Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be

"Each of us bears his own Hell."

-Virgil

Virgil's description of Hell really surprised me. Then again, the concept of Heaven and Hell is a subject that has always captivated, both for religious and literary reasons. Christianity has always defined the two possible afterlife destinations as completely and totally opposite, as different as day and night. Good go Heaven, baddies go to Hell, go to church on Sunday and stay out of the whorehouse and you'll be alright. This is the classic mantra of organized religion, a "carrot and stick" means of enforcing morality that still holds sway to this day (thanks in no small part to Dante's Inferno). For those that do not necessarily believe in afterlife, you have the karmic cycle, the righteousness of dharma, and the uber-spiritual effort to escape reincarnation and become godlike.

What's funny about the Roman perception of the afterlife is that, before these religions even existed or held worldwide prominance, they sort of mixed these all together to create something seemingly inspired by all ideals of spirituality, something Rome would become famous for doing. Their afterlife consists of just one zone rather than two, but is divided in to three areas. After crossing the river you enter the city of Dis, comparable to Purgatory or Limbo in that those who are neither righteous or wicked simply wander around seeking answers. It's not great or terrible, it's just kinda lukewarm (no wonder Aeneas went around it).

To the left (sinister) is Tartarus, the Roman equivalent of Hell, containing appropriate justice for the wicked and is just as frightening as you can imagine. Here are the god-defiers, greedy, violent, and the liars. To the right (dexter) are the Elysian Fields, and this is where things get tricky. Yes, it's the Roman equivalent of Heaven, but what surprised me is that for some there is the option of reincarnation, where the soul is purified of the stench of the body still left on the soul so it can be re-released into the world. You see, reflections of Hinduism. In this zone are the priests, artists, warriors, and yes, poets (suck on that Plato)! Notice that those who were totally submissive to the gods are in paradise, similar to the core value of Islam.

I guess when it comes to the Romans who it is they're worshipping isn't as important as actually believeing there's more to life than just this. It makes sense, then, that other religions are echoed in their idea of the afterlife, as it is not the theology that's important to the Romans but the spirituality. Well, there you go, please feel free to comment with questions or criticism. BTW, I commented on Treya's post, Wisdom wins.

Have a nice afterlife! 8D

Jumping Back

So, I have been quite forgetful in regard to my blogs. For this I apologize. Since I'm so late and have been sick I'm gonna jump back to Aristotle. Something that really jumped out at me was his explanation that it is most excellent to pursue a median of actions and emotions. It is unhealthy to have either a deficiency or an excess of any given emotion or action. He briefly mentioned something that I had to go into deeper thought about. He said that this median is not the same for everyone. My entire life I have felt like my sister and I have been forced into a box by the public school system. I was never allowed to skip ahead and she, because of the "no child left behind" policy, was pushed through without having learned the material. Expecting everyone to have the same median does no one any good. In order to really help children learn, things have to get personal. Aristotle states that certain goals should be made based on each person's abilities. That is how education should be carried out.

Wisdom wins

I have to say the part about the Trojan Horse was the most aggravating part of the book so far. It was one of those parts where you want to scream at the characters in the book because they are causing their own death. They had so many chances to discover the truth about the horse, but something always stopped them. When they were bringing it up from the beach Capys and a few others mentioned the actual chance of there being warriors hiding inside of the hollowed belly, yet they don’t convince the mass of Trojans to check. Also the Priest Laocoon and the Prophetess Cassandra warn against the horse, but it seems other forces are at work. Athena finally gets her revenge on Troy by helping the trick of the Greeks succeed. The Trojans might not have brought the Trojan Horse in without the sign of the snakes devouring Laocoon and his children. As Aeneas finds out later it really was by the choice of the gods that Troy fell. Athena and Hera’s wicked plan finally played out, they sacked the city of Troy.

ps. I commented on Anna's blog

Epic Beginnings

I find it interesting that almost every epic beginns with the same kind of circumstances. Normally there is very strong emotions involved, a god hs been upset, there is war afoot, the poet lets the story be told by a Muse, and there is a life-changing journey that is about to take place by the protagonist. In the Aeneid, Juno is ticked off straight from the beginning, and she is angry at Aneas because he is a Trojan. There is the negative emotion. Like in the Illiad, Achilleus gets ticked off immediately because Agammemnon takes his wife from him. Juno is the angry god in the Aeneid, and in the Illiad Apollo is prayed to, and then he gets angry at the Achaians at the request of the temple priest who had his daughter stolen from him. Troy is at war in both the Aenied and the Illiad. The Greeks are attacking it in the Aeneid, and the Achaians attack it eventually in the Illiad. So fighting is a key element in both of those epics. Homer set the standard for all epics to be written, so it makes sense that all of the epics that follow his Illiad and Odyssey are similar to his works in some way. His epic was primary though, the original epis, whereas all the others that follow tend to be secondary epics. Once a standars is set, people tend to follow it.

I commented on Anna's blog.

Revenge

Juno and her unquenchable thirst revenge tend to irritate me. First, she has a problem with Troy because Paris didn't think she was more divinely beautiful than Venus. Second, she has a problem with Aeneas because he is fated to destroy her favorite city. Tear, tear, tear...

The antics of revenge are selfish and juvenile. Juno acts like a five year old--although, I coach gymnastics for five year olds who are better behaved. Regardless, I think you see the point. In my mind, I really want to send Juno to a timeout in the corner.

What is it inside of us that entices us to revenge? Why is "an eye for an eye" our immediate approach to someone wronging us? I understand Juno is supposed to be a goddess and there is apparently this "big" difference between the mythological deities and humans, but I am failing to see the line that divides the two in this situation. Revenge seems like a way of forcing others to feel our hurt by cutting them down to match the pain we feel; it seems to assume the other party has never felt pain before. The party performing the revenge views it as justice, the party receiving revenge views it as injustice. Are not the gods supposed to be just? Wherein lies Juno's justice in her revenge? I see no justice in revenge, so how could she truly be a goddess?

P.S. Commented on Olivia's

P.P.S. Sorry this is late.

Lust in Ancient Literature

It’s interesting to me how Greek mythology continually uses the power of beauty and the power of lust throughout its stories. First we see it in The Iliad. Helen’s beauty caused a war. One man’s lust killed resulted in the death of hundreds of men. It seems to me in Ancient literature, lust is often a turning point in Ancient literature plot-lines. In the Aeneid the plot is significantly affected by the power of lust.

"What I propose is to ensnare the queen
by guile beforehand, pin her down in passion
so that she cannot be changed by any power,
but will be kept on my side by profound
love for Aeneas.”

So, let’s back up. Aeneas lands in Agenor, in a land ruled by a queen named Dido. When Aeneas and his fleet land there they have nothing. According to a prophecy, Aeneas will be the downfall to Dido’s kingdom. Aphrodite’s mission was to make Dido completely unaware of this, so that she could pave the way for Aeneas. Aphrodite decides to send her son Desire (also known as cupid) to take over Dido.

What I find most interesting is the part that says, “Pin her down in passion so that she cannot be changed by any power.” Whoa! That has to be some kind of power, if Aphrodite thinks that it cannot be changed by any other power. In Greek literature we see gods going back and forth using their powers to out-do, or undo something another god has done.

