Socratic Silence

Socrates begins his entrance to the Symposium by not doing exactly that. He actually manages to avoid entering for quite some time. In fact, he managed to avoid entering in its entirety just the day before. I would like to explore why he did so. My reasoning is three fold: Socrates likes the quiet, philosophers at times must separate themselves, and the daimon.

The first reason is seeking silence. As I stated in my (immediately) preceding blog, leisure is important to philosophy. While I have not conducted an exhaustive (or any) search of the corpus of Plato, from the near dozen of dialogues I have read, I cannot recall any of them beginning with someone working (the closest I recall being the Euthyphro and the Apology since court is exhausting enough to be considered work). The ability to philosophize without pressures seems highlighted given the (lack of) evidence (to the contrary). Socrates' standing spell could simply be a way for him to avoid pressures and enjoy his soul. Alternatively, he could be actually exploring an idea as it comes up, rather than putting it off for spare time (which never comes) like all of these millenneals (read: the people with whom I am likewise grouped). Whatever he is doing, it seems to be placing philosophy and the internal pre-eminent over the world and the external.

Second, philosophers sometimes must separate themselves. Philosophy cannot be done in the face of distraction. Socrates entirely avoids the initial party. While exploring why Socrates would do this could be fruitful, I would like to entertain the thought of why Plato would have Socrates do this. Socrates can reasonably be viewed as Plato's personification of philosophy. For Plato to have him avoid the public celebration must mean that philosophy incarnate would do the same. Perhaps this means that philosophy will lead to a state of mind where one is separated from the masses, or that one must view society from outside (though Hegel will have a thing or two to say about that in a couple thousand years) (as a second aside, I don't think Plato means philosophers should only view society as an outsider, but given his penchant for communion with philosophy, I think philosophers must have two minds about themselves). It could mean that philosophy avoids distraction or environments in which philosophy is not practised. Perhaps gluttony is to be avoided. More than likely though, it means philosophers are socially awkward.

I would love to explore the possibility of Socrates spells being guidance from the daimon, but I need to research more of his dialogues with the daimon appearing. I'm also quite sleepy.

Cheers,
Bryant

The Gentle Prick of Irony

"Leisure is the basis of culture," is both often quoted, and the title of a book by Josef Pieper. Beginning a written work with a quote or generalization are taboo. So is referring to a book one has never read. I have just done all three.

I have noticed my blog has been lacking (that dreaded word). I have also noticed how little time I spend eating, sleeping, drinking, and thinking. Perhaps there is some correlation, but alas, I am no doctor, psychologist, or detective to go about drawing conclusions. I digress. It took me a while to notice all of the above, which seemed to drive home the opening quote at a far more substantial level. Not only is leisure the basis of culture, but leisure is the foundation for humanity (another generalization if you are counting).

When I say humanity, I don't mean upright, sparsely haired (perhaps in some more than others) primates. I mean humanity in the distinguishing sense: the humanities if you will (which I assume you will, if you are reading this). Humans did something no other species did. We brought our food to us and made it stay there. That gave us free time to think, kill each other, then think about why we kill each other. For other animal, the ends of that sequence are lopped off like so many heads...of wheat, which is why we are having this (or any) conversation (or soliloquy). 

This free time is why philosophy was an act of the aristocracy with the ancients and why you don't encounter many philosophers in war zones. While I have never been either of those, I like to think I fall somewhere between. I am in a first world country and have only gone to war with my noisy neighbors (If the Persians were as inconsiderate as these guys, Thermopile would have been the end of the war) and the fourth wall. That is probably why I write blogs and not books though. 

At any rate, this was a long introduction to get to a short point. I will be starting a little sub blog about how leisure really is important. Some of the topics I hope to explore are as follows (read: I am writing them here so I remember later):

What does leisure look like? (This seems especially important for those of us who haven't seen it in a while).

Does undergraduate education support the growth of philosophy and culture?

Is being busy easier than having free time?

Do we value leisure?

When asked to think about the most beautiful thing imaginable in class the other day, it took me a while to think of it. I was coming up blank. That's when I realized, maybe I just really love silence. I'm not sure if the silence in my head meant I had the answer all along, or if it had been so long since I hear the sound of silence (copyright Simon and Garfunkel) that I didn't recognize it. The irony struck when we never came back around to me to share. Double that irony in my desire to speak about silence, then raise it a power for my writing about it, and you get the title.

If you made it this far, congratulations. The posts to follow will have more content. 

Cheers,

Bryant

P.S: Garfunkel was suggested in the spellcheck. Someone had some free time.

Earth, Aer, and Fire

What I found most interesting about Heraclitus is how much cross cultural trade is evident in his works. While this is not necessarily the most philosophical content, it is interesting to see how ideas spread.

The theme that makes this trade so evident is his reference to apes. There are no European apes. There are not even Ionian apes. The closes primates are Saharan Africa and the tropics of Asia. While those regions could be trading closer to the Greek world, this at least demonstrates that Greeks are now including aspects of the far East in their thoughts and philosophies.

Additionally, the inclusion of a life and death cycle of the elements seems particularly influenced by the East (though it is quite possible that both organically arose in their respective domains). Taoism and Tai Chi in particular emphasize a cycle of destruction and birth with the elements, though theirs are fire, metal, wood, earth, water (in order of destruction). It is still intriguing to see the study of physics begin focussing on how elements can be transmuted.

I would be interested to know more about how much intellectual trade was being done, and how closely the various philosophies of the East and West were in chronological development. I feel like even if they are unrelated, this shows that philosophy is a natural part of humanity, and that there is some progression of ideas innate in our species. Then again, that may just be the Hegelian in me.

