tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62327622809905144712024-03-10T22:22:56.511-05:00the rocky headlandBe like the rocky headland on which the waves constantly break. It stands firm, and round it the seething waters are laid to rest.rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.comBlogger878125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-26025719034930214422024-01-15T05:00:00.001-06:002024-01-16T13:43:21.763-06:00Phil 417 - Personal Identity<p style="text-align: center;"><b> Questions on Personal Identity</b></p><p>In our modern society, many transactions are based on an individual’s identity. To apply for a car loan, one must provide a social security number, date of birth, mailing address, and other bits of data, all to indicate the identity of a person. Unfortunately, a person’s identity could be stolen and while the actual person would not open a credit line at the local Best Buy, someone else with that data actually could and could commit theft. As frustrating as this can be to a person, other people suffer from a different identity crisis in the form of dissociative identity disorder (DID), which is defined as a person whose identity is disrupted by “two or more distinct personality states” (American Psychiatric Association, 2022, p. 330). One of the most vivid examples of someone who experienced DID was Chris Sizemore, who possessed over twenty different personalities throughout her life (Costner Sizemore & Huber, 1988). These personalities were so fundamentally different from each other that they had differing IQs, tastes, mannerisms, memories, and even religions. After resolving these personalities into a unified self, in a question-and-answer session she said of herself, “On an intellectual level, I am fully aware that I am all of these personalities and that they are me, but on an emotional level, it is as though 22 women used my body for a period of 40 years” (p 59).</p><p>What are we to make of these examples of identity? When each of us is asked the question, “Who are you?” how are we to respond? On what basis can we answer such a seemingly basic question, when we are confronted with bewildering examples of people who suffer from mental disorders such as DID? Is our identity related to our body, our memories, our experiences, our survival, or other things? While there are many theories on personal identity, this paper will only review a handful: physical persistence, psychological continuity, and what ultimately matters (Olsen, 2002). After reviewing a few theories, I’ll discuss my opinions on the subject and conclude that there may not be a problem or definition of personal identity, but rather the idea of a personal identity does not exist, or at the very least, there is no simple, straight-forward essence of personal identity.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Physical Persistence</b></p><p>Perhaps the simplest theory of personal identity is to plainly state a person is their body. Certainly, a person is conceived, grouped as cells into an organism, is born and continues to grow and evolve, and then dies. As long as the body is viable, the person’s identity is tied to that body until death, upon which the identity ceases to exist as well. A. J. Ayer asserts this point in his book Language, Truth and Logic (2001), by contending a person may survive a loss of memory or even experience a change in character and survive as the same person, but if he were to lose his body to death, it would be a contradiction to state he survived his death. In sum, Ayer and others who hold to the physical persistence theory of personal identity would state that the defining, consistent feature of a person’s identity is the body. Ayer would state that Chris Sizemore is not multiple identities, but one.</p><p>However, while Ayer states that surviving one’s death is contradictory, there is some evidence supporting the claim that an identity does survive a bodily death. Since many have discounted the idea of reincarnation, one doctor decided to apply strict scientific methods to determine the validity of claims of an identity surviving death. Through the course of his lifetime and career, Dr. Ian Stevenson racked up roughly 3000 detailed cases of people who possessed evidence that they had lived a previous life and thus survived death (Bering, 2013). His most detailed work is captured in his book describing cases and analyses of children who make claims of living a previous life (Stevenson, 2016). The common theme in many of these cases is that an identity of a person indeed survives death and lives on in another body. While there is no explanation for how this is possible, there is evidence it does occur.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Psychological Continuity</b></p><p>Another theory of personal identity relates to a person’s ability to retain a memory from moment to moment. As a person is born, grows and experiences life, assuming they have a working memory, they collect sensual and mental states of mind. And while a person’s environment and circumstances and judgements change from moment to moment, there is a causal link between their mental states, such that they are able to have a continuous psychological identity (Olsen, 2002).</p><p>To make this theory even clearer, Sydney Shoemaker (2004) proposed a thought experiment in which two people, named Brown and Robinson, underwent operations for brain tumor removals, in which the entire brain of each patient had to be removed from the skull. However, when the time came to re-insert the patients’ brains, by a procedural error, Brown’s brain was placed in Robinson’s skull. The resulting person was dubbed Brownson and retained all of Brown’s memories and mental, psychological states. Upon waking from the surgery, Brown would continue to be Brown. As long as there remains a causal link from one moment to the next, the personal identity of an individual is retained.</p><p>Olsen (2002) wonders if personal identity is retained if this thought experiment were slightly changed. Instead of moving the physical brain plus its contents from one skull to another, what if only the mental contents of person 1 were copied, like bits of data, into the brain of person 2 and the original mental contents of person 2 were erased - would this retain the qualifications of psychological continuity? The neural links and aspects of the physical brain would be the same from one moment to the next, but only the mental contents would be different. Interestingly, Olsen notes that some psychological continuity theorists say yes, while others say no. This gray area in the psychological continuity theory leads to a related concern for personal identity: personal survival.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>What Matters</b></p><p>One dissertation took a deeper dive into personal identity by reviewing Derek Parfit’s work on this topic. Gromak (2015) summarizes Parfit’s theory by stating identity is not what truly matters, but rather what the individual deeply and ultimately cares about is what matters. More specifically, while Parfit’s theory states that identity does matter to some extent, what genuinely matters for an individual is psychological continuity and connectedness (p. 100). In other words, an individual’s ultimate concern is to simply persist and continue in some form or fashion.</p><p>Gromak covers many variations of thought experiments in his paper, but there is one that seems to grasp the subtle nuance of the matter regarding a choice an individual could make about remaining a specific identity or persisting in some form or fashion. A person steps into a machine, pushes a button, after which the machine scans him and creates a replica. During the process, the original person’s heart is damaged and will die in a few days, while the replica version lives. Gromak further elaborates on this thought experiment by changing one factor: the original person will live for 10 years, while the replica version will live for 11 years. In this case, Gromak contends the rational choice is to not push the button and remain as that identity, but Parfit would contend the rational choice is to push the button, die after 10 years, and persist in the replica for an additional year, thus placing emphasis on what truly matters: survival.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Discussion on Personal Identity</b></p><p>Besides those reviewed in this essay, there are many other questions and possible answers surrounding personal identity. As such, I do not think personal identity can be reduced to one or a few factors such as physical persistence or some aspect of psychological continuity. It seems as if every attempt to define personal identity is met with some challenge and therefore perhaps personal identity is undefinable, or perhaps “there are no philosophical problems about identity” (Noonan & Curtis, 2004). An individual person is not an island. He is born into a network, community and social structure. Most people live in an interconnected society and complex ecosystem. To attempt to define the essence of a personal identity is to ignore hundreds, if not thousands of other variables which could define who a person is. While not in the analytical philosophical realm, Buddhism goes so far as to state there is no self and no identity (see section on Non-Self in Siderits, 2011).</p><p>If I were to attempt some definition of personal identity, I would argue that every human being is unique and connected with others and his environment at the same time. The thousands of variables that constitute an identity of a person would not be the same from one identity to another. For example, the physical persistence and/or a causal link of psychological continuity of a person could apply and be one or two of the variables in defining personal identity, or not. I would even contend there could be overlapping factors of identities which could account for multiple personalities and reincarnation, which further underscores that personal identity is difficult to reduce to one or two factors.</p><p>In sum, while the physical persistence and psychological continuity explanations have merit, I don’t think either one adequately explains any essence of personal identity. I tend to lean towards the concept of a person simply being a part of a whole, not dissimilar to how an aspen tree is a part of a grove; and even that analogy is somewhat inadequate.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>In conclusion, this essay briefly reviewed three considerations regarding personal identity: physical persistence, psychological continuity, and the idea that what truly matters is not personal identity, but that a person persists in some form or fashion. While I find these ideas useful in exploring the topic, I lean towards the idea that there is no philosophical problem to solve with personal identity, and if there could be an answer, no definitive, single essence of personal identity could be denoted. </p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>References</b></p><p>American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision DSM-5-TR. (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association</p><p>Ayer, A. J. (2001). Language, Truth And Logic. (eBook). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1936)</p><p>Bering, J. (2013, November 2). Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We “Skeptics” Really Just Cynics? Scientific American Blog Network. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/ </p><p>Costner Sizemore, C., & Huber, R. J. (1988). The Twenty-Two Faces of Eve. Individual Psychology, 44(1), 53-.</p><p>Gromak, J. A. (2015). Personal identity, survival and what matters. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</p><p>Olson, E. T. (2002, August 20). Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/</p><p>Noonan, H., & Curtis, B. (2004, December 15). Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/ </p><p>Shoemaker, S. (2004). Brown-Brownson Revisited. The Monist, 87(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200487429</p><p>Siderits, M. (2011). Buddha (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/ </p><p>Stevenson, I. (2016). Children Who Remember Previous Lives. McFarland.</p><div><br /></div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-45965163323047108982024-01-01T14:00:00.001-06:002024-01-01T14:58:09.499-06:00Phil 417 - The Metaphysics of Time<p style="text-align: center;"><b>Questions on the Ontology of Time</b></p><p>Henry Molaison suffered seizures from his youth until his twenties. In an attempt to cure him of the worsening seizures, his parents took him to numerous doctors, including a neurosurgeon named William Scoville. At the age of 27, Henry underwent an experimental operation to remove parts of his brain. His seizures significantly decreased in temperament and frequency, but at a high cost – he lost the ability to recall and would be stuck in the present moment for the rest of his life (Corkin, 2013). To ponder what it must be like to have no ability to recall would be to ponder what life might be like if one had no concept of time. While Henry would physically change, to him, his life experience would be perpetually stuck in the present moment. For the average person, however, the ability to remember allows her to seemingly experience time and with it the perception that it flows and passes.</p><p>Philosophical conversation on time has existed as long as the dialogue of philosophy itself. Some have argued that time flows, while others argue it is a static structure and is not real. Questions relating to the ontology of time are: does it flow, or does it follow some other construct? Do things exist only in the present or can they exist in the future and past? Many philosophers have pondered these questions and have advanced theories to explain time. This paper will review and explain the earliest debates on these questions between Heraclitus and Parmenides to show the long-standing nature of this examination (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013). It will then review modern perceptions of time concerning A-Theory and B-Theory as explained by J.M.E McTaggart and how these ideas relate to the ideas of Presentism, Growing Block Theory and Moving Spotlight Theory (A-Theories) and Eternalism (B-Theory) (Markosian, 2002 and Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013).</p><p><b>Ancient Discussions on Time</b></p><p><i>Heraclitus</i></p><p>Flux is a Heraclitan idea. One of his fragments claims all existence is in a constant state of change and that a person cannot step in the same river twice (Graham, 2019). At first glance, the idea of not being able to step into the same river twice is confusing. When a person steps into a stream of water in the morning while on a hike, and then crosses that same stream again, in his mind, he is stepping into the same thing. However, Heraclitus is being more specific in saying that the creek and the water molecules and the way the water flows and the minerals the water molecules have acquired (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013) – all of those features of the creek have changed between the first time the hiker stepped in it and the second time he crossed it. Precisely speaking, the creek is not the same from one moment to the next.</p><p>With this focus on flux and constant change, Heraclitus further noticed that despite the perpetual variation, things seemingly remained constant through cycles. However, he is unambiguous in noting that things do change from one moment to the next and this marking of change denotes time passed. Stated differently, Heraclitus noted the flux of everything both is and is not. This flux of things, if observed long enough, turns out to be opposites: day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, and satiety and hunger (2013, p. 13). In brief, Heraclitus would claim what was past existed and was real, and it changes to the present which also exists and is real and eventually things change again and still be real.</p><p><i>Parmenides</i></p><p>Parmenides took a different tact regarding the explanation of reality and refused to embrace the idea of flux – that existence both is and is not. Rather, he believed that everything just is. He explained this by way of a poem, in which a mortal meets a goddess, and she explains to the mortal the way of truth. She explains that there is one route called “it is” and there is another route called “it is not” and there is even a third route called “it is, and it is not” (2013, p. 17). The second and third routes are dead ends, and there is only one route: it is. This reality of existence does not change, for change is simply the mortal’s perspective. Furthermore, how can something which exists, not exist? This is contradictory and mortals are “deaf and blind at once” (Palmer, 2016) for not admitting and comprehending this contradiction. Parmenides simply concludes there is no flux, but everything simply exists and is the One. To Parmenides, Heraclitus would have been on the second route and his ideas would be contradictory. And since flux does not exist, the passage of time also does not exist and therefore time does not exist – it is simply human misunderstanding.</p><p>The philosophical discourse between Heraclitus and Parmenides continues to this day. The manner of looking at reality and time splits into differing factions of thought.</p><p><b>Modern Discussions on Time</b></p><p>Many theories regarding the metaphysics of time fall under two camps: A-Theory and B-Theory. These two theories stem from the philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart who noted two types of series in time and then argued that time does not exist (McDaniel, 2009). In one series, events can be ordered earlier than or later than one event in relation to another; he called these B-series. He also described a second series of events in which one event is noted as the present moment, and this event changes, first by being future, then being present, then being past, as it moves position in a series; he called these events the A-series.</p><p>From these two types of series emerge notions of A-Theory and B-Theory. In brief, A-Theory ideas contend time is real, especially the present moment, and that all time is viewed as either past, present, or future. (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013). However, B-Theory ideas argue that time is not real and that events simply have relations that are either earlier-than or later-than (2013). In a review of the theories of time, one podcaster explained the key difference between the two theories as being the determination of the present either being real (A-Theory) or the present not being real (B-Theory) (Macherla). Also, while A-Theory is committed to the idea of time being linear or growing, B-Theory contends there is simply existence and things only occupy a particular space-time coordinate.</p><p><i>A-Theories: Presentism, Growing Block, and Moving Spotlight</i></p><p>Most peoples’ paradigm of time aligns with A-Theory ideas. Three of these theories are Presentism, Growing Block, and Moving Spotlight. Before describing each one, it may be helpful to frame the idea of time as a block of cheese, and the present moment is represented as a slice of cheese from the block.</p><p>In the theory of Presentism, the only thing that is real is the present, viewed as a slice of cheese. Whatever exists now is real, but nothing in the past or future is considered real and therefore, the past and the future do not exist (Markosian, 2002). A comprehensive list of things that exist in the present moment could be produced, but nothing from the past, such as dinosaurs, or nothing from the future, such as a time machine, would be on that list of things in the present, therefore dinosaurs and time machines do not exist and are not real.</p><p>In the Growing Block theory, only the past and the present are real, but the future does not exist (2002). An observer might strongly contend that things in the past were just as real as the present. Therefore, time is like a growing block of cheese, where the present moment is the slice of cheese that grows and acts as the edge of time. The future, however, is beyond the block and does not exist.</p><p>Lastly is the Moving Spotlight theory, named by C.D. Broad (2002), contends that all past, present, and future are real, but differs from the B-Theory in contending that time exists, and the present is not only real, but also unique since there is a metaphorical light on the present moment. This light constantly moves and illuminates the present, hence there is a sense of flow. All time is laid out, but light only shines on the present moment.</p><p><i>B-Theory: Eternalism</i></p><p>Continuing with the block of cheese example for explaining time, the B-Theory of Eternalism contends that all moments in time equally exist and that the past, present, and future are not real (2002), and all that exists is the block of cheese. The universe simply exists in all time and space, and things only occupy some space-time coordinate. Indeed, things may serially exist before another thing much like page 7 exists at a space-time coordinate which simply precedes page 8 which exists at an adjacent space-time coordinate, but all pages equally exist – there is nothing unique about page 7.</p><p><i>Discussion on Time</i></p><p>While I find the practical nature of time useful, such as being prompt to a meeting or having the ability to recall the anniversary date of my marriage, nevertheless, it is odd that we spend a lot of thought on this subject. By way of relation, I wonder why we don’t spend as much effort on discussing the nature of a kilometer, meter, or centimeter. After all, isn’t time simply an attempt at keeping the score on a change?