objects.
-The demiurge can be considered to be the father of the universe, with the receptacle being the mother.
-The dialogue opens with Socrates talking about a conversation he had with Timaeus (a Pythagorean philosopher and astronomer), Critias (a politician), and Hermocrates (a general) on a previous day, even though most of the dialogue is actually a monologue by Timaeus.
-In "The Republic" they discuss the parallels between the soul and the city, but in this dialogue they discuss the parallels between the city and the UNIVERSE.
-Critias tells a story that he heard from the great Athenian statesman Solon, who heard the following story in Egypt:
-A long time ago, Athens faced an existential threat from an invading army from Atlantis (a nation from beyond the strait of Gibraltar in that Atlantic Ocean).
-Fun note: Atlantis pops up in "Critias", another Platonic dialogue (and sequel to this one).
-Anyway, so then Timaeus takes over telling the story because Critias says that it's important at first to hear about the origin of the universe before continuing the conversation (which actually continues in "Critias").
-Timaeus says that his account of the history of the universe is just his opinion since the physical universe is just a constantly changing, evolving place, and truth and facts can only be applied to the eternal reality of the Forms.
-Anyway, because the demiurge is a force of good, it wanted to create the best universe possible, and wanted for the universe itself to be alive and have a soul and imitate the form of a "living being".
-Also, the demiurge designed the universe in the shape of a sphere, since a sphere is a "perfect" shape. The universe was also created from the four basic elements (an idea introduced by Empedocles).
-To be visible you need fire, to be tangible you need earth, and between these two elements you naturally get water and air.
-Also, earth is the center of the universe, and the movement of stars creates time.
-What about humans?
-The demiurge didn't directly create humans, but it created gods who created humans.
-What about "the receptacle" (space)?
-We can't see it, but we know it has to exist because there has to be space for shit to move around in.
-Thus, the universe is a product not just of divine intellect, but also necessity.
-"The powers that be" do the best they can with the materials they have available.
-Also, everything is made of triangles, which creates solidarity. These triangles at the "molecular level" are made of cubes. The elements are triangles, too.
-This concept is known as "geometric atomism".
-Timaeus then goes on to talk about the soul, reason, spirit, and their corresponding organs in the human body.
-Another question- does the demiurge love humans?
-Not necessarily; the demiurge is just the designer, and is divine and perfect. It doesn't have human emotions like love and shit, as these are connected with "needs", which the demiurge doesn't have.
-This dialogue is interesting because it involves empirical observations with mathematical stuff too, which is like mixing basic Pre-Socratic observations with Pythagorean ideas (like the idea that air and water must exist in order to create a proportion that bonds fire and earth together), plus the "divine mind" theory of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus' concept of constant change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)