Why do we see the influence of lust so often playing a key role in Ancient Literature? Was it because that was only a part of their culture? Is there something more. I think there is a certain amount of truth to be learned from this observation. Maybe our culture does not realize how powerful lust and beauty are. It’s to be respected just like a snake that can poison you.

"When in Rome" Nawm Nawm

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do..." I found it humors how Mitchell said Rome "eats gods", Meaning they are pretty much a "melting pot" to others beliefs (see what I did there, I'll try to stray more away from Jeremy's post now and go a completely different direction).

I'm finding it hard to figure out what to blog about because everything I think about leads me back to Roman America...

There was the comment about "Hearu h bell w ad oah the chs." At least that's what I heard the first few times. haha- "Head rules the belly with the Aid of the chest."

Na, how about this…

What about the whole Nature vs. Accident thing. I never really knew a better argument than "Well God sed it in thu Bibleeee" (I'm doing my Lucedale impression)
Haha. "It's just a guess but marriage might have a little something to do with procreation" Maybe Mitchell was trolling, but I think he's on to something. Nature vs. Accident. It doesn't take a skilled Biologist to know that two men can't naturally have children. Sometimes heterosexual relations also cannot procreate, but that is an issue with nature- not the accident, or whatever you'd call it when a guy thinks another guy is cute. To expound on the purpose of marriage even more, you marry someone so you can have a companion, a helper in your purpose and an aid in your ministry. But, then again, who cares about ministry as long as you are happy, satisfied and your pleasures are being met. If my sarcasm was confusing I am saying that just using the Nature vs. Accident argument is a good enough argument in itself in the whole “Gay Marriage” debate.

Commented on Jeremy’s

Similarity to everything

The Aeneid. Well this i very much like the setting in The Iliad. Someone, Juno, gets upset. She seeks to take revenge on Aenaes for destroying her favorite city, Carthage. gods are against each other and like the Iliad, the gods interfernce with each other is very similar to the iliad. Why do we see in epics like these so much revenge and anger? it all sounds so similiar. Each revenge on each other, war, hate, its all for the same thing.... Honor, power, Kleos.
I think its all very interesting how they all are alike, each epic.

p.s i commented on Olivia's post

The Aeneid

In class Tuesday, I found that talking about Rome and the Roman citizens was very interesting.  The level of patriotism that a Roman citizen possessed really grabbed my attention.  On the other hand, when reading The Aeneid, I noticed that it is very similar to The Iliad.  The different names for all the gods were kind of confusing, though.  Like everyone else, I also noticed the fighting between the gods.  Honestly, I can't help but feel sorry for the people, because the gods basically use them for their own entertainment.  I am curious to see how everything is going to play out in The Aeneid and what we will talk about in class today.

I commented on Rachel's

Papers

I have written a lot of difficult papers throughout my high school career. I can assure you that this philosophy paper tops them all. I am really not sure why this subject was so hard for me to grasp. I think it is because I see everything through the filter of Christ, and philosophy is hard to deal with when you see everything that way. A verse that always comes to mind is Colossians 2:8.

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”

I commented on Kelsey's blog.

Same

Well as I read The Aeneid I noticed that it very similar to the greek tragedies that we've read. In Book one we get the explanation of why the god Juno is upset. And we see her try to get revenge on Aeneas because he helped destroy Carthage which is her favorite place or something like that. She decides to send a massive rainstorm to where Aeneas is sailing, but Neptune gets mad and settles it down. So they get mad at each other. So we see here that like in The Iliad, the gods are bickering with each other, and that the gods are interferring with human lives.
I just wanted to point out the similarity. :)


I commented on Kelsey Moore's.

Now I see what Plato was saying....

In the Iliad the gods are constantly swayed by emotion. Juno, overcome by hatred and acts against Troy. She commands Aeolus, the god of the winds, to "Wing all thy winds with rage! and to "Submerge their ships!" with no other reason than "a race I love not sail[s] the Tyrrhene sea."
Moreover, this emotion even leads the gods to question each other's authority. For instance, when Aeolus moves the waters with his winds, Neptune feels like he (Aeolus) has infringed on his territory - "The Sea's dominion and the Trident stern [are] but mine by lot." So, Neptune undoes the actions of Aeolus, asserting his power over him.
Therefore, it makes sense that Plato would outlaw such poetry in a city where the people are supposed to respect their gods. For how can the people respect the gods if the gods themselves do not respect each other.

Also, the goddess Venus uses deception to get her way. First of all she disguises herself as a hunter while talking to her own son, and then later on, she sends Cupid, the god of love, disguised as Ascanius in order to ultimately fill Dido with passion for Aeneas and ensure his safety. In Plato's city, virtue is upheld, and the idea of teaching children to do right no matter what, even apart from consequences is examined. Therefore, deception should not be valued highly - especially in action from the gods. So it makes sense that this contradictory literature should not be included in the culture of the city.

I am NOT for governments making laws about what we can and cannot read, however, If we think of the city as a metaphor for the individual, as it is intended to be. Then baning books from the city simply means that each person chooses not to read a certain books that are detrimental to their world view. I do believe that we should all think about what we are reading and if it is something that is against our beliefs, we should ask ourselves why we are reading it. Is there a purpose? This goes for television, and music as well. As an extreme example, If I am a christian, I am obviously not going to read satanic books and listen to satanic music. However, not all instances are this clear cut. For instance, will I listen to music about going to a club? Will I read a book about romance that presents ideas against my idea of the husband-wife relationship? For these questions there may not be a clear cut answer - each individual must decide for themselves.

I commented on Olivia's

Balancing Act

      We talked a little in class about the tension between duty, specifically to your country, and our Christian values. We have to struggle with balancing what we're called to do by those in authority and by our Lord.
      We usually think of this more in terms of the military, where people are put in situations to literally choose between following personal convictions about right and wrong or being loyal to their country. Dr. Mitchell mentioned also about the death penalty, how that balances. I know these are touchy subjects, but I think they're worth discussing. What are your thoughts on how you deal with balancing those?

Roman vs Greek Mythology

I am a lover of all things mythology related. When I was younger I tried to memorize all the Gods and Goddesses. I was never successful in this escapade but I found it enjoyable. The only thing that aggravated me was the difference in the Greek and Roman names. It was the one that confused me more than anything else. I would memorize the names of the Greek Gods and forget the Roman ones. I still have that same problem. I know most of the Greek Gods and what their roles are but when we switched to the Roman ones it starts to confuse me. I know the most important ones like Jupiter, Juno, Pluto and their Greek correspondents but beyond the major ones it all becomes hazy to me. I love to read but I hate to have to go back and read up to remember which Roman God relates to the Greek ones.

P.S. I commented on Malory's post

Tying up Loose Ends

It was really interesting to me in class on Tuesday to see how Roman philosophy and thought begins to tie into what we have learned thus far. As Virgil's Aeneid begins the Trojan war also ends and the Greek seems to flow into the Roman. I am very interested to compare and contrast the ideas within each etc. Its like we've been on a journey into philosophy which differed from the action and insanity and now we are back to visit again as already gods have begun influencing and working in the lives of the humans and making their own dislikes very apparent.