</p><p>After having the opportunity to research and write this essay, I realize I fall in the B-Theory camp and align my views with those of Spinoza. In reviewing Spinoza’s ideas on the metaphysics of time, Waller (2012) offers a clear analogy to explain why the B-Theory makes better sense. Suppose Bob completes the paperwork for a loan at 10:30am and then signs the loan at 10:31am and shakes the hand of the loan officer. However, at 10:35am when Bob receives the loan check, he claims he is not the same Bob who signed the form – that Bob is past Bob, while this Bob is present Bob. This way of thinking is incoherent! Bob is Bob whether in the past, present, or future. To return to the block of cheese analogy, indeed slices do exist (Bob being a different slice at different times), but a clearer way of comprehending the entirety of the idea is to admit all the slices are the same cheese.</p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>In conclusion, the age-old philosophical discourse on time centers around whether it flows or is static. From Heraclitus and Parmenides to moderns such as McTaggart and Broad, this debate continues today under A-Theory and B-Theory ideas. A-Theory ideas claim time is real to varying degrees, but B-Theory ideas claim time is not real and that there is only existence.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>References</b></p><p>Bardon, A., & Dyke, H. (Eds.). (2013). <i>A companion to the philosophy of time</i>. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.</p><p>Corkin, S. (2013). <i>Permanent present tense: The unforgettable life of the amnesic patient, h. m</i>.. Basic Books.</p><p>Graham, D. W. (2019, September 3). <i>Heraclitus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</i>. Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/ </p><p>Markosian, N. (2002, November 25). <i>Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</i>. Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/</p><p>Macherla, R. (2021, March 21). <i>Philosophy of Time.</i> In The Human Condition. Spotify for Podcasters. https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-human-condition0/episodes/Philosophy-of-Time-e1cm8qr/a-a77506j</p><p>McDaniel, K. (2009). <i>John M. E. McTaggart (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</i>. Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/ </p><p>Palmer, J. (2016). <i>Parmenides (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</i>. Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/ </p><p>Waller, J. (2012).<i> Persistence through time in Spinoza</i>. Lexington Books/Fortress Academic.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-23626343699170256862023-12-09T22:00:00.001-06:002023-12-09T22:01:32.502-06:00Io, Saturnalia! (And the Contemplation of the Eternal Return and the Wisdom Therein)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvD25pEV8J7k_IdHK3Sja9T-ghJWZJSduD1GieYm715UH6wA1zdjryuOeY5znEw8CeXhFHryXLzui4VtLX423RS7YQXYp2tVQybIM1n7lJ3yAz1MWLT1JCWVDVB69Wku94eQ3Cw3Q0clWiQUk6TOCBcmyYA14b_4YVbqa_4tcz68y7z5ePA5OxgWaQq9xU/s1024/Saturn%20with%20scythe.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Saturn with a scythe" border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvD25pEV8J7k_IdHK3Sja9T-ghJWZJSduD1GieYm715UH6wA1zdjryuOeY5znEw8CeXhFHryXLzui4VtLX423RS7YQXYp2tVQybIM1n7lJ3yAz1MWLT1JCWVDVB69Wku94eQ3Cw3Q0clWiQUk6TOCBcmyYA14b_4YVbqa_4tcz68y7z5ePA5OxgWaQq9xU/w200-h200/Saturn%20with%20scythe.jpeg" title="Saturn with a scythe" width="200" /></a></div>Round and round we go. We watch the pendulum swing, back and forth. Sometimes the swing is swift and sometimes the interval takes longer, but always and everywhere <i>it</i> (events, history, life, death, growth, regress, etc.) repeats.<p></p><p>The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius noted this a few times in his <i>Meditations </i>(2014).</p><p>"a man of forty with any understanding whatsoever has in a sense seen all the past and all the future" (11.1).</p><p>This same translation of <i>Meditations</i> makes a note and commentary on Book 2.14, which is related to this thought. </p><p></p><blockquote>"<i>see the same things</i>: The eternal sameness of things is another frequent theme in the <i>Meditations</i>, taking two widely disparate forms. One (as here) derives from the belief of orthodox Stoicism, evidently accepted by Marcus, that from eternity to eternity the world goes through an endless succession of identical cycles (so that all that happens has happened before, and will happen again): see especially 9.28, and also 5.13 (and note), 5.32, 6.37, 8-6, 9.35, 10.7.2, 11.1.2, 12.26. For the doctrine of everlasting recurrence see LS, 52; Sandbach, pp. 78-9. The other is the expression of a world-weary and often dismissive view that 'there is no new thing under the sun' (Ecclesiastes 1:9) in human life, behaviour, and depravity: with a few years' experience (in 7.49 and 11.1.2 Marcus puts it at forty) you have 'seen it all'. See also 4.32, 4.44, 6.46, 7.1, 8.25, 9.14, 9.33, 10.2.7, 12.24 ('monotony and transience')" (2014).</blockquote><p></p><div>This time of year (December to early January) usually prompts a lot of introspection for me. I reflect on the year, I try to indulge in the festivities, I recall Christmases past and I plan for the future - revisiting and revising plans, taking account of the current situation in life and evaluating options for the future, and then making course corrections as needed.</div><div><br /></div><div>This year, as part of this introspection, I decided to research and learn a bit more about the Roman festival known as Saturnalia. While I've always known something about it, I searched for meatier content about what it was like and from whence it was formed. For this, the book entitled <i>The Christmas Encyclopedia</i> provides a very adequate explanation and summary.</div><blockquote><div><div>A pre-Christian harvest and winter solstice celebration held throughout the Roman Empire in honor of Saturn or Saturnus (from the Latin <i>satus</i>, “to sow”), god of agriculture, who reigned during the so-called Golden Age of Rome, a time of peace and prosperity. Originally celebrated for one day on December 17, the festival under the Caesars extended through December 24, in which the spirit of gaiety and frolic prevailed, recalling that Golden Age. All work, businesses, schools, and matters of court were suspended, criminals received reprieves from punishment, war was not waged, and no humans were sacrificed to Saturn; the lighting of numerous candles in his temple symbolized such mercies.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, festivities began with the sacrifice of a young pig in the temple. Each community selected a <i>Magister Ludi</i> (Master of the Games) or a <i>Saturnalicus Princeps</i> (Chief of the Saturnalia), a mock king, who supervised the feasting, revelry, singing, and dancing. <b>He was chosen by lots</b>, sometimes as the one who found the coin hidden in servings of pudding. <b>Masters and slaves traded places, with masters serving their slaves, who could bid the former to perform any task and could exact ludicrous punishments should they fail to execute them. Class distinctions were suspended as well, as a spirit of humanity seized everyone to do good unto his neighbor, including dispensing money to the poor</b>. <b>Transvestism was common and, in keeping with the tradition of masquerades, in northern provinces, Germanic tribes often donned masks in the likenesses of horned beasts and hideous creatures</b>, symbolic of spirits which were believed to inhabit the winter darkness.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Statues of Saturn, as well as homes, were decorated with holly, sacred to this god; with evergreen wreaths, symbolic of the sun; and with evergreen garlands, symbolic of the renewal of life at the approaching winter solstice, December 25 on the Roman or Julian calendar. (In the Christian era, these evergreens would come to symbolize eternal life through Christ.)</div><div><br /></div><div>At the conclusion of the festival came the exchanging of gifts: <i>signillaria </i>(clay dolls) for the children and <i>strenae </i>(olive branches honoring the woodland goddess Strenia) or <i>cerei </i>(wax tapers or candles) for the adults.</div><div><br /></div><div>The festivities were essentially repeated for three days at the January Calends, beginning on the first day of the new year (January 1). This was especially the time when the populace presented the emperor with <i>votae</i>(gifts).</div><div><br /></div><div>Although the Saturnalia was not the sole winter solstice festival of the Roman Empire (among other festivals, a feast on December 15 honored Consus, god of the storeroom; one on December 17 honored his consort, Ops, a mother goddess), it was by far the most important in terms of its traditions and symbols, many of which the early Christian Church adopted into the Christmas season. The lighting of candles, decorating with holly and evergreens, giving of gifts (the Wise Men that visited the manger had no monopoly on gift-giving), holiday charity, and the unrestrained merrymaking all were most recently derived from the Saturnalia.</div><div><br /></div><div>The basis for these traditions actually originated some 4,000 years before the birth of Christ in the land of Mesopotamia, which included Sumer, later corresponding to Babylonia; through northern and western routes, the customs reached Greece, Rome, and other parts of Europe. The equivalent Sumerian and Babylonian celebrations, respectively, were the Zagmuk (“Beginning of the Year”) and Akitu (“New Year's Festival”). The Sumerian festival was semiannual, held in the fall (month of Tishri) and in the spring (month of Nisan), commemorating the two principal solar points of the year (winter and summer). Akitu, however, occurred only at the first new moon after the spring equinox.</div><div><br /></div><div>The mythology surrounding Akitu held that <b>as the year drew to a close, the world, created by the supreme Babylonian god Marduk, lay dying. During the festival, it was traditional for the king to perform rituals to atone for any sins of man against Marduk and to assist him in battling the monsters of chaos in the underworld, acts that would restore the world of the living for another year.</b> To begin the rituals, the king entered the temple of Marduk. There, he suffered humiliation as <b>the high priest stripped him of his regal vestments and beat him; then the king swore annual allegiance to Marduk, after which he was reinstated as king</b>. It is likely that the king then symbolically “sacrificed” himself by <b>appointing a mock king in his stead</b> from the ranks of criminals (his mock counterpart is seen in the Master of the Games of the Saturnalia and Archbishop of Fools of the Feast of Fools). This criminal was then arrayed in regal raiment and sacrificed sometime during a 12-day celebration, which consisted of feasting, socializing, and gift-giving (a parallel is seen in the 12 days of Christmas). Wooden images depicting the monsters of chaos were burned to assist Marduk in his battle for life, and such images are believed to be the earliest precursors of the Yule log.</div><div><br /></div><div>These, then were some of the world's earliest known plans for year-end festivals, which most modern civilizations have since adapted to their own cultures. (Crump, 2013 <b>emphasis added</b>).</div></div></blockquote><div><div></div></div><div>Reading the above, I am struck by the switching of roles and parts in those ancient cultures. What must it have been like to be the master of the estate, and then for the better part of a month, turn the reigns and authority over to the servants? One day you're sitting at the top, and the next you're being told what to do by the lowliest of the classes. Would our current overlords (e.g. Prime Ministers, Presidents, Senators, CEOs, business owners, Principals, Mayors, etc.) ever be willing to do the same in today's day and age? It makes for a fascinating thought experiment. Yet, this is what the ancients did!</div><div><br /></div><div>While it seems impractical to put this ancient ritual into practice today, there are some aspects about this ritual worth contemplating in the vein of <i>premeditatio malorum</i>. Those in power and those who possessed fortune had those preferred indifferents taken from them during Saturnalia. While they thought they enjoyed sound footing and an unassailable point of advantage, it was taken from them. Do we <i>think</i> we possess a similar position in our lives in 2023? Could the home in which I live, and the job at which I work and the salary I am paid, and the health I enjoy - could one or all of those be taken on a whim? Absolutely. All of it could be taken upon death, or some of it could be taken due to circumstances and events beyond my control.</div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, returning to what Marcus Aurelius wrote about a man of forty seeing it all, at the age of 47, I too have seen and heard many of these events in the course of my life. I have contemplated what it must have been like for my father's father to watch his entire ranch burn down, forcing the family to practically to start all over. I've read the account of my father's mother holding her young baby, while the doctor listened to his heart slowly stop beating, saying, "now, now, now" indicating when the baby's heart stopped.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've contemplated the tens of thousands of young men, at the young age of 20 take one step off a boat to storm a beach in some distant land and die in a split second to a bullet to the head. I've wondered what it must have been like for my father who was about to be deployed to the Pacific in 1945, but then to not have to serve because the war ended after two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. I've wondered about the details of the story of my father's mother pleading with the officer in the army to discharge my father to help on the ranch, thus saving him from serving in the Korean War.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've contemplated a man named Rich O'Conner, who worked for a major corporation for over 30 years, who interviewed me at the beginning of my career, and who just a few weeks before retirement, pulled into his driveway, suffered a major heart attack and died - who never fully enjoyed the fruits of his labor.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've lived through a global pandemic and watched millions of people both die and suffer from the effects of COVID-19 as well as the effects of the vaccines administered to cure and prevent the virus. I've watched the world and culture fundamentally change in a matter of months and years due to the global lockdown from the pandemic.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've contemplated my sister-in-law and her husband and how they lost their baby a few months after she was born, and then all the angst and anxiety they had to endure through two more pregnancies and births, wondering if the same fate would happen to those babies. I've contemplated the life of my father-in-law, who retired wealthy, but suffered from bankruptcy due to the housing crisis and great recession of 2008, and then less than a decade later, unexpectedly die at the age of 66. I've contemplated the death of my brother-in-law at the age of 49 - he was at the cusp of greatness in his career as a college professor and researcher, and a loving husband and father of four children.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've contemplated the religion in which I grew up (Mormonism) and the debris and chaos left in its wake - the abuse they have facilitated and the lack of morals and failure in responsibility to help those women and children who suffered under the church's patriarchy. I've contemplated the unethical nature of the church's leadership in softly and harshly lying about its past and its dogmas. I've contemplated and stand in awe at an organization who preaches the gospel of Jesus regarding mankind cannot love God and Mammon both, yet it has amassed an ungodly amount of capital and assets and cash to the tune of close to $200 <i>billion</i>. I stand all amazed at the selfishness, corruption, egotistical and hypocritical nature of such an organization.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps I have not seen <i>all of it</i>, but I have seen quite a bit of <i>it</i>. And what do I learn from it? I learn, what I think Saturnalia is attempting to teach: that <i>it </i>repeats and <i>it </i>can happen to anyone including me. One day I could be on the up-and-up, getting ahead in my career, and the next I could be assessed down and earning less. One day I could feel safe and secure in my home, the next I could be robbed and many of my possessions taken. One day I could be playing basketball quite healthily, the next I could be injured and forced to never play again. One day I could be fast asleep in my bed, the next I could be waking up in the middle of the night receiving a call from the police about an accident or incident my child was involved in.</div><div><br /></div><div>Saturnalia teaches us our lots can change on a dime. However, what is 'up to us' is our attitude and reaction to said change. Could we lose status, wealth, health, loved ones and still retain our equanimity? Could we still find a way to demonstrate a good moral character despite the "losses?" To me, this seems to be a worthy challenge. We need not be stuck in mourning our losses. Grieve we may and in some cases, we must, but to remain in in such a state does not demonstrate a good moral character. The challenge is to prove to yourself you can take the misfortunes and fortunes of life and retain your equanimity. Saturnalia gave the people a chance to practice this very virtue.</div><div><br /></div><div>And regardless of misfortune or fortune, there are opportunities to practice a good moral character. Seneca notes this of Socrates, who survived and lived under the Thirty Tyrants. In his essay <i>On Tranquility</i> he wrote,</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Can you find any city more wretched in any way than the Athenians’ city when the thirty tyrants tore it apart? They had killed thirteen hundred citizens, all the best men, but did not make an end of it; but their sheer savagery stimulated itself. In a city which held the Areopagus, that most scrupulous of courts, in which there was a senate and a people similar to the senate, the grim college of executioners met each day, and the unhappy senate house was crammed with tyrants: could that state repose in which there were as many tyrants as there were henchmen? Their minds could not even entertain any hope of recovering their freedom, and no scope for a cure appeared against such a powerful force of evils; for how could the poor city find so many Harmodii? Yet Socrates was openly out in public life and comforted the mourning fathers and exhorted men despairing of the state, and reproached wealthy men fearing the consequences of their riches because they came too late to regret the dangers brought on by their greed; he bore himself as a mighty example for those willing to imitate him, walking as a free man among the thirty masters. But Athens herself killed him in jail, and liberty did not tolerate the liberty of the man who had safely provoked the horde of tyrants; you learn from this that even in an oppressed state there is a chance for the wise man to put himself forward, and that in a flourishing and happy state envy and a thousand other evils dominate (2014, p. 191)</div></blockquote><div></div></div><div>Therefore, regardless of any circumstance or event or fortune or misfortune, there are ways and opportunities to practice and live with a high, good moral character (virtue) - one can exercise one's volition to demonstrate excellence.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is it - this is life. Once you realize this is the ultimate fate we face, Saturnalia can teach you the greater lesson of recurrence. Just as this festival has been around <i>thousands</i> of years in some form or fashion, perhaps we have lived this same life thousands of time before or perhaps we have lived some existence in a different state or status thousands of times before. Just as roles were swapped (status, gender, form, etc.) during Saturnalia, perhaps we have lived thousands (millions?) of different roles or forms previously. And if that is the case, would you act differently with others today? If one day you were the master of the estate, and the next day during Saturnalia, your servants were master of the estate, would that change the way you act as the master?</div><div><br /></div><div>Another lesson recurrence and Saturnalia can teach us is the reflex of retreat to sound ground. The moment we are born, we began to die. Through the course of life, we erect layers of knowledge around us, bank accounts, homes, walls, gates, savings, 401Ks; we build our reputations and deposit good acts into our account so we can withdraw from it in times when we face ill repute. However, try as we might, we must give ground. Life advances, misfortune strikes and if our reputation and wealth do not suffer first, then our mind and body will eventually succumb to disease, age and death. Will we anxiously cling to every scrap life takes from us, or will we learn the wisdom of accepting our fate, and retreating to solid ground - the sound logic that informs us the only thing we truly possess and control is our moral character; our virtue. All else matters not. Anyway, why cling? Saturnalia and recurrence teaches us our fate will change and if we don't like it, soon enough things return to the way they used to be. So, in the meantime - in the present moment - act with justice, wisdom, discipline and courage.</div><div><br /></div><div>To conclude, Marcus Aurelius eloquently sums these lessons - important ideas to contemplate during this season of Saturnalia.</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Even if you were destined to live three thousand years, or ten times that long, nevertheless remember that no one loses any life other than the one he lives, or lives any life other than the one he loses. It follows that the longest and the shortest lives are brought to the same state. The present moment is equal for all; so what is passing is equal also; the loss therefore turns out to be the merest fragment of time. No one can lose either the past or the future - how could anyone be deprived of what he does not possess?