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?
I don't have the text in front of me but let's look at that aphorism in class. I typically have not thought of him as a pantheist because of the specific characteristics he ascribes to God. He might be making fun of Pythagoras in the dog quote.
ReplyDeleteHope you made some progress in class in answering your questions. I'd be interested to know what kind of sentimentalism you have in mind.
ReplyDelete