Xenophanes' Foreign Concepts

          The third aphorism pertaining to Xenophanes offers an insight into his ethical view that seems novel amongst early philosophers. He seems to intimate a sort of sentimentalism in claiming that the dog has the soul of a man. Either that, or he is espousing a view of reincarnation that also seems to be contrary  to the later Platonic notion (in which souls are reborn into different human lives, but do not change life forms). 

          The possibility of sentimentalism is intriguing because it seems so contrary to the general view of life in which the gods deal out joy and sorry, and assign lots as they will. If sentimentalism is present or is to hold, this would mean that a state of equality and a different sort of accountability is present. Rather than some ontological or cosmological order by which things must be judged, actions, objects, and beings are instead compared to and by an individual.

          I also have some questions:

• ·         Is Xenophanes a pantheist by the way he is described in aphorism 29?
• ·         If he is a pantheist, could his sentimentalism come from this view?
• ·         How is the soul treated or differentiated in pantheism?

Nothing, In Particular

Socrates and Theaetetus have a brief discussion about the idea of non-being and whether or not one could even think about it. Ultimately, Socrates decides that it is incomprehensible since to think about it, one would need a term of being. This got me contemplating on nothing in particular.

One of the problems with nothing as a concept (and infinity as well) is that it must be bound linguistically to be relevant to human beings. But the very thing that gives us the ability to discuss nothingness also makes it a something rather than a nothing. The very act of defining it makes it a non-nothing. One cannot truly type the concept of nothing, as the word itself is definable as at the very least, a word. Whereas this defining places a lower limit on nothing, it does the same, but with an upper limit to infinity.

Aside from the problems faced by philosophers of mind and linguistics, the discussion of nothing ties in nicely with Plato's ideas of the Forms and soul. It is natural that the soul exist both before and after life, as it cannot slip into nothingness. If it were to do so, either it would be unknowable (and we therefore would know nothing of it), or it would still be definable in its lack-of-soul-ness (as opposed to soullessness which is a problem nearly unique to the legal field). Likewise, the Forms must exist, because without them, a quality would not be readily knowable, as it would be coming out of nothing. It may be perceivable in nature, but for Plato, without the Form, there would be no quality to define. This is almost replayed by Berkeley in that things exist so long as they are in the mind of God.

While much of this may seem tangential, it provided another link in the chain for my understanding of the inner workings of Plato. Unless my opinion is wrong, in which case, I will cover that in my presentation.

A Face Only a Philosopher Could Love

What I most want to analyze in the opening of the dialogue is Theaetetus' comparison to Socrates. Most youths that we have encountered thus far have been described in terms of beauty and the desirability that said beauty brings. This is not so with Theaetetus. He is described as being near the looks of Socrates, though less so. While this would probably be deemed an insult by most, because it is one of the so rare physical descriptions in Plato's anthology, it must be of some importance.

If Forrest Gump suffered from Socrates' looks, he would have said, "I am not a pretty man." This is why it is so intriguing that Theaetetus is described as looking like Socrates. I believe it to be a comparison to their respective levels of wisdom. Though both have been forsaken by the triviality of corporeal beauty, Socrates is the uglier of the two, and the wiser.

I would also like to toss around the idea that as Theaetetus is described as have features slightly more beautiful (less ugly) than Socrates, he is on his way to them. That is to say, could the reference to their looks be a way of saying Theaetetus is travelling along the same journey Socrates took to his current level of wisdom? Or is this an allegory of how Socrates came to be there? Either way, when placed in conjunction with the comment about how Socrates predicted great things for Theaetetus, it is not hard to draw a conclusion that Socrates was either projecting that Theaetetus would do well and become like him, or that Theaetetus would achieve great things because he was like Socrates.

Hemlock, Stock, and Two Smoking Points to Make

I want to focus on two particular aspects: the first being Socrates' treatment of inevitability and the second, his final words.

Inevitability insofar as this dialogue is concerned, distinguishes itself quite potently from the modern opinion of it. Modern society seems to have an obsession with control. It can be seen in the frequent checking of communications, the desire to rise to the top of whatever field in which one finds one's self, and even in the frequent checking of clocks. Each one of these examples is a way in which we as individuals can be sure that things are not happening without our knowledge, and therefore without our input and control. We are so obsessed with control that we compulsively check the time, as if the time's changing is something that is influenced by our knowledge of it. We want to know when the minute hand will next tick, as if it is waiting for our approval. This can be contrasted with the ancient view in which people are not so individualistic. Socrates preaches a contentment. He seeks wisdom for wisdom's sake, but he is content to be poor, and to be good enough at his trade to survive. He is a part of a society, and knows that entails not being in control of anything beyond himself. When it comes time to die, he is accepting, because he has relinquished control. The inevitable means something will happen; we in the modern world just fear things happening outside of our control.
Our fear of the inevitable comes from our misunderstanding of what is enough. To control ourselves, to pursue wisdom, and to sustain ourselves are all enough. In the end, we will die, and that will be enough. No amount of anxiety will change that. We could do worse than to adopt Socrates' attitude on this.

One other peculiarity that I found was in Socrates' final words. I won't make the argument that he chose Asclepius because hemlock was his cure for life. Instead, I would like to say that it seems from this passage that to be just is to pay one's due. Despite all of the argument in the Republic, here we have Socrates at the end of his life, instructing someone to pay back a debt. The fact that it is a god shows piety's connection to justice. Maybe the choice for Asclepius is to indicate that Plato is righting his former misjudgement of what justice is. Or maybe the fact that Socrates is dying shows that the debt balance view of justice belonged to Socrates and now we can move past that to healing it.
Or Crito is charged to be the healer of men.