</div></blockquote><blockquote><div>So always remember these two things. First, that all things have been of the same kind from everlasting, coming round and round again, and it makes no difference whether one will see the same things for a hundred years, or two hundred years, or for an infinity of time. Second, that both the longest-lived and the earliest to die suffer the same loss. It is only the present moment of which either stands to be deprived: and if indeed this is all he has, he cannot lose what he does not have (2.14).</div></blockquote><div></div></div><p>References</p><p>Aurelius, M. (2014). <i>Meditations </i>(M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books.</p><p>Crump, W. D. (2013). <i>The Christmas Encyclopedia</i>. Mcfarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.</p><p>Lucius Annaeus Seneca. (2014). <i>Hardship and Happiness</i> (E. Fantham, H. M. Hine, J. Ker, & G. D. Williams, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-65218491208725862782023-07-31T05:00:00.001-05:002023-07-31T19:04:03.992-05:00Rel 411 - Time and Existentialist Creation<p style="text-align: center;">Time and Existentialist Creation</p><p>On a Thursday in Bangalore India, I sat in a conference room of an engineering firm, listening to a small cadre of managers talk in detail about their manufacturing prowess, when I experienced an epiphanic moment. For a handful of minutes, a vision of sorts flashed in my mind, where I was a therapist sitting in a chair in a quiet room and across from me was a patient. I asked the patient to contemplate the most precious commodity humans possess: time. I told this client that they needed to feel the anxiety of time and to deliberate long and deeply about how they were going to spend the remainder of their time in life. I then turned to an hourglass sitting on a table, turned it over and asked the patient to feel the grains of sand fall from the top and pile at the bottom.</p><p>While I have been a student of existentialist philsophy for a number of years, I gained a deeper appreciation for it in this course. In this essay, I’ll focus on three lessons I learned from this class. The first is the pressing urgency of time in the context of living authentically. After having learned of the importance of existence preceding essence, I feel more keenly the need to use my time toward my own “meaning-giving project” (Crowell). Did my boredom in India lead to that epiphany which caused me to consider my own grains of sand? The second lesson I learned from this course was about the need for choice and action on finishing my life project. While the project is en media res, I nonetheless have had a re-kindling of effort to work towards making that creative project into a reality. From Sartre I learned the concept of “bad faith” regarding how being the perpetual dreamer does nothing but whittle away the grains of sand in return for nothing. While dreaming of transcendence is needed, so too is action. The third lesson I learned from this course, via Camus’s Myth of Sisyphus, was that I must always create with no expectation of fame, immortality or any type of reward. As Camus writes, “to work and create ‘for nothing’ … this is the difficult wisdom that the absurd thought sanctions” (Camus 103). The protagonist of the film The Shawshank Redemption fittingly summarizes these three lessons when he said, “get busy living, or get busy dying.”</p><p>Did I experience profound boredom in that conference room in India? Possibly. My enlightenment might have been what Heidegger called Augenblick or “a moment of vision” in which I was experiencing such unadulterated dullness that I achieved an awareness of what I am missing in life (Gibbs 602). Indeed, Camus seems to confirm that such moments of brilliant boredom cause one to snap back into existential reality. He writes in Myth of Sisyphus, “Rising, tram, four hours in the office or factory, meal, tram, four hours of work, meal, sleep and one day, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, according to the same rhythm - this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the 'why' arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement” (Camus 19). One scholar has noted the worth of boredom in that “it has specific value in awakening our ability to experience meaningfulness, often through its negation; when bored, we may question meaning or, more precisely, lack of meaning by indifference” (Gibbs 603). For me, in that awakening moment in India, a contrasting vision came to me, in which I found myself “taking a stance on being” and I felt the urgency to make progress on what is meaningful to me (607).</p><p>The second pivotal lesson I learned from this course is related to action and making progress on my life project. From Sartre, I learned of the concept of bad faith and more specifically, the bad faith of not acknowledging my facticity and only focusing on my pure transcendence – in other words, only wishing for some possibility but never acting (Flynn 74). Like the woman on a date, in Sartre’s example, to not commit to a choice and action in order to become something (i.e. the woman refusing to admit that she is a body who can enjoy the touch of a man and postponing commitment) is living in bad faith (Anderson 6:07). To live in good faith is to admit to myself that my facticity as a human requires making a choice towards transcendence via focused and diligent work in order to change and make dreams into a reality. Good faith requires choice and action.</p><p>The third lesson I learned was more of a reminder of a brutal truth. All too often, our life projects aim at more than existence. We strive for lasting fame, status, power or abundant wealth – to overcome and become more than our circumstances. Indeed, Nietzsche wrote much of this with his concept of will to power. I discussed this idea in one of my essays when I quoted Nietzsche, “What is good?—All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad?—All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that a resistance is overcome” (Wilkerson). However, Camus importantly clarifies that we ought not expect anything in return for our efforts. While the notion of the will to power may spur us to action, we must never forget that ultimately our creative project will be buried by space and time.</p><p>In a moving passage from The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus explores the challenging question of whether a person can persistently create with no expectations – to create for no reason other than to create. The point demands the full quote be mentioned.</p><p></p><blockquote>I want to know whether, accepting a life without appeal, one can also agree to work and create without appeal and what is the way leading to these liberties. I want to liberate my universe of its phantoms and to people it solely with flesh and blood truths whose presence I cannot deny. I can perform absurd work, choose the creative attitude rather than another. But an absurd attitude, if it is to remain so, must remain aware of its gratuitousness (Camus 93).</blockquote><p></p><p>Taking this absurdist attitude is a revolt against our condition. Too many times, people, including myself, feel the utter despair of casting maximum effort into a project or presentation, only to have it briefly acknowledged and then forgotten about. It is tempting, for me, to assume an attitude of: better to have never loved than to have a broken heart. The “higher fidelity” Camus and Sisyphus teaches us is to not only recognize our absurd condition but to also rebel and create projects despite our strange state of being (111). A scene from the film A River Runs Through It captures this attitude nicely.</p><p>The father of the protagonist was also the schoolteacher for his sons. The older son (the main character named Norman) was taught how to write well by his father. In the film, Norman muses, “while my friends spent their days at Missoula Elementary, I stayed home and learned to write the American language.” In the scene, Norman writes an essay and then hands the paper to his father. The father reads it, turns to his son and says, “half as long.” Norman returns to the project, labors over the paper and then walks back to his father to have it graded. The father reads it, pauses and says, “Again, half as long.” Norman drags his feet back to his desk and makes additional edits. Again, he appears before his father, who reads the essay. This time, the father judges the essay acceptable and says, “Good, now throw it away.” Normal wads the paper – representing his work, effort and time – and throws it in the trash bin and runs off to go fishing. We must have that same perspective for our projects – work diligently on them but be perfectly willing to let them go when the next adventure calls. This is to create gratuitously.</p><p>In conclusion, I’ve gleaned three lessons from this course. The first is the rekindling of pressing urgency with regards to the use of my time toward my own “meaning-giving project” (Crowell). It would seem boredom has played a role in this rekindling. The second lesson I learned was to be aware of “bad faith” on my part, and to choose and act with good faith towards making my creative project into a reality. Lastly, Camus reminded me that the existential absurdist must always create “for nothing” – I must embrace this perspective and brutal truth, knowing full well the benefit is in the creative process, not the enduring creation (Camus 103). Perhaps Nietzsche captures the spirit of urgency, action and the notion of creating for nothing, when he wrote,</p><p></p><blockquote>the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods! (Kaufmann 106)</blockquote><p></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p><i>A River Runs through It</i>. Directed by Robert Redford, Columbia Pictures, 1992.</p><p>Anderson, Ellie. “<i>Sartre’s Theory of Bad Faith</i>.” Www.youtube.com, 29 Apr. 2022, <a href="http://youtu.be/UUXXmHkI-Ug?t=367">youtu.be/UUXXmHkI-Ug?t=367</a>. Accessed 25 July 2023.</p><p>Camus, Albert. <i>The Myth of Sisyphus</i>. 1955. Translated by Justin O’Brien, Penguin Books, 1979.</p><p>Crowell, Steven. “Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” <i>Stanford.edu</i>, 9 June 2020, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/">plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/</a>.</p><p>Flynn, Thomas R. <i>Existentialism : A Very Short Introduction</i>. Oxford University Press, 2006.</p><p>Gibbs, Paul. "The Concept of Profound Boredom: Learning from Moments of Vision." <i>Studies in Philosophy and Education</i>, vol. 30, no. 6, 2011, pp. 601-613. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fconcept-profound-boredom-learning-moments-vision%2Fdocview%2F899187218%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9256-5.</p><p>Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. <i>Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre</i>. 1956. New York, Meridian Books, 1960.</p><p><i>The Shawshank Redemption</i>. Directed by Frank Darabont, Columbia Pictures, 1994.</p><p>Wilkerson, Dale. “Nietzsche, Friedrich | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” <i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, <a href="http://iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/">iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/</a>.</p><p><br /></p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-7065257368713978242023-07-13T05:00:00.002-05:002023-07-24T17:16:12.528-05:00Rel 411 - Jean-Paul Sartre: Breaking the Mold, Living Authentically<p style="text-align: center;"> Jean-Paul Sartre: Breaking the Mold, Living Authentically</p><p>Sartre contends existence precedes essence (Sartre). Coming from a Mormon background, I was taught I pre-existed, which simply meant my essence came before my existence (Marshall 197). From the moment I was born, my essence would be defined by others and God. But after 38 years of living Mormonism, I came to realize I was not living authentically – there was a gap between who I intrinsically felt I was and what others (family, religious leaders, neighbors and peers at work) thought I <i>ought to be</i>. The first step was to accept that my existence came prior to my essence. Afterward, I began to reconcile the gap and unify my psyche. This process has taken several years and is still a work in progress. In brief, I recognized I needed to “radically escape bad faith”, and subsequently I realized I had freedom to take steps to break the mold in which I was raised and to begin to live authentically (Detmer 88).</p><p>In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or more commonly known as the Mormon church, one of the underlying doctrines of the faith is the concept of pre-existence. This dogma is taught to all members from a very young age, and then reinforced throughout their lives. Members of the religion are taught they are “spirit children” of a “Heavenly Mother and Father” (Marshall 197). Before humans’ physical existence, God had laid out a plan for his children, which included daily activities and various milestone rituals and “practices [which] intricately cross sect members’ physical, temporal, and social planes of existence” (197). This plan for each member is the essence of who they are and what they must become. In other words, each member, assuming they remain in the religious fold, never has a chance, from the beginning of their life, to define what their essence is or will become. In short, in the Mormon faith, essence precedes existence. However, as experienced by myself and thousands of other Mormons, placing essence before existence creates problems. One of Jean-Paul Sartre’s pillars of his existential philosophy is to emphasize that existence precedes essence.</p><p>In his well-known lecture entitled “Existentialism is a Humanism” Sartre lays out his argument for placing the recognition of one’s existence before defining one’s essence. He uses an analogy of a creator of a book or paper-knife conceiving those objects in his mind. This conception, in the creator’s mind, is the essence of those objects, and before those objects are produced with physical material, one can claim their essence precedes existence. Applying the analogy to God and humankind, theists, like the Mormons, claim that humanity’s essence was conceived by God prior to humans taking mortal form. However, in all of humanity’s existence, it has collectively never agreed or settled on the definition of God, nor has it found proof of God’s existence. While all discussion on God has been conjecture, what is known to humanity is its own existence – we exist. And even if granted the premise of God’s existence, humanity still lacks access to the mind of God in order to ascertain human essence. Thus, Sartre argues “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards” (Sartre). Given the individual exists first, he is then faced with the prospect of establishing his essence – this is his life project. This project involves blunt honesty with oneself in a perpetual struggle to live with authenticity. To live authentically, one must be on the look-out for “bad faith” actors and paradigms in one’s life.</p><p>While the individual’s life project to define his essence remains in flux, he must be alert to outside impositions, self-deceptions and perpetual dreaming with no action (Flynn 72-74). These forms of bad faith span two poles, one which is the “facticity” of the individual and the other is his “transcendence” (74). Outside imposition (living for others) and self-deception (“dull resignation to one’s fate”) fall under the form of bad faith of facticity, while perpetual dreaming with no action falls under the form of bad faith stemming from transcendence (73).</p><p>For me, having been raised in the Mormon faith, I realized I was suffering from bad faith in the form of facticity. My religious leaders, parents, friends and neighbors sought to impose a specific role on me. They made demands of my life and argued it was my duty and obligation to be Mormon. In a similar vein, Sartre uses an example of “service industry” roles “which [demand] of all persons in the service industry that they give up their status as autonomous human beings and exhaust themselves utterly in serving their social function” (Detmer 79). The other form of bad faith from the facticity pole is resigning oneself to his fate – a lazy argument, in a sense. All too easy for me, and a line of thinking I continually battle today, is to lie to myself by leveraging any and all stories which are “selective and slanted” toward what I think I cannot change about myself (Detmer 81). Overcoming this form of bad faith, for me, is to constantly battle the Mormon “autopilot” programming of my first 38 years of existence (Marshall 205).</p><p>The other form of bad faith I must fight is that of “the dreamer” (Flynn 74). Having left the Mormon faith, I was left with a new-found freedom to make myself who I wished and intended to be. Through the course of the last several years, I have dreamed of becoming either a teacher of philosophy, a life coach or a psychoanalyst, despite the fact that I’ve worked in the Information Technology field for over twenty years. While I am prone to making plans and dreaming, I must overcome this bad faith and work towards making those dreams into a reality. While working towards a degree in philosophy is a good first step, I must continue to define my essence as someone who is knowledgeable in philosophy, psychology and their application towards helping others overcome bad faith and define their own essence.</p><p>Living authentically means maintaining a tension between the two poles and not “insisting [life is about] either transcendence or facticity” (Flynn 74). Authentic living must emphasize and rely on freedom. Sartre notes, “the actions <i>of men of good faith</i> have, as their ultimate significance, the quest for freedom itself” (Detmer 138). This simply means that I have the power and the duty to choose who I will be as an individual. I can no longer throw my hands in the air, pointing to God or my religion or any other fact of my existence, and blame them for who I am. Nor can I admire my dreams of who I think I should be, while never acting on them. Indeed, my existential freedom demands I accept my circumstances – my facticity – and to prod myself towards the future by exerting my freedom and will – my transcendence. Between these two poles, “living authentically involves living without regret” (Cox 138). Lastly, living authentically is not a one-and-done choice, rather it is a constant re-commitment through an ever-evolving life. “Authenticity is the continued task of choosing responses that affirm freedom and responsibility … [and] continually resisting the slide into bad faith that threatens every project” (139). It is simply not falling into another pre-defined mold.</p><p>In conclusion, Sartre contends existence precedes essence, which frees the individual to life authentically. Living authentically is keeping oneself ever wary of falling into bad faith. The project of life, like a jazz song, jibs, jives and riffs and is ever moving. Sartre’s character in <i>Nausea </i>comes to this realization: “what summits would I not reach if my own life were the subject of the melody?” (Golomb 145). The aim of life is not reaching a destination, but rather one of breaking the mold and creatively improvising off one’s circumstances.</p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Cox, Gary. <i>Sartre: A Guide for the Perplexed</i>, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1749842.</p><p>Detmer, David. <i>Sartre Explained : From Bad Faith to Authenticity</i>, Open Court, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=684197.</p><p>Flynn, Thomas R. <i>Existentialism : A Very Short Introduction</i>. Oxford University Press, 2006.</p><p>Golomb, Jacob. <i>In Search of Authenticity : Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus</i>, Taylor & Francis Group, 1995. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=168270.</p><p>Marshall, E. Brooks "The Disenchanted Self: Anthropological Notes on Existential Distress and Ontological Insecurity among Ex-Mormons in Utah." <i>Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry</i>, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 193-213. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fdisenchanted-self-anthropological-notes-on%2Fdocview%2F2281579584%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-019-09646-5.</p><p>Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism, 1946.” <i>Marxists.org</i>, 2019, www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm.</p><p><br /></p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-59350279569668514902023-06-28T05:00:00.001-05:002023-07-04T08:00:02.881-05:00Phil 320 (Environmental Philosophy) - Piousness as a Deep Ecology Solution to Environmental Challenges<p style="text-align: center;"> Piousness as a Deep Ecology Solution to Environmental Challenges</p><p>Considering roughly one third of the world is Christian and another fourth is either Muslim or Hindu, one can argue that the majority of the world's multi-billion population is religious (Johnson, Grim 10). And given that individual beliefs yield ethics, one could argue that finding ways in which "the role religion could play as an element in solving current environmental problems" is worthy of discussion and implementation inasmuch as it could be applied to 60% of the world's population (Jackson 11).</p><p>Arne Næss – founder of deep ecology philosophy – contends that many who support the deep ecology mindset are "partly motivated by basic philosophical or religious premises and feel that all living beings have intrinsic value” (Næss 239). He further relates this religious premise to the God described by Spinoza. And given this piousness or the love of God as a starting point, one may secure for himself a deep foundation from which he builds a strong belief system which is further tied to love of self and others, including all beings and ecosystems. From this belief system, one’s ethics can be applied in several ways.