It will be interesting to see how more of our lesson on Tuesday will tie into the Roman ideas...

PS I commented on Lucas' blog...

NEW IDEA:

So I was reading Jeremy's blog and I was reminded of class Tuesday and the Rome eating gods thing...and then I read that he said that he thinks America does that.

I agree and I also would go so far as I think some churches do this. I have been to a church so fixed on making sure everyone fit in and everyone felt love that in the process they forsook the truth of the Bible and Christ which is in the fact the reason that we are able to be graced with the love and mercy which allows us to accept those who are in sin. There is an underlying global force trying to get the whole world to unify. Ie: Coexsist bumper stickers and Unitarian churches. Excuse me if anyone here has a nice Coexist bumper sticker...They are kind of cool and I do think we should accept other people and love everyone and all that but the thing is as Christians we are called to live in and not of the world we are called to live separate lives. Not in the sense of separation but people should see a difference when they look at our lives. So any church that wants to water everything down and is more focused on unity and a global religion and willing to make Jesus Christ a way, a truth, and a life is not really agreeing with the scriptures and with what Jesus taught.

I hope that made sense to some extent.

Gods for breakfast.

The thing that stuck out most to me about our introduction to Rome on Tuesday was when Dr. Mitchell said that Rome "Ate gods" wich means that they were VERY inclusive to other religions. They would adopt just about every religion of all the people that the conquered. I think it must have gotten to the point where they were willing to cast of any "belief" that they had, in order to make everyone happy.

I beleive that in some ways, America does this. We are considered a "Christian" nation, but in the name of tolerence, it has became unacceptable to stand for what we beleive. We are supposed to allow and even support things that we don't neccesarily think are right, such as Abortion and Homosexuality.

I think that we should love everyone. That was commanded. But I think we need to be careful that we do not become TOO "ok" with lifestyles of sin, lest we give up our own beliefs and standards.

Commented on Sara's blog

Get In My Belly!

"The head rules the belly with the aid of the chest!"-Dr. Mitchell

This Dr. Mitchell quote summed up the section about the relation of reason, spiritedness, and passions. Reason, with the help of spirit, is to rule our passion, which is supposedly the lowest of our emotions.

The change in the connotations of the word passion was an interesting thing. Today, passion is not always a bad thing, depending upon the context in which it is being referred to. Then however, passion was bad. Passion was a form of suffering, and represented things that were changeable. "You don't want a passionate Roman," as Dr. Mitchell said in class. Instead, you want a stoic Roman.

But is this really the best way? If everything is based on reason, obviously things are going to run more smoothly, but if there is no passion behind peoples actions and decisions, are they really going to put much effort into accomplishing their goals? after all, what do you work harder for, the boring but reasonable assignment, or the difficult assignment that challenges you and your beliefs and makes you work for an answer?

At the same time though, I can see the point of the Romans. You don't want to be completely ruled by passion or else nothing will be accomplished, for without reason you only have your whims to lead you, and they are but fleating, as so pointed out by our dear Roman friends. So a balance between the two seems to be the way to go, perhaps this is the job of the spiritedness, or will within the mix? to add that bit of passion in order to accomplish things without going overboard?

Over all, I thought that the way that words have changed was a very interesting thing to observe, and enjoyed our bonus tangent into the world of Aristotle Tuesday. But I now look forward to a journey away from Plato and Aristotle and into Virgil and the Aeneid.

P.S.--I commented on Lucas's Blog

Another week, another post.

I found the part of Tuesday's lecture on stoicism very intriguing. My philosophy paper was all about reason and emotion. - I really wanted to use that topic because I'm in love with Mr. Spock and I somehow wanted to incorporate him into the essay. Obviously, Vulcans are stoics. - Stoics believed destructive emotions were the result in errors of judgement.

Their god(s) were reason, while our God is love.

I could understand more clearly the way they looked at Christians after seeing why they would dislike Christ. Seeing the way they see what is immortal as rational and everything that is mortal or giving into your flesh as irrational. Which is why they didn't like God because he came to Earth and put on flesh - which would make him irrational. I mean why would you leave heaven to come to little ole Earth?

I started to see a little where they were coming from, but I'm still not convinced. I'm all for going with your heart or your gut. I think it's okay to sometimes forget about your mind and what is really going to be the best decision in the end.

Be happy with what you choose and don't regret any of those choices. And if you aren't happy, there is always another option.

I commented on Lucas's Post.

Invisible Fire

"You'll breath invisible fire into her and dupe her with your sorcery..." -Venus to Aeneas

Venus speaks to her son of invisible fire. What a dangerous thing to consider! Fire alone is dangerous, having powers to melt (and therefore deform/change), burn and harm, and ultimately demolish. The one thing about fire that is comforting is that it is hard to miss. It smells. It grows. It emits extreme heat. It's bright. Not difficult to avoid in most instances.

Invisible fire however seems almost impossible to escape. How dangerous to be surrounded by something so powerful, so destructive, and yet be unaware of it's coming.

What are the invisible fires we face today? How can one put out a fire that is unseen? How can one see the invisible?

The only positive aspect of this is when you think of fire in forms of a purifying agent. The Spirit of God is often referenced alongside fire in the Bible. He is the Purifying Agent of the world. And He is at work, cleansing. Impossible to escape. Silent. Powerful. Invisible.





I commented on Rebekah's blog about lies.

"I voted for Gothic architecture, but nooo..."

I mean really. Would it not be awesome to have had the White House constructed by the influence of Gothic architecture?

*imagines what it might look like*

Then again, that would probably be the sharpest building on the block -- literally.

I'm really at a loss for something to discuss this time around since we've had a couple of days of catch-up time. (Be thankful) We've now been formally introduced to Rome, the slogan "Duty, honour, country," and the four factors governing citizens: virtue, gravitas, pietas, and frugality. *overviews notes some more* We've been familiarized with the Monarchy, Republic, and Empire time-periods of Rome as well. *and looks some more* We even got to learn about stoicism!

*sighs*

So, what now?

The Aeneid. The Empire's take on The Iliad's very own Aeneas. I'm looking forward to delving into the Greco-Roman cultural movement; the integration of one great period with another. But since this is a transitional period into our next reading, I don't want to comment on any of the Aeneid yet. This blog shall act as a lawn-chair overlooking the Greek epics merging into the Roman poetry. Oh, what a sight.

*gives the Honours salute*

Back to Helen...last time I promise :)

Really Helen? You started this war with your selfishness and refusal to think ahead, then made us angry with your lament for Hector and how you should have died in his place. Now, when the Greeks get into the city, by way of the Trojan horse, you're going to hide? I almost wish Aeneas had killed you. Forget that stuff about it being the gods' fault, it's yours.
Now, with that out of the way, let's move on to something kind of inspiring. "If you go off to die, then take us, too,to face all things with you; but if your past still lets you put your hope in arms, which now you have put on, then first protect this house." Lines 914-917.
Aeneas is a warrior. He refuses to simply cower and flee the city in fear. He will fight. He and his men fought, even though it was a lost cause. They did what warrior do. He reminds me much of Achilleus, though perhaps not as cocky. He does not fight to challenge fate, or even for glory to himself (well, that's arguable). He fights for his city, his beloved Troy. If he dies, He will do so willingly, those who know him acknowledge that. He is kleos personified. He would make Dr. Mitchell proud. :)

A Few Things that Bother Me...