</p><p>One case study from India demonstrates how a religion "emphasizes the harmony of all religions" which bolsters its mission "to help the impoverished populations of India through education, medical service, and helping small villages in the field of rural development" (Jackson 21). While its mission does not directly focus on the environment, its efforts often "co-laterally help the environment" (21). Connecting piousness as a way of life to holistic environmental solutions shows how deep ecology thinking can be applied in a broad-ranging and impactful way throughout the religious world.</p><p>The basic premise of deep ecology stems from a reaction to what Næss called the “shallow ecology movement” whose objective was to “fight against pollution and resource depletion” which essentially benefited “the health and affluence of people in developed countries” (Brennan and Lo). Deep ecology, on the other hand, sought to shift the focus away from an anthropomorphic view to an ecocentric and biocentric emphasis, whereby it recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems. The “deep” aspect of the deep ecology movement is precisely about removing the anthropomorphic view of humans and placing them in a perspective of interconnectedness with all things in the world. The philosophy “asks deeper questions about the place of human life” and strives to enlighten humans to conceive of themselves “as integral threads in the fabric of life” rather than agents endeavoring to dominate the world (Bhandari 810). While Næss took great efforts to explain his philosophy, he simplified his philsophy with what he called the Apron diagram with its four levels, with one of those levels being the 8 point deep ecology platform.</p><p>In sum, the Apron diagram is a four-level framework for organizing a discussion around premises, principles, policies and actions. Level 1 represents foundational “ultimate premises, worldviews, and ecosophies” (Næss 107). It is at this level where discussions around God, ontology and other aspects of the aim of life are discussed. Level 2 covers the eight-point deep ecology platform. The first five points emphasize the flourishing of all life and some delineation of human behaviors including the “substantial decrease of the human population” (111). The remaining three points highlight the need for changes in “economic, technological, and ideological structures” and policies which would place a greater emphasis on “life quality” as opposed to increased standards of living (111-112). Given this platform, one then derives “normative or factual hypothesis and polices” at level 3. And from these hypotheses and policies one can ultimately derive “particular rules, decisions, and actions” found at level 4 (107). Returning to level 1 of the diagram, Næss discovered a rich heritage in the ideas on God from Baruch Spinoza.</p><p>Næss succinctly explains the essence of Spinoza’s God when he discusses God as “complete” in that God is both “the creative and the created” (Næss 236-237). Spinoza viewed God as one whole. He argued God is “infinite … (self-caused), [and a] unique substance of the universe” and that God is this substance, and all else that exists in the universe is in God (Nadler, “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”). Since everything is God, humans and objects in the cosmos are simply modes or affections (Benedictus De Spinoza et al., Ethics, Part 1, proposition 15). Næss later observes God is creativity “intimately interrelated … by particular beings” which have intrinsic value (Næss 238). He notes that “it makes sense to care for these beings for their own sake, as creative beings” (239). The Stoics’ concept of God or Nature was not unlike that of Spinoza. One prominent Stoic, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, </p><p></p><blockquote>“All things are interwoven, and the bond that unites them is sacred, and hardly anything is alien to any other thing, for they have been ranged together and are jointly ordered to form a common universe. For there is one universe made up of all that is, and one god who pervades all things, and one substance and one law, and one reason common to all intelligent creatures, and one truth” (Book 7, chapter 9).</blockquote><p></p><p>From these fundamental, deep beliefs, one can derive principles and lived ethics.</p><p>If an individual views himself as a part of the Whole – a part of God – then one can not only derive a sense of self-love, but a sense of love for all beings, creatures and entities in the world. Næss observes “love of the immanent God is love of God’s expressions, not of a separable God. A being expresses God’s nature or essence; therefore, love of God cannot be different from love of such a being” (Næss 240). In the caring crossfire of the Whole loving its seemingly infinite parts, one begins to lose the sense of self-distinctiveness and pivots to a paradigm of identifying “I” with “all.” And if the “I” is lost in the “all” then individual actions are only self-serving to all. Returning to Marcus Aurelius, he noted a similar sentiment: “What brings no benefit to the hive brings none to the bee” (Book 6, chapter 54). In sum, piousness towards the Whole produces sound ethics for all.</p><p>One Indian religion’s ideology is similar to what Næss encouraged: things, including religions, are part of the Whole and are unified. The religion’s paradigm of “the unity of all religions” is further exemplified with its mission: “to work in service to man and to God” through “education, medical service” and the development of small rural villages (Jackson 21). Two projects which helped develop the villages were an electrification project and a land shaping project.</p><p>For the electrification project, the villages usually depended on gas generators for their electrical needs. To secure renewable sources of energy, the mission contracted electricians and engineering experts to procure and install “hundreds of solar home power units” (22). For the land shaping project, the goal was to increase agricultural efficiency while minimizing deforestation. By shaping the land and creating a system of “ponds and uplands” the village saw a 50% increase in crops and wider access to fisheries, thus reducing illegal hunting (22).</p><p>When the head monk of the mission was queried about these “environmental projects” he was perplexed (22). The monk did not see these projects as solely benefiting the environment, but rather he was motivated “to work for one's own salvation, and for the welfare of the world” or in other words to “work for the greater good of humanity in order to better one’s own karma” which in turn is viewed as “honoring God” (23). In sum, this mission and the monk who leads it, did not simply isolate piousness and environmental sustainability, rather, they saw all things interconnected working in a unified effort to help themselves, others and to honor God.</p><p>While the vast majority of the world is religious, there is a growing number of populations which are leaning agnostic or atheist (Sherman). Is piousness applicable to this segment of the world? If one applies a traditional religious view of an anthropomorphic God, they may not think piousness is necessarily a good thing. And this is why, perhaps, Næss and the aforementioned Indian religion advocate for a wider pious paradigm. If one can imagine God as all-things, and focus on the interconnectedness of all things, then perhaps one may secure an all-encompassing piousness – an intellectual love of God.</p><p>In review, given most of the world’s population is pious, the philsophy of deep ecology can leverage this fundamental premise to form broad coalitions of beliefs across many religions, such as that which the mentioned Indian religion strives for. These coalitions in piousness can then be leveraged to institutionalize best practices which support ecological sustainment in developing countries, such as India. In brief, perhaps all we really do need is love, or as Spinoza wrote, “God’s love of men and the mind’s intellectual love of God are one and the same” (Nadler, Spinoza’s Ethics : An Introduction 273).</p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Aurelius, Marcus. <i>Meditations</i>. Translated by Robin Hard, Oxford University Press, 2011.</p><p>Benedictus De Spinoza, et al. <i>Complete Works</i>. Hackett Pub, 2002.</p><p>Bhandari, Rupsingh. “Deep Ecological Consciousness and Interconnectedness in William Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey.” T<i>echnium Social Sciences Journal</i>, vol. 27, no. 27, Jan. 2022, pp. 808–14, https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v27i1.4910. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022.</p><p>Brennan, Andrew, and Yeuk-Sze Lo. “Environmental Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” <i>Stanford.edu</i>, 3 Dec. 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/.</p><p>Jackson, Timothy, and Ba Bs. <i>Deep Ecology in Action: A Cross-Cultural Series of Case Studies on the Conservation Efforts of Monks and Religious Leaders in India, Mongolia, and Thailand</i>. 2009, d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7261/1/Jackson_Timothy_R_Deep_Ecology.pdf.</p><p>Johnson, Todd M., and Brian J. Grim. <i>The World's Religions in Figures : An Introduction to International Religious Demography</i>, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1160764.</p><p>Nadler, Steven M. “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”<i> Stanford.edu</i>, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/.</p><p>---. <i>Spinoza’s Ethics : An Introduction</i>. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.</p><p>Næss, Arne. <i>Ecology of Wisdom : Writings by Arne Naess</i>. Edited by Alan R Drengson and Bill Devall, Counterpoint, 2010.</p><p>Sherman, Bill. "Report: Atheism Rate Growing Worldwide." <i>McClatchy - Tribune Business News</i>, Aug 25, 2012. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fwire-feeds%2Freport-atheism-rate-growing-worldwide%2Fdocview%2F1034941626%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.</p><div><br /></div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-36813053018250579882023-06-27T16:00:00.002-05:002023-07-24T17:16:00.873-05:00Rel 411: Friedrich Nietzsche: Saying, “yes, yes!, YES!!” to Your Life<p style="text-align: center;">Friedrich Nietzsche: Saying, “yes, yes!, YES!!” to Your Life</p><p>“<i>Toti se inserens mundo</i>” is how Seneca described someone who lives life to its fullest (<i>Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales</i> Letter 66). Pierre Hadot analyzed this passage from Seneca and translated this phrase as “plunging oneself into the totality of the world” which meant “to go beyond the self, and think and act in unison with universal reason” (Hadot 207-208). In a sense, this is a challenge and a call to the individual who would strive in life, to feel the anxiety and challenge of living the best life he can, and not be timid, but “out of joy [plunges his soul] into chance” (Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra 167). Nietzsche contends that this striving to overcome all is at the root of every human’s desire and is the will to power. He further offers a tantalizing thought experiment, known as the eternal recurrence, which the individual can use to spur himself to constantly question if he is living the best life. If the individual can exclaim “yes” to his fate and his challenges in life, time and time again, then he is overcoming all and exerting his will to power. As Nietzsche writes in The Gay Science, “all in all and on the whole: some day I want only to be a Yes-sayer!” (157).</p><p>The concept of the will to power certainly is varied and complex. But there is one thread which is woven throughout Nietzsche’s works: the power to overcome – to exert one’s will. One scholar of Nietzschean philosophy cites The Anti-Christ in explaining what is good or bad in Nietzsche’s philosophy. “What is good?—All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad?—All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that a resistance is overcome.” (Wilkerson).</p><p>The author further explains that exerting one’s will to overcome is as much an effort at self-mastery and is a matter of who the individual obeys and to whom he listens. If one can command oneself, then one exerts his will to power (Wilkerson). This concept of self-mastery is further bolstered by Nietzsche’s ideas on “strict schooling at the proper time” (Nietzsche The Will to Power 516). He is a proponent of a strict education, but also notes that without it, some men are still fortunate to have the school of hard knocks teach them in “the form of a long, lingering illness, which demands the utmost will-power and self-sufficiency; or in the form of a calamity which suddenly befalls him and his wife and child at the same time, forcing him to take action in such a way as to restore his energy and resilience, strengthening his 'moral' fibre and his will to live” (516). In sum, the common theme in the will to power is the idea of the individual assuming radical self-discipline, “to be capable at any time of taking the lead; to prefer danger to comfort,” to say “yes” to any trial or challenge life throws at him and to be the one who both commands himself and obeys himself (516). And while the individual’s will to power relies on self-mastery, one must also recognize his place in the world, a place which Nietzsche calls “a monster of energy, without beginning or end” (585).</p><p><span style="white-space: normal;">This world, according to Nietzsche, waxes and wanes and is “forever changing, forever rolling back, with enormous periods of recurrence” and eternally self-creates and self-destroys and “has no aim if it does not lie in the happiness of the circle” (585). He concludes this passage by explicitly stating “This world is the will to power – and nothing besides! And even you yourselves are this will to power – and nothing besides!” (586). The eternal recurrence is another topic intertwined throughout Nietzsche’s philosophy. In the preceding passage, he connects the idea of the will to power for the individual with the will to power for the world. On another occasion, he uses the idea of eternal recurrence to prod the individual to question whether he is using his will to power to create the best life possible for himself.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: normal;">Nietzsche describes the “idea of eternal recurrence” as “the highest formula of affirmation that can possibly be attained” (Stolz 188). As described in The Gay Science, he asks the reader to imagine a demon confronting him with the proposition of living his life repeatedly for eternity, in all aspects – “every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great … in the same succession and sequence” (Nietzsche 194). What would his reaction be? Would he exclaim “Yes!” or would he be “crushed” by the thought (194)? The experiment and one’s reaction to it is meant to spur one to action and evaluate their state of life to the point of affirming they love their life or to the point of making profound changes.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: normal;">The thought experiment of eternal recurrence is meant to be “the great cultivating thought” which reveals “’what one is’ now (being), and who they could become (becoming)” (Stolz 192). It is meant to be a “weapon” or “hammer” to crack open the shell of the individual raised in “the herd animal status quo” and prompts them to “become strong in character through the revaluation of all values” (192, 197, 193). Much of this work ought to be developed “in a state of solitude” precisely in order to unlearn what one has been taught in school systems and colleges or “sites of student conformity into animal consciousness” (196, 198). Furthermore, as one repeats this thought experiment often through their life, they must apply discerning self-inspection, heeding how they feel about their character, and then committing to discard undesirable qualities and vowing to enhance those they wish to strengthen (195). Through a life-long process, their life becomes a “singular work of immortal art” as a “plan to express their superiority” (194). Their lived philosophy turns into a “YES!!” in response to fate.</span></p><p>In conclusion, Nietzsche contends that striving to overcome all is at the root of every human’s desire and is the will to power. He further offers a provocative thought experiment, known as the eternal recurrence, with which the individual spurs himself to constantly question if he is living the best life. If the individual can exclaim “yes” to his fate and his challenges in life, time and time again, then he is overcoming all and exerting his will to power. He can confidently judge his life thus: </p><p></p><blockquote><p>“Have you ever said Yes to one joy? Oh my friends, then you also said Yes to all pain. All things are enchained, entwined, enamored -</p><p>– if you ever wanted one time two times, if you ever said ‘I like you, happiness! Whoosh! Moment!’ then you wanted everything back! </p><p>– Everything anew, everything eternal, everything enchained, entwined, enamored, oh thus you loved the world – </p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>– you eternal ones, love it eternally and for all time; and say to pain also: refrain, but come back! For all joy wants – eternity!” (Nietzsche Thus Spoke Zarathustra 263). </blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Hadot, Pierre. <i>Philosophy as a Way of Life : Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault</i>. Edited by Arnold I Davidson, Translated by Michael Chase, Blackwell Publishing, 2017.</p><p>Nietzsche, Friedrich. <i>The Gay Science</i>. Edited by Bernard Williams, Translated by Josefine Nauckhoff, Cambridge University Press, 2001.</p><p>---. <i>The Will to Power : Selections from the Notebooks of the 1880s</i>. Translated by R Kevin Hill and Michael A Scarpitti, Penguin Books, 2017.</p><p>--. <i>Thus Spoke Zarathustra</i>. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, Cambridge University Press, 2006.</p><p>Seneca. “<i>Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales</i>.” Artflsrv03.Uchicago.edu (PhiloLogic4), University of Chicago, <a href="http://artflsrv03.uchicago.edu/philologic4/Latin/navigate/249/7/4/">artflsrv03.uchicago.edu/philologic4/Latin/navigate/249/7/4/</a>. Accessed 17 June 2023.</p><p>Stolz, Steven A. “Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence and Education: The Role of the Great Cultivating Thought in the Art of Self‐Cultivation (Bildung).” <i>Journal of Philosophy of Education</i>, vol. 55, no. 1, 2021, pp. 186–203, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12488.</p><p>Wilkerson, Dale. “Nietzsche, Friedrich | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” <i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, <a href="http://iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/">iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/</a>.</p><div><br /></div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-72716021658236722572023-06-21T05:00:00.005-05:002023-07-24T17:15:47.627-05:00Rel 411: Nietzsche on Slave Morality and Herd Mentality<p>To understand slave morality, one must understand master morality.</p><p>Master morality begins with an aristocrat (someone who possesses power in the form of hereditary monarchy or someone who is in power in government or wealth) and he sees himself as "noble, powerful, and strong" (Kirwin). Thus being in power, possessing nobility, power and strength, is defined as "good" in the master morality code of ethics. The "bad" of master morality is anything low-class found among the "ill-born masses" (Kirwin).</p><p>Slave morality is a reaction against master morality; Nietzsche calls it a "slave revolt in morality" (Lanier). Based in religion, priests lead the revolt and call anything "evil" which the master morality calls "good." And what is "good" in the slave morality is "meek, mild, and servile—qualities which the slave class possess of necessity, but which they now cast as the products of their own free choice" (Kirwin). As a result, the so-called goods of the world (i.e. power, wealth, authority) are not to be obtained in this life, but that ultimate justice will be attained for the slaves in the after-life (Kirwin). What is preached in slave morality is "those who suffer and are oppressed on earth will receive their reward in heaven, while the evil masters will face an eternity of punishment in hell" (Kirwin).</p><p>Related to slave morality is herd mentality. To understand herd mentality, one must understand the two different types of beings Nietzsche categorized: "the higher human beings" and "those who belong to the herd" (Academy of Ideas). The higher human beings strive for creativity and have a "unifying life project" which effects will be felt by humankind long after the higher human being passes away. This creativity and independence of the higher human being demands solitude from the herd.</p><p>The individuals of the herd seek "only comfort and contentment" (Academy of Ideas). Parts of the herd also retain a strong resentment of the higher human beings. They are envious of the higher human beings and instead of using that envy to better themselves, they seek to tear down the higher human beings. One form of tearing down the higher human beings is the concept of slave morality, as described above.</p><p>Works cited</p><p>Academy of Ideas. “Nietzsche and Morality: The Higher Man and the Herd.” Www.youtube.com, 30 Jan. 2017, <a href="http://youtu.be/tE67Ye91Ii0">youtu.be/tE67Ye91Ii0</a>. Accessed 30 Mar. 2022.</p><p>Kirwin, Claire. “Nietzsche’s Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <a href="http://iep.utm.edu/nietzsches-ethics/">iep.utm.edu/nietzsches-ethics/</a>.</p><p>Lanier, Anderson R. “Friedrich Nietzsche (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 17 Mar. 2017, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/">plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/</a>.</p><p>p.s. I though the Academy of Ideas video was so good, I've embedded it here below - it's worth the 13 minutes of time!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tE67Ye91Ii0" width="320" youtube-src-id="tE67Ye91Ii0"></iframe></div><br /><p>Feedback from professor Dr. Achilles Gacis:</p><p><i>Moral reasoning, for Nietzsche, in western cultures is infused with Christian morality which he postulates is inspired by deep resentment from when the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. When Nietzsche talks about “morality” he is referring to Judeo-Christian morality because that is the dominant sense of morality in 19th century Europe at the time. Since we are all trying to assert ourselves in the world, Nietzsche thinks that Judeo-Christian morality is also a “will to power” in much the same way. Nietzsche wants to understand the history of morality and how terms like good and evil emerged. </i></p><p><i>On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche draws an analogy. This is how “morality” begins:</i></p><p><i>That the lambs dislike the birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no ground for reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who is least like a birds of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,— would he not be good?" There is no reason to find fault with this institution of an ideal, except perhaps that the birds of prey might find it a little ironically and say "We don’t dislike them at all, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is more tasty than a tender lamb."</i></p><p><i>By way of analogy, just like the lambs, Judeo-Christian morality is born out of resentment - a desire to enact revenge on the predators, but an inability to directly do so. So they psychological revenge in the form of morality. That's certainly one way to assert one's will-to-power, and Nietzsche admires this clever move.</i></p><p><i>Nietzsche’s point is that if you were a lamb you could imagine and probably even want a different moral universe. Getting killed by a bird of prey isn’t preferable! But now imagine the moral view of the birds of prey. It seems unlikely that predators would want or even need to imagine a moral universe. They are, after all, just doing what wolves do. Life as a predator is what it is. They don’t dislike the lambs, they are just living out the will-to-power.</i></p><p><i>The lambs, however, have a very good reason to want a different moral universe. For starters, a world where lambs can just be lambs without having to worry about predators all the time. But since the lambs can’t physically confront the situation the only option is a psychological shift. By convincing the birds of prey that predatory behavior was bad wrong, perhaps they’d stop feeding on lambs. But that’s pretty unlikely at this stage, so another option is to convince yourself and other lambs that predator-like behavior is bad and evil. This would by default, then show the lambs to be good and moral. Why? Because they aren’t acting like predators. Suddenly, the life of a lamb has much more meaning and worth because they are moral and righteous. This, according to Nietzsche, is where the genealogical roots of Christian morality begins. </i></p><p><i>Nietzsche is critical of this form of morality because it’s particularly pernicious. It’s pernicious mainly because we are no longer slaves like the ancient Hebrews, and so there’s no need for this type of ‘ressentiment.’ Most importantly, resentment-based morality lacks the capacity for growth and creativity because it’s essential form is to simply be *against* things rather than standing for any particular affirmative values. </i></p><p><i>Nietzsche also seems to be stating something about how our moral frameworks embody values themselves. This turns the idea that our morals come from values on its head. Nietzsche thinks some moral frameworks are healthier than others, more capable of being "life affirming" than others.</i></p><p><i>In this way too, Nietzsche is challenging the idea that moral reasoning can be purely rational and objective in applying moral principles.</i></p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-30616001766174165572023-06-12T05:00:00.003-05:002023-07-24T17:15:35.302-05:00Rel 411: Finite and the Infinite <p>The finite and the infinite are two views of the self. According to Kierkegaard, the aim is to not be stuck in the finite nor admiring ad nauseum the possibilities of the infinite. One must find a way to make oneself "concrete" by combining the two. As he writes in The Sickness Unto Death, "The self is the conscious synthesis of infinitude and finitude which relates itself to itself, whose task is to become itself, a task which can be performed only by means of a relationship to God. But to become oneself is to become concrete. But to become concrete means neither to become finite nor infinite, for that which is to become concrete is a synthesis" (chapter 3).</p><p>He describes the finite as "narrow-minded and mean-spirited" (chapter 3). To live this way is to be silent in the day-to-day drudgery of life. His colorful language describes a man's will as virtually non-existent and one which dare not cast its gaze into the abyss of infinite possibilities. He writes of the finite existence: "precisely by losing his self in this way, [he] has gained perfectibility in adjusting himself to business, yea, in making a success in the world. Here there is no hindrance, no difficulty, occasioned by his self and his infinitization, he is ground smooth as a pebble" (chapter 3). To be stuck in the finite is to go about business as usual and don't cause any waves which might cause difficulties. The finite is a life which "occasions no embarrassment but makes one’s life easy and comfortable" (chapter 3).</p><p>The infinite, on the other hand is unlimited imagination. Kierkegaard writes, "The fantastical is doubtless most closely related to fantasy, imagination, but imagination in turn is related to feeling, knowledge, and will, so that a person may have a fantastic feeling, or knowledge, or will. Generally speaking, imagination is the medium of the process of infinitizing entranced by the, wild, endless possibilities" (chapter 3). While thrilling, one can become dizzy and distracted about all the things he could do. And if he spends all his time in imagination, he will forget to live and strive to make any of these possibilities a reality.</p><p>The aim, therefore, is to "synthesize" the two into the "concrete." In other words, one must choose from the infinite possibilities and escape the silent business-as-usual life and then make that possibility into a reality. He writes, "The man’s concrete self, or his concretion, has in fact necessity and limitations, it is this perfectly definite thing, with these faculties, dispositions, etc." (chapter 3).</p><p>Work cited</p><p>Kierkegaard, Sören. “The Sickness unto Death – Religion Online.” Religion Online, Princeton University Press, 1941, <a href="http://www.religion-online.org/book/the-sickness-unto-death/">www.religion-online.org/book/the-sickness-unto-death/</a>. Accessed 12 June 2023.</p><p>reply from Dr. Achilles Gacis:</p><p><i>It’s easy to see how Kierkegaard's existential philosophy is influenced by Socrates and the idea of the examined life.</i></p><p><i>As an existentialist, Kierkegaard sees the primary problem of philosophy the problem of being... the problem of being human. Kierkegaard thinks that the tools of philosophy are important not so much for knowledge in general, but for sorting out how to be, how to live one's life. The descriptives offered by Soren are indeed eloquent, yet articulation and terminology is limited when it comes to experiential and even subjective knowledge that is sought after in the spiritual and/or holistic. </i></p><p><i>If we look at Kierkegaard as the created (human) questioning the creator (God) as God being the author of being, then where does any notion of “free will” and “self-determination” come in? How fulfilled can one be merely using their own consciousness? How can the created that operates within a finite dimension define the creator, who is infinite and without limitation? </i></p><p><i>One can delve further, but this is not an exercise to invalidate Kierkegaard but just to understand how we can maximize our own approach of a holistic existentialism.</i></p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-29537447142242099032023-04-29T05:00:00.001-05:002023-04-29T11:19:11.399-05:00Phil 416: Søren Kierkegaard: Confronting “the Possibility of Freedom”<p style="text-align: center;">Søren Kierkegaard: Confronting “the Possibility of Freedom”</p><p>The starving, young boy, Michael Kierkegaard, was watching over sheep in the bitter cold. He must have resented his lot in life, and in a defiant act “stood on a hilltop and cursed God” (Carlisle). However, he would regret this act and come to believe that in response to his impiousness, God had cursed him and would take “the lives of all seven of his children before they reached the age of 34 (the age of Jesus Christ at his crucifixion)” (McDonald). All but two of his children (Peter and Søren) indeed died before the age of 34. Being fully aware of this perceived curse, Søren Kierkegaard’s own anxiety would strike him like a whip and drive him, from a young age, to find his purpose in life and become accomplished, before the age of 34 (McDonald). While many people may not be anxiously pursued by a perceived god-curse, they still suffer a similar angst in endeavoring to understand their place in life. Thankfully because of Søren Kierkegaard’s suffering and his quest to be the Christian Socrates, those who read his works may find answers in their pursuit to grow through anxiety and onward to the “possibility of freedom” (Kierkegaard 196).</p><p>Born on May 5, 1813, in Copenhagen, Kierkegaard’s unease grew strong as a young boy. He “looked up at his stern father with fear and trembling,” and one time he observed “the anxiety with which my father filled my soul, his own frightful melancholy, the many things in this connection that I cannot even write down” (Carlisle). By the age of 17, he entered the university at Copenhagen, and for the next eleven years would laboriously study, anxiously seek his meaning in life, waffle back and forth with marriage and then finally defend his dissertation in 1841 (McDonald). It was during these years his anxiety deepened, especially regarding his securing his true aim in life. He wrote,</p><p></p><blockquote>What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth that is true for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die” (Carlisle).</blockquote><p></p><p>In the final year of university, he proposed to Regine Olsen, and she consented. However, in his search to find his purpose in life, he came to realize that he could not marry Regine. While there appears to be no explicit reason for backing out of the proposal, there does seem to be some indication that the calling of becoming “the Socrates of Christendom” had a stronger sway on him, and in that role, he could “not subject Regine” to the life of his “philosophical task” (Carlisle).</p><p>For the next fourteen years until his death on November 11, 1855, Kierkegaard would write profusely and leverage various writing methods such as pseudonyms, “irony, parody, satire, humor, and deconstructive techniques” in order to awaken Christians out of their intellectual ruts and routines (McDonald). Like an unremitting horsefly, Kierkegaard “constantly [irritated] his contemporaries with discomforting thoughts” to force them “to take individual responsibility for knowing who they are and for knowing where they stand on the existential, ethical and religious issues” (McDonald). This discomfort was the initial stage of prodding his readers and fellow-Christians into a state of anxiety.</p><p>Anxiety is the soil for growth and possibility. “Kierkegaard sees man as the creature who is continually beckoned by possibility, who conceives of possibility, visualizes it, and by creative activity carries it into actuality” (May 39). In this mindset of possibility, man experiences more anxiety. But in order to achieve freedom, the individual must “confront that anxiety and move ahead despite it” (41). Yet in that moment of intending to “move ahead,” the individual “at the same time wishes not” to move ahead (42). The choice to press on is the hallmark of a healthy individual, while the unhealthy person remains “shut-in” (42). Another obstacle for a person to overcome is the “belief in fate” (44).</p><p>Regarding fate, Kierkegaard wrote that it “is the unity of necessity and the accidental” (Kierkegaard 96). Consequently, when one accepts the belief of fate, “the full meaning of anxiety and guilt are not felt” (May 44). And because of the lack of anxiety, “fate sets limits on creativity” and for the “creative genius” to attain success, he must move “through anxiety and guilt” (44). Indeed, one must embrace the anxiety one feels and treat it like a painful prescription from a doctor.</p><p>By having an open mind and welcoming possibilities, one must view anxiety as medical treatment that is painful. To achieve what one imagines, one must pay the price to be healed. This dreadful remedy reveals to him his existence, and his “human situation … [and] the fact of death” (46). However, one must not shirk the procedure. Kierkegaard reminds us to be like Socrates, who, when faced with the hemlock did so “as a patient [who] says to the surgeon when a painful operation is about to begin, ‘Now I am ready.’ Then anxiety enters his soul and searches it thoroughly, constraining out of him all the finite and petty, and leading him hence whither he would go” (46).</p><p>In conclusion, Kierkegaard’s life, from his childhood to his lived experience, to his voluminous writings, was a life of educational angst. While his father and his momentary fiancé provided him much consternation, he nonetheless confronted these and all his anxieties – including searching and securing his true aim in life: becoming the Christian Socrates. Once secure in his unique objective in life, he leveraged many techniques to induce discomfort and anxiety in his readers. And if his readers embrace this anxiety, as did Kierkegaard, then their obstacle becomes the path toward the possibility of freedom and meaning. In sum, anxiety is “an adventure that every human being must go through – to learn to be anxious so that he may not perish either by never having been in anxiety, or by succumbing in anxiety” (Kierkegaard 155). </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Carlisle, Clare. <i>Philosopher of the Heart</i>. E-book ed., Penguin UK, 2019.</p><p>Kierkegaard, Søren. <i>The Concept of Anxiety : A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin</i>. Translated by Reidar Thomte and Albert Anderson, Princeton University Press, 1980.</p><p>May, Ph.D., Rollo.<i> The Meaning Of Anxiety</i>, Hauraki Publishing, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4808629.</p><p>McDonald, William. “Søren Kierkegaard (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” <i>Stanford.edu</i>, 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-74850325556486679482023-04-16T05:00:00.009-05:002023-04-16T12:14:36.901-05:00Phil 416 - The Absurd Mission<p style="text-align: center;">The Absurd Mission</p><p>In his seminal work <i>The Myth of Sisyphus</i>, Camus quotes the Dostoevsky character Kirilov who ruminates on the idea that upon dying Christ “did not find himself in Paradise” and that his life, suffering and torture “had been useless” (Camus 98). Kirilov ponders a Christ who lived “in the midst of falsehood and [died] for a falsehood” (98). Camus commentates that Jesus in this situation is “the complete man” since he is in “the most absurd condition” (98). Three men, from the 1750s living in the south American region near Iguazu Falls, found themselves in a similar situation, where they devoted and gave their lives to helping the Guarani natives, knowing full well they would receive no recompense and perhaps knowing their work would be useless. From the idea of men working consciously knowing their labors could be fruitless, to the moment the Guarani king, in exasperation, realizes the absurdity of God changing his mind, <i>The Mission</i> demonstrates what living an existentially absurd life may look like. To begin, one must ask: what is absurdism?</p><p>One can almost hear a boxing match announcer, with a loud, reverberating voice exclaim, “in the left corner, riled up, energized and ready to rumble, we have The Human Condition, seeking to secure and explain the meaning of human existence. And in the right corner …” The announcer falls silent as there is no opponent. This paradox of humanity’s “impulse to ask ultimate questions and the impossibility of achieving any adequate answer” is what Camus calls “<i>the absurd</i>” (Aronson). As a result of this bizarre position, the human comes to feel “weariness, anxiety, strangeness, nausea, and horror in the face of one’s mortality” (Pölzler). What is one to do in this illogical predicament? Camus declares there are three options: suicide, hope, or revolt. Immediate escape from this paradox in the form of suicide is at least understandable. Hope or taking a “leap” is simply delaying the inevitable, in that the human seeks rational meaning in God or some transcendence but will ultimately never secure it (Camus 43). The third option encapsulates the heart of absurdism. Revolt is to accept the meaninglessness. Revolt is </p><p></p><blockquote>to work and create 'for nothing', to sculpture in clay, to know that one's creation has no future, to see one's work destroyed in a day while being aware that, fundamentally, this has no more importance than building for centuries - this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions” (103). </blockquote><p></p><p>Much like Sisyphus pushing a rock uphill, to have that effort support nothing, and to perform the task again, happily, is to live the absurd; to be present and live despite meaninglessness. The 1986 film entitled <i>The Mission</i> features hallmarks of Camus’ absurdist philsophy.</p><p><i>The Mission</i> is a historically factual movie occuring in the 1750s near modern-day Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. It follows the fate of a Jesuit priest named Father Gabriel who climbs Iguazu Falls to convert the Guarani to Christianity after they tie a Jesuit missionary to a wooden cross and send him down the falls, to his death. While working with the Guarani, Father Gabriel encounters a Spanish mercenary named Rodrigo Mendoza, who enslaved and murdered many Guarani. Mendoza descends the falls with many slaves. Upon returning to the city, his fiancé, Carlotta, breaks off their engagement in order to be with Mendoza’s brother. After catching his brother and former fiancé in bed, Mendoza kills his brother in a jealous outrage. Starving himself out of depression, Mendoza is convinced by Father Gabriel to join him as a form of penance. Mendoza climbs the falls and begins working to establish the mission. The mission becomes successful in a peaceful Guarani community. However, the Treaty of Madrid is signed, which demands that the Spanish crown take control of the mission’s land. The mission faces two options: leave the land or fight the Spanish army. Father Gabriel believes fighting goes against the principles of Christianity and decides to remain peaceful, even if it means death Mendoza fights. They both die along with many others and the surviving Guarani children escape into the jungles while their parents are enslaved.</p><p>Two main illustrations of absurdism in <i>The Mission</i> are: first, the nature of the Jesuits’ work “for nothing,” and second, the “strangeness” the Guarani king experiences when he realizes God had changed his mind and he wonders if the Jesuits are the people who they claim to be (Camus 103, 20).</p><p>No part of the movie better exemplifies the nature of absurdism than when Mendoza takes his vows to become a Jesuit. He explicitly promises “to labor and not count the cost and serve with no reward save the doing of [God’s] will” (<i>The Mission</i> 0:49:03- 0:51:00). While Mendoza may seemingly be taking a leap of faith, he is nonetheless conscious that he will work and create with no expectation of remuneration. To quote Camus again, “to work and create 'for nothing' … to know that one's creation has no future, to see one's work destroyed in a day while being aware that” (Camus 103). Ultimately, the work of the Jesuits amounts to nothing. All their labor and service and even their lives are destroyed in a day. After being shot multiple times, Mendoza, in a final effort to seek meaning or even witness a miracle, struggles to remain alive to witness the fate of Father Gabriel. But even the devout Father, along with dozens of Guarani are mowed down by musket fire (1:55:19-1:56:45). One can’t help but wonder if this image of Mendoza dying is what Kirilov imagined when Christ entered paradise realizing he died for a “falsehood” (Camus 98).</p><p>The other illustration of the absurd is when the Catholic Cardinal Altamirano, who is deciding the fate of the mission, must adhere to the Treaty of Madrid and informs the Guarani they must abandon the mission. In an intense exchange between the cardinal and the Guarani king, the king explains how the Jesuits taught his people it was God’s will they establish a mission, and now that God is telling them to leave, he does not understand - this makes no sense to the king. He says, “it was the will of God that they came out of the jungle and built the mission” and that they don’t understand why God has changed his mind and that ultimately, they were wrong to trust the church (<i>The Mission</i> 1:20:56-1:25:00). God’s rationale is odd to the Guarani and thus is indicative of someone experiencing the early stages of the absurd – grasping “that strangeness of the world” (Camus 20).