Hello,

For this particular post, I'm going to focus on a few small things regarding our discussion on Thursday rather than on one subject. So, I hope you can clear a few things up for me. So, here goes...

1. What did that lesson on Greek art and mathematics have anything to do with what we've been discussing up to this point? Was there a point to it that I was missing? I mean, don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad, and it was interesting. But I fail to see the relevance...

2. When Dr. Mitchell asked us what we would think if we saw these Greek statues and sculptures WAY back then if we were a typical rogue merchant or trader from Persia or whatever. One of you said, "We would know perfection..."(I have horrible memory, so feel free to correct me on this) Now, I disagree with that. I would HIGHLY doubt your typical uneducated merchant who probably couldn't even SPELL his name would say or even think that. Heck, he probably wouldn't say what I said. He probably would've said, "nice statue" and then he would move on. Or he wouldn't even give these sculptures a second thought. Now, I'm no historian, and as mentioned before, I have terrible memory, so feel free to correct me on any of this.

3. That it's considered futile for us to become something greater. This has always bugged me before, but now I believe that this is a great opportunity to throw this out there. It was brought up that it's considered funny that we as man try to imitate God's creations in an attempt to be something greater. It's always bugged me that there exists this belief that we are doomed to fail if we try and become something greater. Now, I'm NOT saying we'll be as great as God. Not at all! But surely, we CAN be greater, can't we? It seems sort of defeating to believe that we'll never become something greater. I believe we can be. Maybe not as great as God, but great nonetheless. From what I gather, we are considered to be a "fallen" race. Well, why not just get back up? I believe that we as man are capable of many great things and that we CAN be something greater. It seems odd to try and suppress that potential.

Now, I REALLY hope I'm not coming off as rude or insulting. I assure you, that is NOT my intention. I simply had a few things that irked me about our last discussion and I wanted to just...Put my thoughts out there.

------I commented on Lucas H's blog post.

The Ideal

So we discussed God's fingerprint, and how it's in everything. I found it humorous that we humans tried to imitate in our own creations as well. We use in in buildings and art alike. God, the Omnipotent creator makes something, we discover it, and then we try to imitate it. That just shows you that humans are always striving to be greater than we were actually created to be. By imitating Him, we can make more perfect creations, all we have to do is use God as a model and inspiration for creation. No matter how hard we try though we will never even come close to the perfection of God's creation. We have come up with ideals though, and these bring us closer to perfection, like the discovery of the Golden ratio, 1:1.618. So by useing this as a standard for our own creations we hope to come closer to perfection.The Greeks used ideals back in the day of Homer, and we humans still use them today, but all we are doing is imitating perfection. All we can do is try, but we will never achieve true perfection, only our own version of it. Just look at the statue of David, and we see how odd that looks, but according to the ideals of Greek art, that is perfection. I don't care where you live though, you will never see a normal human with hands that are the same size of the hands of the statue of David. So we can try to achieve perfection, but that's all we can do,....only try.

P.S.-- I commented on Treya's last post.

aristotle vs. paul

Aristotle in my opinion reaches what is possibly as far as a human mind can get to the truth without attaining it. Many things he says seem like Christian philosophies. In book one he talks about the two sides of us, the rational and the irrational and how the irrational part lives within all of us and resists reason. “the impulses of morally weak persons turn in the direction opposite to that in which reason leads them.” This sounds very similar to what Paul says in Romans 7 about wanting to do good, but the flesh don’t let us.

Both Paul and Aristotle talk about the purpose of man however, they have different goals in mind. Aristotle thinks that the highest potential of man is to reach excellence and in order to do this we must find our proper function. This is so similar to what Paul says about one body, many parts and they even use some of the same vocabulary. I find it interesting how close Aristotle and Paul are to each other in concept and yet they had different answers.

It is sad to me how much thought Aristotle put into all of his theories and how close he came to what the Bible says, but he never quite got it.

ps. I commented on Brittany's post

Lying?

In The Republic, the education of the guardians of the city was and interesting topic to me. What do they say is one of the most important things for them to not do? No lying. However, a fear of death is also forbidden. Therefore, they LIE and make Hades seem less dark and ominous. Is this not lying? Seems like maybe they should practice what they preach.

I commented on "The Definition of Good" by Jeremy Crews

Genuine Virtue

According to the Nicomachean Ethics, every person is born with the potential to be virtuous. Virtue is acquired through habit and practice. A person cannot be virtuous by simply knowing what virtue is. One must act on what they know to be right and must do it genuinely for the sake of virtue. Personally, I agree with Aristotle, because if a good act is not done from the heart, then it is not nearly as meaningful. I really liked the illustration of the "stroller lady" who rescues a child from being hit by a car. Though the parents are undoubtedly thankful for her saving their child's life, the act lacks alot of meaning if she did it just because she knew she would be recognized for it. A real virtuous act must be done with genuine care, concern, or generosity, not for one's own personal gain.

Virtue

What is virtue? We learned a little about the nature of virtue in regard to humans. If someone who is unvirtuous does something virtuous, does that make him virtuous? If someone who is virtuous does something unvirtuous, does that make him all together unvirtuous? One opinion I had in the way this worked was… Well, I kind of saw as a point system. A virtuous person is on one end of the spectrum and an unvirtuous person is on the other. A virtuous act done by someone unvirtuous doesn’t cancel out all the unvirtuous things they have done in the past, but it does place them a step closer to being virtuous. However, if they are truly unvirtuous, then it wouldn’t be long until they work themselves back to their end on the unvirtuous spectrum. The same goes for the end if virtue. But then, I asked myself about intention. If something “virtuous” is done by someone unvirtuous, is it still a virtuous act because the person who committed it is supposedly wicked? Which defines virtue, the person or the act?

On another note: Praise God I don't have to work myself up to righteousness, but by his grace I have been made white as snow. [Sorry, I'm in love. :)]

Commented on Ben’s

Middle Ground

"Some urge me to be temperate, but lukewarm will never do."

-Brooke Fraser

Tuesday in class we discussed the happy medium. Now, medium can be an adjective or it can be a noun. For instance, right now I am acting as the medium to portray my interpretation of what the medium, or commonplace, is of some understanding.

Now, I distinctly remember lukewarm coming up as a possible synonym for medium, then discussing the dangers of becoming lukewarm in each of our relationships with Christ. I feel like lukewarm is a very lackluster term in relation to what we discussed as I don't believe Aristotle would encourage us to be lukewarm in that sense.

Frugality was one of the words we decided was medium to hoarding or wasting. When you are frugal you are saving and sparing, but that does not mean you are not using. I use that example to attempt to make sense of lukewarm. So, I am not as blazing for Christ as I want to be, nor am I iced over as I could be; I am struggling and fighting for that fire. So, does that make me lukewarm? Dictionary.com defines lukewarm as:

1. moderately warm; tepid.

2. having or showing little ardor, zeal, or enthusiasm; indifferent.

There is no lack of enthusiasm, force, or passion to my fight. Struggling is not succumbing to contentment or accepting middle-ground; struggling is striving and pressing on.