</p><p>In conclusion, while we may never know the true intentions and conscious choices of Father Gabrial and Mendoza, we can observe absurdism illustrated in the film <i>The Mission</i>. From the concept of men working consciously knowing their labors could be and are fruitless, to the king’s moment of realization of the strangeness of the world, <i>The Mission</i> demonstrates what living an existentially absurd life may look like: living a life of “higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks” or in other words, to revolt against the absurd and live in a meaningless universe (Camus 111). </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Aronson, Ronald. “Albert Camus.” <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, 2011, plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/.</p><p>Camus, Albert. <i>The Myth of Sisyphus</i>. 1955. Translated by Justin O’Brien, Penguin Books, 1979.</p><p>Pölzler, Thomas. "Camus’ Feeling of the Absurd." <i>Journal of Value Inquiry</i>, vol. 52, no. 4, 2018, pp. 477-490. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fcamus-feeling-absurd%2Fdocview%2F2036912540%2Fse-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-018-9633-1.</p><p><i>The Mission</i>. Directed by Roland Joffé, Columbia-Cannon-Warner Distributors, 1986.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-87153799125888875392023-04-09T05:00:00.003-05:002023-04-16T11:22:05.340-05:00Phil 416 - Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic in Psychotherapy<p style="text-align: center;">Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic in Psychotherapy</p><p>Hegel’s three-part, recursive dialectical process provides a framework for explaining the reality of many things. One specific application called, the “master-slave dialectic” elaborates on the individual’s “development of self-consciousness” in terms of desire, recognition and alienation (GIVENS and NUMBERS 200). While this dialectic process may be applied and have practical use in a client-therapist setting, in some cases of therapy it may not be practical given that some psychoanalytic work is not linear and in fact the dialectical process expends more effort for smaller returns (Kronemyer).</p><p>The dialectic process is a dialogue or discussion of ideas, between people or even within oneself, which volleys back and forth, and pivots into additional ideas after which the process repeats with subsequent ideas. In each cycle, the first step in the discussion is a proposal or an idea. This introductory idea may be called the thesis or “the moment of the understanding” (Maybee). Following the thesis, the dialogue is met with a reactionary, opposing idea, in which the principal idea is negated. This reaction could be called the antithesis or the “negatively rational moment” (Maybee). However, this second movement does not entirely negate the first, rather it sublates it, which means it “both cancels and preserves” and pushes toward the third moment (Maybee). This third moment is “speculative or positively rational” in which it secures “the unity of the opposition” of the first and second moments and can be termed the synthesis (Maybee). Hegel’s dialectic is usually applied in areas which pertain to the individual or in social environments. One specific example is Hegel’s master-slave dialectic and its application to psychotherapy.</p><p>In Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, the dialectic is used to explain an individual’s “development of self-consciousness” through the ideas of desire and recognition which is “also termed the master-slave dialectic” (GIVENS and NUMBERS 200). In this dialectic, the thesis is desire, as an individual eats and drinks to survive and, in general, yearns for “fulfillment and growth” (200). While pursuing this desire, the individual is confronted by other individuals who also desire the same things, and in this meeting, the individuals seek “interpersonal acknowledgement” and “recognition” (200). The antithesis of desire is recognition, in which the individual moves from self-sustainment “to a struggle to the death for recognition” (205). This conflict metaphorically reaches a pitched battle in which life is risked and one party yields and the other “emerges as the victor” (206). The yielding individual accepts the role of “slave” in order to survive and the victor assumes the role of “master” and “wields power over the slave” (206). Lastly, the synthesis of desire and recognition for the slave evolves into alienation, where the slave is estranged from freedom, and works for the master. Yet in this alienation, the slave “through labor, attains freedom, self-awareness, and the power to transform the natural world” (208).</p><p>Practical application of psychotherapy via the master-slave dialectic can be used in each phase of the evolution. One specific application in psychotherapy occurs viz-a-viz recognition and alienation, in which the client suffers “anger, frustration, and self-loathing” in an effort to “obtain recognition from” the therapist (211). While the therapist may be viewed as assuming the role of master, she nevertheless “resists the role” and instead seeks to facilitate the process wherein the client reaches escape velocity and is able to break free of alienation (211). In the client-therapist relationship, the client receives the recognition he desires “without punishment” from the masters of modern society such as “schools, prisons, hospitals, clinics” and “anonymous organizational structures” such as corporations (209, 211). Through recognition the client transforms himself and no longer feels alienated but adapts and discovers new freedoms. This rudimentary example indeed demonstrates the applicability of Hegel’s dialectic to explain some reality in the arena of psychotherapy, however, others disagree that it can be utilized to explain reality, even in this field.</p><p>David Kronemyer, who works in the Department of Psychiatry at ULCA noted in a letter to the editor of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that Hegel’s dialectic “has proliferated to numerous other contexts, many involving psychiatry; for example, the migration from psychoanalysis to behaviorism to cognitive therapy” (Kronemyer). But at a lower, practical level Kronemyer does not view the dialectic as applicable. For example, while validation of the client may be viewed as the thesis, and the antithesis may be understood as change, he contends “the process of therapy is evolutionary—a ‘random walk’ incorporating (nonexclusively) flexible thinking, adaptive behavior, and emotional awareness” (Kronemyer). In other words, successful therapy often does not always follow the Hegelian dialectic process and is much more haphazard than iterative. And to underscore his point even further, Kronemyer summarizes, “Holding two opposing thoughts in your mind at the same time is far more effortful than holding two complementary ones. Clinicians should divest themselves of the concept of ‘dialectic’ and focus instead on emotional regulation” (Kronemyer).</p><p>In conclusion, Hegel’s iterative dialectic process provides a structure for exploring the reality of things. The “master-slave dialectic” is one particular avenue to apply the dialectic especially in the arena of the maturation of the individual’s self-consciousness. The ideas of desire, recognition and alienation provide a construct for the client and therapist to successfully help the client evolve and develop his self-consciousness. While this dialectic method can be applied practically in psychotherapy, other experts in the field do not think it is as applicable, given that psychoanalytic work is not linear. Indeed, the dialectic may lead the client and therapists down paths that ultimately do not address the root of emotional disturbances. </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>GIVENS, JOEL, and MEGAN NUMBERS. “Of Human Bondage: The Relevance of Hegel’s Dialectic of Desire and Recognition for Humanistic Counselors.” The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, vol. 55, no. 3, Oct. 2016, pp. 200–14, https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12034. Accessed 3 Oct. 2019.</p><p>Kronemyer, David. “Just What Is ‘Dialectical’ about Dialectical Behavior Therapy?” The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 78, no. 3, Mar. 2017, pp. e310–10, https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.16lr11394. Accessed 1 May 2019.</p><p>Maybee, Julie E. “Hegel’s Dialectics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-25634531203190007492023-03-03T05:00:00.001-06:002023-03-03T13:15:32.310-06:00Phil 405 term paper - The Consolation of Stoic Optimism<p style="text-align: center;">The Consolation of Stoic Optimism</p><p><span> </span>A sudden or expected death of a loved one, war, terror attacks, physical assaults, and violent car accidents are types of shocking events which confront individuals at least once in their lifetime (Bonanno, 20). Stoic metaphysics embraces an optimistic view that all events, including the ones listed, will ultimately work out well. However, one of the most prolific modern academics of Stoicism, wondered if this is a problem with the philosophy. After detailing Stoic metaphysics, including the properties of Nature, <i>pneuma</i>, and the philosophy’s optimistic view on providential determinism, A.A. Long mentions “one of the least palatable” characteristics of the philosophy: “trust” in Nature that all is well (170). He goes on to observe the “chilling and insensitive” attitudes of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius which embrace a “faith that all will turn out well in the end” (170). Does a belief in Nature, fate, and that all events will ultimately unfold well help the individual secure a <i>eudaimonic </i>life? Or is this belief inconsiderate and does it minimize the emotions one feels as a result of his fate? With the right perspective, beliefs and attitude, one can achieve a flourishing life regardless of circumstances without necessarily minimizing one’s emotions.</p><p><span> </span>If one embraces Stoicism’s metaphysical framework, beginning with the concept of <i>pneuma </i>pervading everything through the forces of unity, life, movement and rationality, which logically leads to the idea of Nature or God as one whole, then one can rationally conclude a deterministic fate, in which humans participate in the fate of the Cosmos. Furthermore, despite a deterministic view, at least one research paper offers some evidence that a disbelief in free will can lead to moral behavior and empathy, thus countering the lazy argument (Caspar). One modern day psychologist bolsters this view with arguments from Spinoza and Joseph Wolpe. Therefore, taken as a whole belief system, assuming an optimistic perspective about conjoined fated actions and determinism, humans can flourish and be resilient (live an excellent life) regardless of circumstances and they can even experience a flowing self-determination in the face of any adversity, including death, loss and violent events. Indeed, this has been confirmed by some modern research. Because of their optimism, humans mostly exhibit resilience (Bonanno and Zimmerman). The entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to obtaining <i>eudaimonia </i>leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8).</p><p><span> </span>At the very core of Stoic metaphysics is the substance <i>pneuma</i>. In brief, it simply and literally means wind or breath (Liddell and Scott). Long uses various phrases which expand on the literal definition, by describing <i>pneuma </i>as “fiery breath”, “artistic fire”, “the active principle”, “vital spirit … hot breath … vehicle of the logos”, “force or energy”, “‘field of force’ activating matter” and “intelligent director of everything” (150-164). John Sellars defines <i>pneuma </i>as “identified with God and reason” and “a conscious and rational organizing principle” and as “the soul of the cosmos” (97). He cites Aetius who described God as “creative fire (pur technikon)” and Stobaeus who called it the force “causing growth and preservation” (98-99). Implicit in these descriptions is movement and action.</p><p><i><span> </span>Pneuma </i>is in “perpetual motion” and therefore is the cause of other movements in the cosmos (Sambursky 21). Furthermore, this motion not only exists in bodies, but is also the framework for how the cosmos operates. The motion is like that of waves or ripples after a pebble is tossed into still water. Quoting Stobaios, Sambursky writes, “It begins in the centre of the body and extends outwards to its boundaries, and after touching the outermost surface it turns back till it arrives at the same place from which it started” (31).</p><p><span> </span>Besides being in perpetual motion, <i>pneuma </i>is considered the active element and mixes with passive elements (fire, air, water, earth) and binds itself to them causing bodies to exist. <i>Pneuma </i>may be mixed with elements to three varying degrees. First is mingling which could be described as a “mechanical mixture” like that of a mosaic, second is fusion, which mixture causes “a new substance,” and third, “complete interpenetration” in which all parts are “jointly occupied by all the components in the same proportion” (Sambursky 12-13). Additionally, depending on the extent to which <i>pneuma </i>is mixed with passive elements will determine how alive an object is and if it has a soul or not (Sellars91). In sum, the extent of <i>pneuma </i>in passive elements determines if an object has simple forces of unity, or is living, or has movement or possesses rationality.</p><p><span> </span>Given that <i>pneuma </i>is in constant motion, mixes with passive elements, and is the cause of tension and the coherence of everything, the cosmos is one unified whole. Like the glove and hand analogy, whereby the glove would represent the passive elements, and the hand would represent the active force, the cosmos is set in motion and is active by virtue of <i>pneuma</i>. Sambursky succinctly summarizes this idea and notes how the cosmos is one whole because Nature is unbroken in time and space. Referring to <i>pneuma</i>, he wrote, “It was divine power (viz. Force) impressing a definite state upon matter on the one hand, and causal nexus linking the successive states of matter on the other, and in both these aspects it revealed itself as a spatially and temporally continuous agent” (Sambursky 37). Given their view that the cosmos is one “agent,” the Stoics believed that fate was tied up with Nature - a topic on which Chrysippus had a few things to say.</p><p><span> </span>Regarding fate, Chrysippus aligns with Zeno’s position, Zeno being the founder of Stoicism. In some fragments which remain of his writings, we learn Zeno said, “fate is the chainlike cause of existing things or the reason in accordance with which they are ordered … [and is] the moving power of matter according to identical rules and in the same way and it does not differ from providence and nature” (Gould 142). Chrysippus reaffirms Zeno’s stance by calling fate “a certain natural order of all things, following closely upon one another and moved in succession from eternity, and their intertwining with one another is unalterable” (143). Rival philosophical schools attacked Chrysippus’ views on fate arguing that free will was removed and that since fate has been decided, human agency becomes irrelevant (i.e., the lazy argument). In response, Chrysippus would refine his argument with the ideas of “proximate” and “perfect” causes along with the idea that certain things are “in our power” and others are not (149).</p><p><span> </span>A proximate cause might be the proposition of eating a large unhealthy meal or committing adultery, but the perfect cause would be the individual assenting to the proposition, or not. Chrysippus would expound on this idea with the cylinder analogy. A cylinder may be sitting on a slope and the “initial force” to start the rolling process would be the proximate cause (i.e., the proposition of an unhealthy dinner or the opportunity at committing adultery in the previous example) (149). But “the cylinder’s own form” would be accountable for the ongoing movement down the slope, which would represent the proximate cause (i.e., assenting or not to eating the unhealthy dinner or committing adultery in the previous example) (150). Sellars makes this distinction even clearer by explaining Chrysippus’ ideas on “simple fated things and conjoined fated things” and by providing an example of a mortal being (Sellars 103). He writes that while “Socrates will die” is a “simple fated thing” it is not certain that “Socrates will die this afternoon” because he will opt to visit a doctor and therefore his actual chance of survival is termed his “cojoined fate” since Socrates has some choice in the matter (104). While Chrysippus did much to bolster his views to counter the lazy argument response on fate, modern research also provides a few other reasons which counter the lazy argument on determinism and fate.</p><p><span> </span>One research study investigated the relationship between people’s belief or disbelief in free will and how their moral actions aligned with those beliefs. In this study, the researchers instructed all participants to complete various questionnaires to determine where their beliefs resided on a scale of belief in free will, determinism and fate. When the participants arrived at the lab, two large groups were formed: the Control group and the No Free will group. In the Control group, participants read a passage from a book which explained how “psychologists tried to develop a method to assess consciousness” while the No Free Will group read a passage from the same book about how “human behavior is totally determined by genetics” (Caspar, et. al. 3). They were then placed in groupings of three individuals in a room: one as “agent,” one as “victim,” and one as “experimenter” (3). The selection of the roles was random, and all participants eventually played one of the three roles. In every situation, the agent was given money if the agent delivered a painful shock to the victim, but if they did not deliver the shock, no money was given. In these sub-groupings, there were two conditions the agent was presented with: the free-choice condition, in which the agent was totally free to give the shock or not, and the coercive condition in which the experimenter told the agent to give the shock, in which case the agent could decide to give the shock or not.</p><p><span> </span>The results of this experiment indicate “the No Free will group inflicted fewer shocks in the free-choice condition than participants in the Control group” (6-7). While gender does seem to play a factor, the results still indicate that when given a free choice, participants who believed they had no choice in fact demonstrated greater prosocial or moral behaviors. The study further noted that “the reduction of immoral behavior in the no free will group for female participants stems from the induced beliefs” as opposed to their “core beliefs” (7). Additional conclusions from the study show that vengeful behavior was also reduced in the same No Free will group, “and that the higher female participants scored on free will, the more vindictive they were” (7). In sum, this research study reveals that a disbelief in free will does not necessarily lead to one adhering to lazy argument thinking, but it also reveals deterministic thinking can even lead to higher prosocial thinking and behavior.</p><p><span> </span>If one believes that much of their life and circumstances are determined by things beyond their control, then perhaps they will focus their efforts on empathy and improving societal and environmental conditions which promote improved moral behaviors, rather than seeking to instill punitive forms of persuasion. Indeed, it seems deterministic thinking can cause one to have more compassion and understanding. Donald Robertson, a modern-day psychologist, observed the connection between determinism and empathy by drawing parallels in the ideas of Spinoza and a 20th century psychiatrist named Joseph Wolpe. He noted that to understand the world rationally “is to do so by reference to … the essential idea of Nature itself.” He then quotes Spinoza, whose metaphysical beliefs are similar to the Stoics: “we can desire nothing save that which is necessary, nor can we absolutely be contented with anything save what is true: and therefore insofar as we understand this rightly, the endeavour of the best part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of nature” (Robertson).</p><p>Robertson then notes the relationship between determinism and living in harmony with Nature, to the ideas of the psychiatrist Wolpe, who said this of determinism and empathy:</p><p></p><blockquote>Objectivity, empathy, and sensitivity to suffering are intrinsic to the behaviour therapist’s approach to his patients. The objectivity follows from the knowledge that all behaviour, including cognitive behaviour, is subject to causal determination no less than is the behaviour of falling bodies or magnetic fields. […] To explain how the patient’s neurosis arose out of a combination or chain of particular events helps [empathic] understanding (Robertson).</blockquote><p></p><p>The point to this long thread about determinism and empathy is to counter the idea which Long calls “chilling and insensitive” about the idea that “all will turn out well in the end” (170). Taking an optimistic perspective is not disturbing and inconsiderate, but rather it is a rational way for the individual to arrive at acceptance of events as they are and empathic understanding for himself and humanity.</p><p><span> </span>Furthermore, this thread of thought on determinism and empathy ought to inform the individual to not only validate his own emotions and those of others when they perceive that much is beyond their control - that these perceptions don’t have to be distressing and indifferent -but that we can experience greater and deeper understanding of our shared human experiences and help others see the higher fidelity of existence. The higher fidelity in thinking and perception allows us to truly grasp and comprehend what is up to us, and in that space, we can adjust our attitude towards an optimistic perspective which will lead to resilience in the face of adversity. In fact, resilience seems to be the default human reaction to adversity.</p><p><span> </span>Humans are a tough and resilient species. One study of 67 potentially traumatic events, such as “mass shootings, hurricanes, spinal cord injuries,” observed that two-thirds resiliently recover from the event (Zimmerman). The article which references this study concludes by noting what psychologists have observed in people who are resilient and flourish in virtually any circumstance: they have a “positive, realistic outlook … [and] look for opportunities in bleak situations, striving to find the positive within the negatives” (Zimmerman). A professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University’s Teachers College, George Bonanno, conducted this research on human resilience in the face of traumatic events, and observed “multiple pathways to resilience” (25). Of note are his findings which align with the optimistic perspective on Stoic determinism. He noted that “hardiness” which includes commitment “to finding meaningful purpose in life” and “that one can learn and grow from both positive and negative life experiences” are hallmarks in those who demonstrate resilience to adverse events (25). These traits align with the Stoic perspective that all events and circumstances can work out for the best. And closely related to this optimistic view, Bonanno further observes, are those responses of “positive emotion and laughter” which have the effect of “quieting or undoing a negative emotion” after an “aversive event” (26).</p><p><span> </span>To tie all these threads together, the idea that ultimately all works out well (Stoic optimism), not only embraces determinism, but also reminds the individual of what is up to him, namely, his attitude and the ability to grasp the reality of his situation. This higher fidelity in thinking allows him the space to be more empathic with his own situation and that of others. This empathy can counteract the “chilling and insensitive” perspective Long mentions (170). Furthermore, this cognitive space empowers the individual to breed a growth and learning mindset regarding all events in his life, including traumatic events. This optimism, in the form of seeking meaning and purpose, along with the optimistic characteristics of “positive emotion and laughter” can equip the individual to resiliently endure most events in his life (Bonanno 26). Being psychologically prepared and equipped with this mentality, the individual thus gains confidence in his pursuit of leading a fulfilling and flourishing life – he knows when tough times come, these events will provide meaning and opportunity for him to practice excellence in living.</p><p><span> </span>In conclusion, the entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to securing <i>eudaimonia </i>leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8). This mindset is not disturbing nor callous, but rather optimistically equips the individual to be psychologically and emotionally durable and possess the confidence to face any adversity. Not only can one wisely respond to any desire, aversion, or event in his life, but he can also feel confidence and gratitude in his mental paradigm. Lastly, Marcus Aurelius compares this robust self-determination to that of ocean waves colliding against the cropping of rocks.</p><p></p><blockquote>Be like the rocky headland on which the waves constantly break. It stands firm, and round it the seething waters are laid to rest. 'It is my bad luck that this has happened to me.' No, you should rather say: 'It is my good luck that, although this has happened to me, I can bear it without pain, neither crushed by the present nor fearful of the future.' Because such a thing could have happened to any man, but not every man could have borne it without pain (Meditations Book 4, chapter 49).</blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Bonanno, George A. "Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have we Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?" American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 1, 2004, pp. 20-28. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Floss-trauma-human-resilience-have-we%2Fdocview%2F614384211%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20.</p><p>Caspar, Emilie A., et al. “The Influence of (Dis)Belief in Free Will on Immoral Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology, no. 8 20, 17 Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00020. </p><p>Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.</p><p>Gould, J B. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. 1970. Netherlands, Brill Academic Pub, 1971.</p><p>Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, a Greek-English Lexicon, πνεῦμα.” Www.perseus.tufts.edu, 1940, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpneu%3Dma. Accessed 12 Feb. 2023.</p><p>Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press, 1986.</p><p>Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, et al. Meditations. Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books, 2014.</p><p>Robertson, Donald J. “Spinoza’s Philosophical Psychotherapy.” Stoicism — Philosophy as a Way of Life, 26 Sept. 2019, medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/spinozas-philosophical-psychotherapy-94ff758f6f15. Accessed 18 Feb. 2023.</p><p>Sellars, John. Stoicism. Routledge, 2014.</p><p>Zimmerman, Eilene. What Makes Some People More Resilient Than Others: RESILIENCE. ProQuest, Jun 18, 2020, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fblogs-podcasts-websites%2Fwhat-makes-some-people-more-resilient-than-others%2Fdocview%2F2414234236%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-70666121093155976222023-01-08T05:00:00.003-06:002023-07-24T18:02:22.138-05:00To Exist is to Think<p>Writing prompt: </p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>What ought to come first in a robust philosophical project? Is there any point in seeking out knowledge of being if we do not even understand how the mind works, what constitutes knowledge, and so forth? Conversely, is there any point in seeking to understand knowledge if we lack any robust conception of reality, and the things that are there to be known? Defend your position.</i></blockquote><p></p><div>***</div><p>Reading the assignment this week, I came across this passage which struck me profoundly. "The only alternative to Parmenides’ insight that 'the same is for thinking and for being,' the insight which is metaphysics, is the postmodern and nihilistic notion that reality itself is a construct, a myth, an illusion, that there is no such thing as reality" (Perl, 15). To not-be is also to not-think; to be nihilistic. The consideration and study of being ought to be very tightly coupled with thinking. If forced to say which ought to come first, I would say ontology.</p><p>On this topic, I think Camus brutally succinct, when he wrote in The Myth of Sisyphus, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest—whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards."</p><p>Stated differently, there is a point to studying ontology if you decide life (being) is worth keeping and enduring. If not, and suicide (i.e. choosing to not-be) is the answer, then seeking to learn and comprehend knowledge would be irrelevant.</p><p>But if one decides to continue his or hers existence, then the project of studying ontology, even if we do not, nor cannot, fully comprehend it, is worth the effort. Perhaps after some time pursuing the study, you may come to decide why it is better to not exist than to exist. To use an analogy: you are to begin a new job (assume it is relatively basic). It would be rational to understand why the job exists at all, so that you understand the objective of your job. And while you begin your job and learn your job (epistemology), you may come to either agree or disagree as to the purpose of the job you are fulfilling. From there, you may decide to alter the objective of the job you've been given or give it up altogether.</p><p>In sum, while the priority may seem that being comes first, learning and gaining knowledge is tightly coupled with the studying of existence. Perl makes this observation in his introduction when he notes several "classical tradition" examples of analogies which compare being and thinking to an "erotic" union (10). </p><p>Work cited</p><p>Camus, Albert. <i>The Myth of Sisyphus</i>. Vintage Books, 2018.</p><p>Perl, Eric. <i>Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition</i>. BRILL, 6 Feb. 2014.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-86217961977381004822023-01-01T13:30:00.004-06:002023-01-01T14:01:14.567-06:00Stoic Optimism on Fate<p>I'm a mentor for students taking the <a href="https://collegeofstoicphilosophers.org/ses/" target="_blank">Stoic Essentials Studies</a> course at the <a href="https://collegeofstoicphilosophers.org/" target="_blank">College of Stoic Philosophers</a>. Because this question keeps coming up with nearly all my students, I decided to capture my thoughts on this topic.</p><p>At some point, whether at the beginning of the course or some time during it, a student will express some version of this concern regarding the Stoic view on fate: <b>it's hard to believe that everything happens for a reason.</b></p><p>Every time a student shares this concern, I share what A. A. Long wrote on the subject along with my perspective.</p><p>Long, who has perhaps studied Stoicism longer than anyone alive today, makes this observation:</p><p>"If Nature's providence is all-embracing then any event which causes injury or suffering has to be interpreted as something which, if all the facts were known, would be recognized as beneficial by rational men. As Pope, following Shaftesbury, wrote: 'All discord, harmony not understood, all partial evil, universal good.' But all the facts cannot be known and therefore the supposed value of much that happens must be taken on trust. <b>This optimistic attitude towards natural events, no matter how terrible they may seem, is one of the least palatable features of Stoicism</b>. It is one thing to say that human vision is limited, unable to grasp the full cosmic perspective. But even at its noblest, in the writings of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, <b>there is something chilling and insensitive about the Stoic's faith that all will turn out well in the end</b>. They were the only Greek philosophers who tried to find a rationale for everything within their concept of a perfect, all-embracing Nature" (170, emphasis added).</p><p>I don't have an answer for people who express this concern, as this aspect of Stoicism weighs on my mind too. The way I choose to look at fate is this: <i>it is what it is and the sooner I can accept events as they are, the sooner I can pivot to focus on how I choose to react and move forward. Perhaps the Stoics belief in 'all will turn out well' is just a short cut to get to acceptance.</i></p><p>Work cited</p><p>Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press, 1986.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-51544432399319241472022-12-19T05:00:00.001-06:002022-12-19T09:14:08.981-06:00Phil 415 - Stoic Threads in Hobbesian Philosophy<p style="text-align: center;"> Stoic Threads in Hobbesian Philosophy</p><p>On November 28, 2022, the world’s largest active volcano erupted for the first time in almost 40 years (Derrick). As the world witnessed the hot, fiery lava spew out and flow down the mountain, it was reminded, albeit on a small scale, that the universe loves to change and be in constant motion. One can’t help but observe in awe the hot lava settling and pondering how long it will take for the first biological life to emerge once the lava cools, decomposes and becomes the rich soil in which life will grow. While this fiery substance proves to be a key ingredient for life, the Stoics and Hobbes theorized on another substance which is the cause in all motion in the universe, including human passions: the substance of God.</p><p>Hobbes’s ideas on the materialism of God and the passions have their roots in Stoicism. While the Stoics viewed pneuma as the essence of God and motion in all bodies, Hobbes conceived God as “subtle fluid or spirit” (Gorham, 38). As God is the source of existence, things remain in motion by self-perpetuation. Both Hobbes and the Stoics claim oikeiosis, or self-preservation as the prime mover of people and that it is inherent in all living things. Yet, if this impulse for self-preservation is left unchecked by reason, it leads to unbridled passions (Santi, 67). As to how reason should be applied to rein in passions, Hobbes’s and the Stoics’ views part ways and diverge widely. Whereas the Stoics would teach the individual to be rational and to perhaps stamp out passions, Hobbes sees passions playing a pivotal role prior to the formation of the State and then having the absolute ruler manage people’s passions via an “enlightened sovereign” (71). One might say the Stoics prefer a bottom-up approach to dealing with passions while Hobbes would be a top-down approach (i.e., the Leviathan). Regardless of which paradigm for passion management is used, all lives begin with motion. Hobbes’s own inception of motion begins with fear. </p><p>The Spanish Armada appeared over the horizon off the English coast – war! Close to 130 ships attacked England between July 31 and August 4, 1588 (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica). The sight of the armada must have instilled fear in many as it was “an awesome spectacle to behold … [each ship] with lofty turrets like castles” (Hanson). Leading up to the clash, the people of England were in the grips of terror, including Thomas Hobbes’s mother. Hobbes wrote, “rumor went everywhere through our towns that the last day for the nation was coming by fleet. And at that point, my mother was filled with such fear that she bore twins, me and together with me fear” (Martinich, 2). Hobbes and his “twin” were born April 5, 1588 – close to 4 months before the armada was to be seen off the coast of Plymouth. Hobbes would smartly observe of his birth, that the harrowing circumstances would affect him throughout life and would explain his “hatred for the enemies of [his] country” (2). The cause of the Spanish armada sailing to England is a complicated web of multiple causes and effects and lots of motion, both actual and political.</p><p>As with many philosophers of his day, Hobbes would have been familiar with multiple ancient and contemporary theories as to the ultimate cause of all motion. Most of these theories go on to attribute some force - calling it God - as the source cause of all motion. Among the many philosophies with which Hobbes was familiar was that of the Stoics and their theories on metaphysics. The Stoics noted both active and passive elements in the universe. The active was associated with the “rational principle (logos)” and they called this “God and Mind and Fate and Zeus” (Gorham, 37). More specifically, the Stoics called the essence of the substance of God pneuma and they likened it to “sperm or seed which contains the first principles or directions of all the things” (Baltzly). Hobbes, who would have encountered many Stoic ideas via his time tutoring and working with the Cavendishes, conceived the essence of God “as an infinitely subtle fluid or ‘spirit’ … [which is] ‘thin, fluid, transparent, invisible body” (Gorham, 38-39, 44). To remove all doubt as to his possible source of his ideas of the essence of God, he also wrote that his definition of “spirit” means “breadth, air, wind” in Latin and pneuma in Greek (39). If Hobbes’s spirit of God and the Stoics’ pneuma are the primal cause of existence, what is the next chain in the grand causal effect? Both Hobbes and the Stoics align on “the doctrine of oikeiosis … the principle of self-preservation” as the explanation of the cosmos’s perpetual motion (Santi, 67).</p><p> In his article, Psychology and Politics: Hobbes, Chrysippus the Stoic and the Passions, Santi quotes Diogenes Laertius, who wrote that a “living being has, as first impulse, that of conserving itself … [pushing] away what is harmful … and [getting] near to what is proper as well as familiar” (67). In the same article, he quotes Hobbes: “necessity of nature makes men to will and desire bonum sibi, that which is good for themselves, and to avoid that which is hurtful” (67). This impulse to survive is the cause of many actions and movements in the universe, which sustain life and cause change. Is it any wonder, then, when an individual, or a family face dire circumstance, or even perceived threats to their survival, that they begin to take action to ensure their existence? This type of thinking is precisely at the root of the cause and effect of the English Civil War.</p><p>As with the invasion of the Spanish Armada, the causes of the English Civil war were complex and tangled. But the fundamental cause of grievances between the English monarchy and the English parliament was about money and the viability of citizens’ existence. While the monarchy wanted to raise funds to support its lifestyle or even start a “war against Scotland,” the “majority of members” of parliament wanted to address and manage their “grievances about ship money, forced loans, coat and conduct money” – things which they had been complaining about for more than a decade (Martinich, 122). Even though Hobbes’s livelihood would not be greatly impacted by demands from the king, he had written things in “defense of absolute sovereignty” and he had seen other people, who were in favor of an “absolute monarch,” be charged and arrested by Parliament (161). When Hobbes witnessed “the king’s chief ministers” as well as “the king’s chief counselor and the highest-ranking clergymen” being charged and arrested, he knew “Parliament wasn’t [acting] logical” and in a matter of days, he made arrangements to flee to France and then left in such a hurry, “he did not even wait for his luggage to be packed” (161-162).</p><p>While historians may debate as to whether Parliament, the monarchy or even Hobbes were acting logically or not, it does not take much imagination to see how an impulse to survive can be taken to an extreme. Returning to Santi, he makes the connection between the impulse for self-preservation and passion. Quoting Chrysippus the Stoic, he writes, “an impulse can also be rational, following right reason, but in the majority of people it is irrational and ‘contrary to nature’: it is ‘an excessive impulse’ that originates the passions” (68). Similarly, Hobbes agrees that passions are based on “memories of the past” or “expectations of the future” and that these passions “originate, in the mind” (68). Alas, this is where Hobbes and the Stoics cease in agreement, and subsequently depart into different directions regarding the management of passions.</p><p>Without getting into the full explanation of the Stoic theory of passions, the Stoics believe that passion is something the sage would never experience, since the Stoic sage would not have any “false beliefs about what is good and bad” (Brennan, 38). In other words, a practicing Stoic would not hold the belief that desire for money, or the fear of pain is either good or bad. If applied to Hobbes when he faced the threat of arrest from Parliament, instead of fleeing to France, perhaps he would have remained to perform his duties in England.</p><p>While the Stoics would recommend the individual work to hold correct beliefs about the world and to rationally control passions, Hobbes views passions as a force to be joined with reason in a “positive alliance” (Santi, 69). The key aspect of his idea is the “contrast between what drives conflict and what allows cooperative endeavor, rather than any quasi-Stoic view about how reason can overcome the passions” (Schmitter). Hobbes writes that “competition of riches, honour, command, or other power, inclines to contention, enmity, and war” but he also holds that “desire of ease, and sensual delight” along with the desires for learning and a “love of the arts” and fame, cause “men to obey a common power” (Santi, 69). He sees passion as the driving force both leading up to the creation and the sustaining of the State. For him, the telos of humankind is to live in a state of obedience to an ultimate sovereign who would preserve their security and ensure their passions are satisfied rationally (69-70). In fact, in his Leviathan, he “hopes that his theoretic principles will be embraced by an enlightened sovereign” who also is “the only legitimate moral philosopher … be it a king or an assembly” (71). If any additional nails are needed to close the coffin on an endorsement of a personal philosophy, as opposed to a State philsophy, Santi notes that Hobbes thought the “ancient philosophers were wrong and presumptuous in proposing their personal philosophic view as the true way of living” (71). For Hobbes, “the laws of the commonwealth … are the ground and measure of all true morality” (71).</p><p>In his masterpiece, Leviathan, in the first part of On Man, he gloomily described the human life as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 102). But as one reflects on Hobbes’s life, one comes to find the countless people with whom he worked – he was never alone. One learns he was well compensated and connected to powerful people – he was never poor. One further learns that his life was most assuredly not short – he died at age 91 on December 4, 1679. But as for life being brutish, perhaps he was correct. Because of the perpetual motion of unreasonable passions, he felt the effects of foreign powers at home and abroad, he witnessed a civil war in his homeland and “lived in a time of upheaval, sharper than any England has since known” - in a time of great division amongst the government, religions, militaries and economies (Williams). Given this “brutish” context, it is no wonder Hobbes advocated for a Leviathan to rule over people who could not rule themselves.