To conclude this blog, I leave you with one of many definitions of medium, but one that grabbed my attention immediately: an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.

So, have you found the happy Medium?

P.S. Commented Olivia's

Virtue and Motives

The questions about Virtue were the questions I found the most interesting in class on Tuesday. In “The Nic” one main question was: “What makes virtue virtuous?” Is virtue gained by habit or does one obtain it spontaneously? Another topic was motives. Often I struggle between not taking action, and questioning my motives, or taking action, letting my motives be put aside. Is something that looks good, and perhaps is good, still good if I have the wrong motives while participating in it? As you can imagine, this makes my decision-making a hard process. Some would say there is absolutely nothing good about an action, if it is done with the wrong motives. However, others say that if the product turned out good, motive or not, you’ve accomplished good, so it doesn’t matter. I’m not sure what I think about this. Motivation is very important. In a way it is what runs every human being. I don’t think you can make it as an adult in this big world without a motive. Our goals run our lives just like food runs our body. Most people have some sort of motive. They have something they want to obtain or attain. Their motive may be as simple as getting food on the table. Motives drive our worldview. They affect our perspective of the things we see and hear every single day. There are always motives. If you think about it, motives are a running force in the heart of humanity.

P.S. I commented on Ben's post.

Happiness?

Aristotle treats happiness as an activity, not as a state. He says happiness comes from living a certain way. He's basically saying that only people from the upper class will be happy. Well that'tnot right. I mean, yea, people who have money can be happier because they can pay all of their bills and have plenty of food to eat, but a lot of poor people are happy too. Just because someone has to live paycheck to paycheck and watch what they spend doesn't mean they can't be happy. If this was the case, then I think that we would have a lot of severly depressed college students.

Aristotle vs. Socrates

Socrates' idea of philosphy was to question what is, and try to search for a higher power. He was always seeking for something more in life than what we just see. He even established that the things we see are only mere reflections of what really is (the Forms.) However, his student took a different approach to philosophy. Instead of searching for something beyond what is, Aristotle focused on analyzing and explaining what is.

Aristotle's approach is one of practicality. He dismisses Socrates' theory of the forms by stating that while the forms are "evidently..something which cannot be realized in action or attained by man" "the good which we are now seeking must be attainable." Aristotle is mainly focused on ideas that can be applied to life - to things that rationally make sense and have a purpose in our lives. What does it matter if there is some great almighty form of the good if we can never ever attain it, or see anything like it? It is this practicality that makes Aristotle more convincing and "easier to read." While Socrates makes great literature, his ideas are not as rooted in rational thought.

The Republic of Plato puts our minds in the clouds - thinking beyond, and outside of ourselves - it gives us a new freedom of thought. While Aristotle brings us back down to reality, still questioning what is - but in a more restrained way.

I commented on Benjammin's

Do We Need A Reason...?

"Virtue - You don't need a reason to help people."
- Zidane Tribal

WELL that is probably my biggest nerd moment right there...

Anyways, something about our discussion on Tuesday bugged me. There was a small part of our discussion I believe where we questioned why it is we perform virtuous acts. Is the ONLY reason we all perform(or try too)good deeds is because we all expect something in return? I don't know about you, but I actually live by that quote I wrote just above this post. I always figured that I'm not going to be in this world for very long, and since every day finds new ways to kill a man...I figured, "why not spend what little time I have in this world doing good and making the lives of others better, even if it means putting their needs before mine?"

But, what's so conflicting is that I often question whether or not I REALLY am a good person. Like, do I REALLY want to do good and help others because I'm a genuinely good person...? Or do I REALLY expect something in return for these deeds deep down? If so, does that make me a selfish person...? Yeah, I know, I'm only Human, but it still perplexes me...

----Commented on Lane's post.

Righteousness of the Wicked

 ^"15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
   the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
   and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
¹⁶ Do not be overrighteous,
   neither be overwise—
   why destroy yourself?
¹⁷ Do not be overwicked,
   and do not be a fool—
   why die before your time?
¹⁸ It is good to grasp the one
   and not let go of the other.
   Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes."
                                  - Ecclesiastes 7:15-18

When we ended class on Tuesday we were discussing excess and deficiency. Dr. Mashburn said that if we "thought Aristotle was hard, to try reading Ecclesiastes 7," so I took him up on his challenge. What I found was quite astonishing. The bible actually says to not be overrighteous, something that I didn't even know existed. Righteousness is a hard enough thing to strive for given our humanity, let alone overrighteousness.  Could you imagine what that would look like? We don't see many 'righteous' people in this day and age, so what does it mean to be 'overrighteous'? I can only speculate, but I think this is referring to the people who present themselves as 'holier than thou' Christians. By this I mean they lead people to believe that they are perfect in every way and have completely conquered their sinful nature, which last I checked is impossible.

Avoiding overwickedness however, I can understand. This one is harder for us to follow given our wicked sinful natures. We're all born with wickedness in us, and we must learn righteousness. So given our current state, I would venture to say that if we are striving for righteousness that we are doing all we can to stay in the middle of these two extremes. We'll never as humans be able to completely do away with our wickedness, so true overrighteousness isn't attainable, but the attitude of the overrighteous is easy to fall into. Basically, our job as Christians is to keep ourselves in check. Not letting ourselves get a big head and constantly remind ourselves that we aren't perfect while also constantly making sure we aren't falling deeper into wickedness.

I know this really wasn't our 'literature' from this week, but it was mentioned in class by Dr. Mashburn and relates hand-in-hand with Aristotle's view on the 'happy medium'. Hope you guys let it slide!

So, what did we learn this week? The reading listed on the Syllabus is only the suggested topic for blogs and not mandatory to write about? Ben picks up on little snippets in class that most people overlook? The old testament is confusing? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll write a blog solely based on recycled information from my paper.

P.S. I commented on Lucas' blog "Chronic Arete"

Honest

Hey guys.

So I'm going to be completely honest with you, I don't know what to write on. I was sick all last week, so I wasn't at class any and I would get really dizzy when I tried to read so I didn't get any of that done. So I don't know what I'm talking about, but I would LOVE to learn and get caught up, so if anyone has things that stuck out to them, please fill me in.

The Story V.S. The Explination

This week we have continued upon the path of enlightenment, moving from Plato to Aristotle in an effort to continue to improve our psuche's.

In class the argument came up about which was better, Plato or Aristotle. The room seemed divided on the matter, both in student and professor comments on the matter. To me, it seemed like a fairly simple matter. Plato loved riddles, and most of his work leaves you to reach the conclusion for yourself rather than telling you how it should be.

Aristotle on the other hand had no qualms about telling you exactly how he thought things were and should be. Aristotle worked the problems out for you, eliminating some of the confusion that Plato was so want to provide to his readers.

To be honest, I enjoyed Plato a bit more myself. True, I think I found myself more lost in the contents of the city than I did in the construction of the virtuous person by Aristotle. But I would rather wander the streets of Plato's construction of words than to contemplate the dryness of Aristotle's blunt concepts. In the end, it comes down to how your mind works. If you prefer to be ponder things and their very natures, then Plato is your man. If having a theory presented for you straightforwardly, if rather dryly, without any fancy hoops to jump through is more your style, then Aristotle shall make you happy.

This entire analysis could be in a way tied into Aristotle's point about habit making a person virtuous. Habit could make a person more well read, and therefore more knowledgeable and able to form an actual opinion on their favored author between Plato and Aristotle. A person can have read Aristotle, but without having habitually read works of a similar nature, one is very unlikely to have gained anything from such a reading. Without a basis to work from, there can be no understanding of what an act is supposed to represent. we can mimic a virtuous person by saving the baby in the carriage, but until we develop a 'saving people' habit, we cannot truly become virtuous. We can read Plato, but until we develop a philosophical reading habit, can we truly understand?

P.S.--I commented on Fimbulvetr's blog Do We Need A Reason...

Good and Politics in the Same Sentence?

There is a first time for everything I guess. This is the first time that I have ever heard about politics and good in the same sentence. According to Aristotle, politics is the most comprehensive master science. Politics encompasses strategy, household management, and oratory. It helps us to determine proficiency we must learn in each science. Politics contains all of the other sciences in one. It helps us to determine what we are to do and what we are not to do. So I read this and I thought to myself what Aristotle's idea of politics and ours are two totally different things. The first thing we think of when someone says is politics is political parties. Typically the Republicans and the Democrats and what they stand for. This has nothing to do with what the original politics were they stood for ways that we should live our lives not the party that we affiliate ourselves with.

I commented on Jeremy's post

Motivations.

Is virtue absolute, or is it circumstantial? Say you kill a man in order to protect someone you love. Is this justified? Do the ends justify means? Say you poison and kill 100,000 people in your own country in order to establish power over them, to ultimately protect them in the future. Is this wrong?

What about the meanst justifying the end? What if you go into something with good intentions, but you end up being responsible for something terrible. What if you are a scientist, trying to discover a cure for cancer, but end up creating something ten times deadlier. Is what you did evil?

What role does one's own motivations play in detirmining whether or not something is right or wrong? What is the standard?

Please, discuss.

Lights. Camera. Actions.

Actions lead to who you are.

If you harp, you are a harpist; to be a harpist, you must harp.

To be a courageous person you must do things that require courage. You have to go after it, too, be actively pursuing courageous acts, to be considered a courageous person.

If a person wants to be an artist they can't just call themselves an artist, they have to have proof that they can create art.

Without works, a title is nothing but that, a title.

As Christ-followers, it's the same thing. We can't just have the title, there must be proof. And I'm not talking about a slip of paper that says "Soandso was baptized on this date when they were this age at whatever church". I mean the kind of love Dr. Mitchell was talking about when he said,

"Unless you have friendship, unless you have communal love, you don't have anything."

That love, is the kind of action that makes you a Christ-follower.

I commented on Jeremy's blog.

Reinventing the Wheel

It deeply interested me in class when we brought up Aristotle's point of view on virtuous acts as opposed to the evil of immoral acts. I saw that they began to create a full circle as they became more undesirable. Each one seems to result in greed and a failure to complete purpose in life. It becomes not only hurtful to others, but it also becomes a burden to self to carry an excess or to become dry with one trait. The balance is not just an act of becoming more like the other side in order to keep the scale from drastically tipping, but it is a skill of control in order to keep the wheel from spinning wildly.

Schuler mentioned that Dante may make this breakthrough himself. I am eager to learn more in regards to this topic.

I commented on FrostedMidnight's "The Light, It Burns!" post from Nov. 4, 2010.

- Will

Pain and Pleasure

The issue of pain and pleasure is one that we must all address at some point in our lives. The natural tendency is to gravitate towards things that bring you pleasure and away from things that cause pain. This is a human instinct almost as basic as that of breathing. However, at some point we must address the issue- in order to do right, must we endure pain, and are there some instances in which pleasure is wrong?

"Moreover, a love of pleasure has grown up with all of us from infancy. Therefore, this emotion has come to be ingrained in our lives and is difficult to erase. Even in our actions we use, to a greater or smaller extent, pleasure and pain as a criterion" -Nicomachean Ethics

In making major decisions, how often do we base our decision on what effect the result will cause on our personal comfort? I will be far more likely to decide to give away my money when I am sitting in my quarter million dollar home, safe, warm, and fed, than I would be to give away the $200 bucks I'd made that I intended to spread over food, rent, and utilities. The latter would probably cause me pain, the former, pleasure. Pain because I will have to do without. Pleasure because I now have the satisfaction of having done a "virtuous" deed with minimal cost to my own comfort. This is man's tendency.

I cannot help but wander whether or not Aristotle equates (at least to some degree) pleasure with virtue, and pain with evil. Clearly however, this is not the message of the Bible. Christ followers are often called to forsake pleasure and to endure suffering for the sake of the Kingdom.

The Balance.

In class on Tuesday we were talking essentially about balance in the life ignited by our reading of Aristotle. As we discussed different examples of ways one can live an unbalanced life I really found I agreed with it. Life in the broad spectrum is a balance. One has to balance work and pleasure. One has to balance their emotions so one is not too emotional crying because a pen fell on the ground or apathetic watching as children die and not showing the slightest compassion.

Ever since my 8th grade confirmation class I've always had an interesting view of the balanced Christian lifestyle. My teacher drew a pendulum on the board and explained that the church bounces back and forth between two extreme focuses and we as a church as well as the church as a whole needed to find a balance. Ever since I have understood many concepts within Christianity and life with this "pendulum effect". For example pride and self hatred both negative with a middle ground of humility and sometimes in out effort to seek humility we bypass humility and end up in prideful self hatred.

One aspect of this brought up within class was the question of "luke warm Christianity" this I believe is a non issue. Because the balance of Christianity only includes Christians. Therefore, the the extremes become judgmentally pridefully righteous living and apathy (luke warm Christians) as opposed to non Christians and overly righteous Christians being the extremes making luke warm the undesired middle.

Did that make sense?

The Blog of Virtue

"I prefer an interesting vice to a virtue that bores."
Moliere

Nicomachean Ethics discusses quite explicitly the true characteristics of virtuous man, which is something I truly appreciate. As a sinful young man, virtue is something I strive for, it is something to attain by emulating Jesus. From a secular standpoint, Ethics, provides 3 important standards that I will review in this blog. According to Aristotle, in order to be a virtuous man I must:

1. Know what I'm doing. Christian teachings agree that, while I was created to love and be good, I am ultimately self-centered, which leads to unrighteousness. Aristotle states that I have to actively pursue virtuosity, the same way Christ asks me to pursue Him. It only makes sense, then, that attaining virtuosity should be a constant struggle and the fuel behind our actions.

2. Choose the act for its own sake. This goes back to good ol' selfishness, doing things just for yourself and your own personal glory instead of the glory of God and His goodness. It striked me rather odd that sacrifice by itself is not a virtuous act, but everyday self-sacrifice is. Of course it makes sense that, if your doing a great act just for your own glory but wouldn't do the same thing every other day, you're not virtuous.

3. Do things according to my type of character. Again, my behavior must manifest itself as a fixed disposition. The way we are affect what we consider to be good or evil. Aristotle suggests that this should not be, that there is a standard of virtue that cannot be changed and is not a gray area. As a Christian, this standard is God. I'm not really sure what that standard is for athiests, but they should still strive for it regardless as a means of being virtuous.

As you can clearly see, there are many parallels between Christianity and the teachings of Aristotle. Kind of a funny coincidence, don't you think? Anyway, this is my interpretation of this passage, please feel free to comment with accolades, corrections, etc.

BTW, I commented on Lucas Hester's post, Chronic Arete.

Chronic Arete

As I look with a blank stare down at my notes as I type this blog (close your eyes and imagine yourself in my position... wait, crap -- then you can't read this...), I'm attempting to figure out if mass charity is a form of virtue/courage or recklessness.

Alright, so what I mean by 'mass charity' is the dispensing of personal wealth without much limitation, beit material (money or things) or emotional (plugging in one's own compassion into another without a more substantial initiative).

*random voice from the crowd* "Dude, you're making no sense!"

Oh shut up, troll...

In as simple of terms as I can currently fathom, I'm trying to figure out if a 'bleeding hearts' type -- one of those hopeless heroes who wants to do something good for everyone around them -- if their behaviour falls under virtue or recklessness. Charity tends to be ambiguous in my mind relative to if it meets the 'choice' criteria required for a virtuous act. Some do the act simply for its own sake, but there are many in upper-class societies who dispense charities for publicity. Say that a person does the act for its own sake; then does charity need to be handled in moderation, or if someone gives up all of their goods for another's benefit, is that alright? There are examples of this in the Bible, where people have become far wealthier in the end because they gave up their initial, comfortable wealth. But how can one benefit another without retaining some of their initial wealth in order to continue producing more wealth? "You gotta have money to make money," can correlate to emotions as well. A person simply cannot be genuinely content if they sacrifice all of their time to please someone else, lest the act itself pleases them in return.

Eh, I'm juggling around several ideas here. They all line up in my mind, but it's already becoming a long week. However, I am sincerely curious about this topic. Does charity without limitations fall under a virtuous act or a reckless one? Must charity be handled in moderation, or is unlimited self-sacrifice a more virtuous act than when it's regulated?

I would love to see some comments/criticism/words-of-wisdom, or anything else on this topic.

P.S. I commented on FrostedMidnight's post, 'The Story V.S. The Explination.'

The Light, it Burns!

If you were in the dark, but were comfortable there, with the illusions that the dark had created, would you really want to be enlightened? In the story that Socrates weaves about the cave, the one that has managed to find his way out is charged to go back in again and enlighten his fellow men who are still suffering in the darkness, to show them the way out. But, when someone has been in the darkness that long, do they really even still have the eyes to see when they escape? And furthermore, would they really WANT to escape? This is the point that keeps ringing in my mind every time I think about this story. If you were trapped in the darkness, with a firm belief in what your eyes had told you was true, even if it was a lie, would you want to be told otherwise?

Of course, we would all say yes, we would want to know! But then I think about Oedipus. Oedipus wanted to know the truth, he wanted to escape the cave that Republic described, but when he finally finds the truth, it is too much for him and he blinds himself. Is there a such thing as too much enlightenment? Could it have been kinder to have left Oedipus in the cave, or in the end is the light always the better option?

P.S. I commented on Jessica Dosset's blog The Comfortable Cave

The Definition of good.

I don't buy it. I don't think that "good" is something that we can or do comprehend. From a Christian perspective, this is especially true. We always say, "God is good, all the time!"

But what about the times when life sucks? When we lose a friend or a family member. When we're sick. When our heart is broken. When we don't know how we're going to make it through the day.

God is still good.

Good is not a category that God fits into. God IS good. There is no separation between the two. If it is not God, it is not good. If it is God, it is good.....even though it hurts. Even know the pain is unbearable. Even if it kills us. Thats the Gospel, friends. There is so much more than we can see. Our real life is not on this earth. It is elsewhere. What may seem terrible here, is for the benefit of us and the glorification of God in the long run. It's all good.

:)

I agree with most of the others about the difficulty of the reading of the Republic, but i do have to say i enjoy what im actually learning. I thought the cave was very interesting. But even more than that, i really liked learning about the Divided Line. Things that are real and things that are really not. What we think as visible is not real, its just a shadow. So i am a shadow. Things that are eternal are real. Makes sense.

Overall, i love what we are learning, its really making me think about things that average people who dont tend to have a philosophical thought process dont know.... haha its exciting to me :)

p.s I commented on Olivia's post

The Comfortable Cave

The cave metaphor was one of the first things in The Republic that has really made sense to me.  Beside the fact that they probably couldn't breathe very well in the cave, and the question of how they got there, it is a good metaphor.  When I read it, I immediately thought about the tragedies and suffering into truth.  Also, it reminds me of stepping out of a comfort zone.  Intially, the change is painful and uncomfortable, but after some time, you begin to see what you have been missing out on.  Too many people live their lives stuck in their own personal "cave" and never see what could have been.  If they would only break free from their comfort zone, they would see what life is really about.

I commented on Lane's

Thoughts

These are just some things that I would like to point out that I thought were interesting.

1. So Socrates goes on and on about how he wants to banish poets from the city because they'll corrupt the soul of the innocent. But then, after all of that, he feels bad for banishing them and says that he would let them back in if someone came to their defense. Umm, so why does he want to banish them in the first place if he's going to feel bad about it and eventually let them back in?

2. The myth of Er.... While reading this I decided that if I had to choose, I would become a manatee! :}

3. And lastly, the last point that Mashburn brought up was: What obligations do I have to the city? Do I stay here or go back and get people? And he also talked about how if we went back down in the cave after being on the surface that we could corrupt the system down there.
          Well I think that the ethical thing to do is to go back down and get people, but then how would I know that's what I needed to do? I've been stuck in a cave my whole life. And if I was an evil genius that I would definitely corrupt the system down there! Mwahahaha >:}.

I commented on Treya's.

"The Truth Will Set You Free"

I think it is significant that the people in the cave where referred to as prisoners. They were prisoners to the false reality that they lived in. No man can be truly free if he lives a lie. Once the prisoner that "escaped" got into the light (or out of the cave) he found the truth. He no longer has to be a prisoner to the false reality that he came from. He can now help his fellow prisoners to find the truth. The only problem may be that the other prisoners may want to stay in their lie because it is safe and it is what they have always known. What man that could be free and know the truth would, given the option, choose to remain a prisoner? The truth will set you free.

commented of MaloryG91's

To be

Oftentimes, in The Republic, I find myself trying to follow an argument about an idea that I don't understand. For example, the argument about Whether justice or injustice was more profitable, was made without first laying down a definition of justice, or injustice - or even by what we mean when we say profitable. As a matter of fact, this caused much confusion in the argument between Socrates because they were both focusing on different aspects of the just and the injust (the seeming and unseeming) and eventually they had to make the distinction between the just and the seemingly just, etc.
Therefore, I was really glad when plato took the time in section 534a to examine the meanings of the ideas that he was talking about. Plato examined the words "Intellection, knowledge, thought, trust, and opinion" and placed them in relation to each other. He said that "opinion has to do with coming into being and intellection with being; and as intellection is to opinion, so is knowledge to trust and thought to imagination." Thus Plato related opinion, trust, and imagination with to coming into being. And he related intellection, knowledge, and thought as being. Which is quite contrary to our society's idea of truth today. Yes, we would agree that knowledge is a way to get closer to the truth of being, but our idea of knowledge is much different than the one that Plato sets forth. Plato's idea of knowledge is knowledge that is free from opinion. Plato relates being with dialectic, or a method of logically "turning around" to see more of the good (truth). According to Plato, to be is to know of the good and to question one's knowledge of what is.

I commented on Brittany's

X is Immortal?

"X can only be destroyed by what is bad for X"

If we live by this statement, that means we are immortal. Because we see injustice and similar vices everyday and we are still alive even though that are bad for us. Tyrants wouldn't survive so long otherwise. Which means that our soul will live on even after our physical bodies have died. This means that Socrates believed in a god. So once more I am asking how is it possible for Socrates to be tried for Atheism even though he believed in god? Socrates justice is similar to ours in the respect that he believes that we will go to heaven or hell. But it differs in the fact that he believes that we will come back as an animal. Once again I present an argument that Socrates was unjustly charged with atheism.

Is Socrates Alive Today?

        The answer is yes, he is frozen somewhere at CIA headquarters. Not really, but the question I have is if Socratic wisdom is used today? I would say it is a rarity to find it, if it is even out there (though I do think it is out there, somewhere). I feel that we are all becoming experts. I'm studying to become an expert in engineering, a classmates to be an expert in all things musical, etc. Granted, no one can be a complete expert in a specific field (engineering for instance, will encounter new ways of building things smaller or bigger, using new material) and everyone must be open to learning these new things. However, we focus primarily on our fields of study rather than contemplating knowledge as a whole. So I ask, where are the philosophers?

        Dr. Mashburn taught us in Philosophy 101 that there starts to become a decline in people who seek to be knowledgeable in all fields. Leonardo Da Vinci was a painter, a mathematician, a scientist, etc. Instead, a person will study in one department, and if they need help they go to a person who studied in the field that they need help in. Though there are those who are talented in many fields, they still focus on one thing in particular that they enjoy (or are just better at doing). I mean, how many of you have just sat around and contemplated what knowledge, truth, or justice actually is? I know, though I enjoy conversations of this, I feel them to be a waste of time because it is a subject I might never have an answer to, I could be doing something more productive like…study math? Also, time is a huge factor. We live twice as long as the expected age of Socrates at his time, yet we are always so rushed. I must finish my schooling in 5 years (for engineers are usually senior plus students) that way I can start the rest of my life…of working and going to school to get a masters degree or a Ph.D. etc. What would a solution be than, to regain Socratic wisdom? More time? Better questions? Seeking a broader range of knowledge? That, I do not know.

A glimps of Beauty

What is the use of beauty if it is fleeting? Speaking about the Poets Socrates says “They are like faces which were never really beautiful, but only blooming; and now the bloom of youth has passed away from them” Poems are attractive to read, yet they are easily torn apart because they are mostly based on emotion instead of reason. The Greeks put too much emphasis on their poets and this is why Socrates felt the need to remove them completely form his perfect city. This made me think, do we in America put too much emphasis on media and other sorts of poetry? Do we take them for what they are as a form of art, or are we turning them into a form of reality which we live by? This is when poetry becomes dangerous. I can see why Socrates feels the need to dismiss poetry all together because the Greeks relied on it for the truths of life, but I think a better way would be to put it back in its place, where it is helpful instead of hurtful. If the youth in his new city are taught that poetry is not reality, but the release of emotions at the time, they could use it as they do music to cleanse the soul and even to keep emotions under control. Socrates disapproves of too many emotions; however the guardians could use poetry as a release. Beauty even for just a season still brings joy and this would be a way to keep poetry in Socrates’ city.

Ps. I commented on Rachel's post

That they may see the truth

In reading the works of Plato, I couldn't help but notice the certainly unintentional (as they came much earlier) allusions to suffering into truth. As the man comes out of the cave, into the blinding light, it is clearly painful as he sees the truth. He must begin by seeing things such as shadows and only eventually works up to looking directly at the sun (the truth). "And, if he compelled him to look at the lights itself, would his eyes hurt and would he flee, turning away to those things that he is able to make out and hold them to be really clearer than what is being shown?"
Later it is said that, "education is not what the professions of certain men assert it to be. THey presumably assert that they put into th esoul knowledge that isn't in it, as though they were putting sight into blind eyes."
Clearly, suffering into truth is painful. It is putting sight into blind eyes. Once one receives the truth, certainly they may be set free, but it can also be very painful and jarring. The cave is truly a metaphor for education, that once one comes into true knowledge, it begins as painful and he can only look at the shadows, then reflections, then finally the sun itself. Obviously the sun represents truth. Here we see that suffering into truth is as coming out of the cave. Once one is out, it is certainly painful, but eventually that pain subsides enough so that they may see the good, that they may see the truth.

In class, we talked about the cave story and the divided line.

The sun was pictured as the bad guy, casting shadows that we saw as reality, but wasn't even really there. We're suppose to turn our back on the sun and do good. But no one would say what good is, so how are we suppose to know what is good? They did say something about the little stick figure guy from the cave, though.

Okay, so, little stick figure guy comes up out of the cave, into the sun. His eyes start to hurt and he realizes everything he has known to be real life was a lie.

So he's faced with the decision, stay up here or go back down because that's what is good.

Obviously, he is to go back down because it's ethical.

Does that mean that is what good is? Making the ethical decision?

I'm excited to hear more today.

I commented on Rachel's.

Vegetables are Evil

The first thing that I would like to address is a topic we briefly discussed in class on Tuesday. We were on the subject of good and evil, and Dr. Schuler said something to the effect of "a flower that has been mauled by a rabid three year old and only has a few petals left is less of a flower than one with all it's petals." He then went on to say that the perfect flower was 'good' while the imperfect one was 'evil'. If we use this kind of logic in everyday life what kind of connotations would this have? Amputees and people with disabilities are evil? Mentally handicapped persons are less human than someone with a healthy mind? Granted, we see earlier in the republic that Plato thinks that all people with terminal illness or defect should be killed or left to die, but I don't think that would go over too well in today's society.

Now that we've got that old dirty gym sock out of the way, I'd like to briefly discuss the cave. How many people have actually made it out of the cave? I know I haven't, and I really don't think I've met anyone who has made it to the surface yet. This brings into question the possibility of ever reaching the surface in our lifetime. If it possible to fully understand and see everything as a human being? I don't have an answer, but if I had to take a guess I'd say no. I think that a human's life on earth is lived completely in the cave. They spend their lives either trying to get out, or sitting dormant watching 'cartoons'. Once the human dies, their soul either goes to heaven and out of the cave, or to hell and deeper into the depths. From a christian perspective, you can even say that if you believe what he says that Jesus is the philosopher who made it out of the cave and came back to set you free. Once you die, he'll bring you with him out of the cave and into the heavens. The difference between the earth and heaven will be like the difference between shadow puppets on a wall to actually seeing the earth.

So, what did we learn this week? We're all still cave men? Amputees and people with disabilities are evil? Jesus wants to remove you from the cave? All good answers. Tune in next week for another exciting installment of "The Procrastinator!"

P.S. I commented on Lucas' blog.