</p><p>In conclusion, a few key threads in Hobbes’s philosophy can be traced back to Stoicism – namely his ideas on God and human passions. The Stoics and Hobbes identified fine, pervasive substance as the essence of God. This essence, in turn is the catalyst for self-preservation, which they both indicate as the prime mover of people and that it is inherent in all living things. Both agree that unchecked self-preservation can lead to passions. However, Hobbes and the Stoics part ways as to how the passions ought to be managed. The Stoics advocate for individuals to be rational and to perhaps eradicate passions, but Hobbes sees passions performing a crucial role prior to the formation of the State. The State then rules over her subjects and manages people’s passions via an “enlightened sovereign” (Santi, 71). In sum, the individual lives for the State, and the State is “the ground and measure of all true morality” (71). </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Baltzly, Dirk. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Phys.</p><p>Brennan, Tad. The Stoic Life : Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2005.</p><p>Derrick, Bryson T., and Oliver Whang. Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii Erupts for the First Time in Nearly 40 Years. ProQuest, Nov 28, 2022, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fblogs-podcasts-websites%2Fmauna-loa-volcano-hawaii-erupts-first-time-nearly%2Fdocview%2F2740490390%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.</p><p>Gorham, Geoffrey. "Mixing Bodily Fluids: Hobbes's Stoic God." Sophia, vol. 53, no. 1, 2014, pp. 33-49. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fmixing-bodily-fluids-hobbess-stoic-god%2Fdocview%2F1524330134%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-013-0377-x.</p><p>Hanson, Neil. The Confident Hope of a Miracle. Vintage, 2007.</p><p>Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited by Karl Schuhmann, and G. A. J. Rogers, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1749471.</p><p>Martinich, A. P. Hobbes : A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 1999.</p><p>Santi, Raffaella. "PSYCHOLOGY AND POLITICS: HOBBES, CHRYSIPPUS THE STOIC AND THE PASSIONS." Agathos, vol. 8, no. 2, 2017, pp. 57-73. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fpsychology-politics-hobbes-chrysippus-stoic%2Fdocview%2F1965027693%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.</p><p>Schmitter, Amy M. “17th and 18th Century Theories of Emotions > Hobbes on the Emotions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Plato.stanford.edu, 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD3Hobbes.html.</p><p>The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Spanish Armada | Definition, Defeat, & Facts.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 14 June 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/Armada-Spanish-naval-fleet.</p><p>Williams, Garrath. “Hobbes, Thomas: Moral and Political Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-65192256675506131602022-12-08T05:00:00.009-06:002022-12-19T09:09:50.083-06:00Phil 415 - Baruch Spinoza: Plunging into the Cosmos<p style="text-align: center;">Baruch Spinoza: Plunging into the Cosmos</p><p>Seeing clearly and comprehending reality correctly is critical for ensuring one’s actions are appropriate. A humorous Sears Optical commercial demonstrated this point by showing a woman letting a racoon into her home, thinking it was her cat. The implication was that her eyesight was so poor, she could not distinguish a wild racoon from her pet cat! (“Sears Optical Racoon Spot”). Spinoza was not only a lens crafter who helped people physically see correct reality, but he also was a philosopher who endeavored to help people comprehend an accurate understanding of God or nature. Spinoza was a contemporary to Descartes – noted for his cogito ergo sum - however Spinoza did not stop at acknowledging individual existence but strived to grasp “philosophical truth” from the view of an eternal, “rational observer” and not so much from a petty, egotistic perspective (Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 48).</p><p>Born on November 24, 1632, in Amsterdam, Spinoza lived in an epoch of not only enlightenment, but one of challenges where people were vindictive and egocentric. One specific example of the degree to which people went to hold such strong beliefs was that of Uriel Da Costa; whose beliefs over which Spinoza “probably meditated long and hard” (Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 66). Da Costa’s family and Spinoza’s family were connected as far back as when they lived in Portugal, before many of the Jews fled to Amsterdam (66). As for Uriel, his father was a Christian and his mother was a “Judaizer” (66). Having been raised Christian, he greatly feared for his salvation to the point of “sadness and pain”, and he deeply questioned his faith wondering if it “[agreed] with reason” (66-67). He abandoned his Christian faith and converted to Judaism in 1612 (67). But after some time living among the Jews in Amsterdam, he found their sect to be too Pharisaical. He moved to Hamburg in 1616 and published his quarrels with Judaism, railing against the “vanity and invalidity of the traditions and ordinances of the Pharisees” (68). Besides rejecting and deriding Jewish rites such as circumcision and the use of phylacteries and prayer shawls, Da Costa denied the immortality of the soul, the afterlife and eternal reward, all of which, he thought, caused great errors in thinking and “superstitious behaviors” (69). The Jewish religious leaders banned him, and he was exiled from the community; but after several years, he repented. He confessed his sins to the congregation, was then stripped to his waist, tied to a pillar and whipped thirty-nine times, then laid down at the threshold of the synagogue and walked over by every congregant as they exited the building. A few days later, Da Costa killed himself (71-72). Who is to blame for the anxieties of Da Costa? Was he in the right? Were his lay ministers rightfully justified in this brutal repentance process? Or were Da Costa and the rabbis all tragically in error?</p><p>Perhaps Spinoza thought they were all in error and attempted to correct these ideas. One historian of Spinoza wrote that having an “anthropomorphic conception of God can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity” (Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 229). Furthermore, a modern author noted a similar sentiment when she wrote, “you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do” (Lamott). To rebut this erroneous perspective, Spinoza intended to elucidate a philosophy which would help society see reality from “the aspect of eternity” and to comprehend nature as an enduring and infinite entity in “which we participate because in it we are dissolved.” (Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 62). Dissolution of oneself is synonymous to what Seneca wrote when he suggested the human soul "[inject] itself into the cosmos as a whole” (see Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius 66.6 and Hadot, et. al., The Present Alone Is Our Happiness : Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson, 230). Consequently, if we have a correct understanding of God or nature, we minimize emotions and are free to not only plunge ourselves into nature, but to also participate with God by acting virtuously. In brief, Spinoza claims “our happiness and well-being lie, not in a life enslaved to the passions and to the transitory goods we ordinarily pursue, nor in the related unreflective attachment to the superstitions that pass as religion, but rather in the life of reason” (Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 227). The crux of Spinoza’s philosophy is God as substance.</p><p>Spinoza’s God is not meant to be anthropomorphized. As he states in the scholium of proposition 15: “some imagine God in the likeness of man, consisting of mind and body, and subject to passions” (Benedictus De Spinoza et al. Ethics, Part 1). Rather than a personal God, like that found in Abrahamic religions, Spinoza argued God is “infinite … (self-caused), [and a] unique substance of the universe” and that God is this substance, and all else that exists in the universe is in God (Nadler, “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”). Since everything is God, humans and objects in the cosmos are simply modes or affections (Benedictus De Spinoza et al., Ethics, Part 1, proposition 15). There are two types of modes. The first are “infinite and eternal” and the second are “finite and temporal” (Dutton). The first are like the laws of motion which are “pervasive features of the universe” while the second are individual objects which inhabit the universe (Dutton). Lastly, Spinoza defines God as deterministic, when he stated, “nothing in nature is contingent, but all things are from the necessity of the divine nature determined to exist and act in a definite way” (Benedictus De Spinoza et al., Ethics, Part 1, proposition 29). As for free-will, he bluntly wrote, “men believe themselves to be free, that they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined” (Benedictus De Spinoza et al., Ethics, Part 3, proposition 2, scholium). In all these aspects of defining God, Spinoza remained totally committed to helping humanity comprehend reality from “the aspect of eternity” and to avoid the cruel, emotional behavior which many, including Da Costa, suffered in his time (Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 241).</p><p>How does this understanding of God help the individual to minimize emotions? An awareness of “the universe in its totality cannot produce confused ideas, since the idea of the universe in its totality is the idea of God, which, to the extent that we grasp it, is adequate in us” (Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 62). This seeking and comprehension of how the cosmos operates unshackles us “from the troublesome emotional ups and downs of this life” by freeing us “from a reliance on the senses and the imagination” (Nadler, “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”). No longer tied to the puppet strings of religious dogma, fear of death, fame, riches and a myriad of other external things beyond our control, our emotions are not pulled and manipulated by others, but rather we freely choose how to act virtuously and with equanimity (see Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.29 and Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 242).</p><p>Once we become unchained from externals, we exit the proverbial cave and enter the cosmos as an active agent instead of a passive entity (see Plato, et. al. 516a-517b). “The attempt to understand reality through that idea necessarily leads us to the love of reality … this love is active and intellectual, not passive and emotional; in acquiring it we come to participate in the divine nature” (Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 62). As an active agent in the universe, we see reality from a timeless and limitless perspective. Our actions and attitude, in a sense, are unified with God and we are free to choose a virtuous life which aligns itself with the morality of God. This entire concept is perfectly captured in the Greek word eudaimonia, which means one’s daimon – or deity within – is flourishing well or “good” (eu) (see Hadot, The Inner Citadel, 120-124).</p><p>Having attained this realization and enlightenment via this leap into reality, we begin to comprehend how every event and interaction becomes a way to practice and live a virtuous, moral life, which “happiness … is strictly its own reward” (Scruton A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 62). Our egotistical identity becomes transformed – we realize we are a part of God – and God’s reason becomes our reason. Pierre Hadot, in his analysis of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, succinctly explains this realization and inner transformation. The individual passes from the “domain of necessity to the domain of freedom, and from the domain of freedom to the domain of morality” by assuming the perspective of God or nature and realizing one is only an “infinitesimal point within the immensity” (Hadot, The Inner Citadel, 182). Realizing how little is in one’s control, he is liberated to focus solely on his own attitude; responding with justice, courage, temperance or wisdom to circumstances placed before him; refraining from judging something to be good or bad, and holding on to a higher perspective – these are the choices one makes to inject oneself into the universe and become dissolved in and unified with God.</p><p>Spinoza embodied his philosophy. In a poignant letter with a colleague in England, while the Dutch Republic and the United Provinces of England were at war, Spinoza wrote,</p><p></p><blockquote>these troubles move me neither to laughter nor again to tears, but rather to philosophising, and to a closer observation of human nature. For I do not think it right to laugh at nature, and far less to grieve over it, reflecting that men, like all else, are only a part of nature, and that I do not know how each part of nature harmonises with the whole, and how it coheres with other parts. And I realize that it is merely through such lack of understanding that certain features of nature - which I thus perceive only partly and in a fragmentary way, and which are not in keeping with our philosophical attitude of mind - once seemed to me vain, disordered and absurd. But now I let everyone go his own way. Those who wish can by all means die for their own good, as long as I am allowed to live for truth (Nadler, Spinoza : A Life, 220).</blockquote><p></p><p>On another occasion, when financial stakes were high, Spinoza’s sister Rebekah tried to prevent him from acquiring his share of his father’s inheritance after he had died. Spinoza, out of sheer principal, took her to court, “established his claim, and then calmly renounced it” thus maintaining justice, while not grasping at externals (Scruton, Spinoza : A Very Short Introduction, 9).</p><p>In conclusion, Spinoza was an honorable soul who observed the barbarities of his time and tried to do his part to rectify them. He worked all his life explaining his vision of universal harmony as well as establish a path away from superstition and one toward unity with the cosmos. His friends closest to him bear witness to Spinoza’s embodiment of his philosophy, noting his “personal charm, nobility of outlook, and affectionate disposition” (18). He never relented in advocating a comprehension of nature as an enduring and infinite entity, into which we plunge, are dissolved and actively participate in a virtuous and moral life. </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Benedictus De Spinoza, et al. <i>Complete Works</i>. Hackett Pub, 2002.</p><p>Dutton, Blake D. “Spinoza, Benedict de | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” <i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, iep.utm.edu/spinoza/.</p><p>Hadot, Pierre, and Michael Chase. <i>The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius</i>. Cambridge, Mass. London Harvard University Press, 2001.</p><p>Hadot, Pierre, et al. <i>The Present Alone Is Our Happiness : Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson</i>. Stanford University Press, 2011.</p><p>Lamott, Anne. <i>Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life</i>. Anchor Books, 1994.</p><p>Lucius Annaeus Seneca, et al. <i>Letters on Ethics : To Lucilius</i>. The University Of Chicago Press, 2015.</p><p>Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, et al. <i>Meditations</i>. Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books, 2014.</p><p>Nadler, Steven M. “Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” <i>Stanford.edu</i>, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/.</p><p>---. <i>Spinoza : A Life</i>. Cambridge University Press, 1999.</p><p>Plato, et al. <i>A Plato Reader : Eight Essential Dialogues</i>. Hackett Pub. Co, 2012.</p><p>Scruton, Roger. <i>A Short History of Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Wittgenstein</i>, Taylor & Francis Group, 1995. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=168639.</p><p>---. <i>Spinoza : A Very Short Introduction.</i> Oxford University Press, 2002.</p><p>“Sears Optical Raccoon Spot.” Www.youtube.com, 23 Jan. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ySvH3UGys&ab_channel=searsopticalvideos.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-13143524718345116312022-11-08T05:00:00.002-06:002022-11-08T15:40:59.388-06:00Quotes and Review of Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus<p>For my own reference, I'll simply be consolidating all the highlights I made from the book. I may make some commentary as needed.</p><p>"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."</p><p>He notes that he has seen too many people die because they judged that life is not worth living. The book is to help them dispel that idea.</p><p>"Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined."</p><p>"killing yourself amounts to confessing. It is confessing that life is too much for you or that you do not understand it"</p><p>"A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and this life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of <b>absurdity</b>."</p><p>"it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life."</p><p>"We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking."</p><p>"Hope of another life one must 'deserve' or trickery of those who live not for life itself but for some great idea that will transcend it, refine it, give it a meaning, and betray it."</p><p>"It is always easy to be logical. It is almost impossible to be logical to the bitter end."</p><p>"The climate of <b>absurdity </b>is in the beginning. The end is the <b>absurd </b>universe and that attitude of mind which lights the world with its true colors to bring out the privileged and implacable visage which that attitude has discerned in it."</p><p></p><blockquote>"It happens that the stage sets collapse. Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm—this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the “why” arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement. “Begins”—this is important. Weariness comes at the end of the acts of a mechanical life, but at the same time it inaugurates the impulse of consciousness. It awakens consciousness and provokes what follows. What follows is the gradual return into the chain or it is the definitive awakening. At the end of the awakening comes, in time, the consequence: suicide or recovery. In itself weariness has something sickening about it. Here, I must conclude that it is good. For everything begins with consciousness and nothing is worth anything except through it."</blockquote><p></p><p>"At the heart of all beauty lies something inhuman, and these hills, the softness of the sky, the outline of these trees at this very minute lose the illusory meaning with which we had clothed them, henceforth more remote than a lost paradise."</p><p>"Just as there are days when under the familial face of a woman, we see as a stranger her we had loved months or years ago, perhaps we shall come even to desire what suddenly leaves us so alone."</p><p>"This discomfort in the face of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable tumble before the image of what we are, this “nausea,” as a writer of today calls it, is also the <b>absurd</b>."</p><p>"The mind’s first step is to distinguish what is true from what is false."</p><p>"Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to the human, stamping it with his seal."</p><p>"If man realized that the universe like him can love and suffer, he would be reconciled."</p><p>"That nostalgia for unity, that appetite for the absolute illustrates the essential impulse of the human drama."</p><p>"It is essential to consider as a constant point of reference in this essay the regular hiatus between what we fancy we know and what we really know, practical assent and simulated ignorance which allows us to live with ideas which, if we truly put them to the test, ought to upset our whole life."</p><p><i>This is a very important point Camus makes and one which is not made explicit in day-to-day conversations. It is a point not explicitly made, but strongly implied when talking philosophy. What we know is very little. Much of the rest is conjecture. Just the other evening, I was talking with my sister about the period of time in history between John Wycliff (d. 1384) and the Münster rebellion (~1535). In that 150 year period alone there was horrible violence all because of a few philosophical ideas on God and church. Millions (perhaps billions?) have died for ideas which can be categorized as "simulated ignorance."</i></p><p><i>Camus goes on to say, </i>"So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart."</p><p><i>I think that the yearning - the nostalgia - for certainty is what people cling to and over which they start wars and bloodshed. In searching for the familiar, simulated ignorance which they think gives them a 'calm surface' and 'peace of heart' they find uncertainty ... when they have that realization, it disrupts their world and in some cases, violence ensues and for some, suicide.</i></p><p>"If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences."</p><p>"Of whom and of what indeed can I say: “I know that!” This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction. For if I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers."</p><p>"This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled."</p><p>"Socrates’ ”Know thyself” has as much value as the “Be virtuous” of our confessionals. They reveal a nostalgia at the same time as an ignorance. They are sterile exercises on great subjects. They are legitimate only in precisely so far as they are approximate."</p><p>"You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know. Have I the time to become indignant? You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis, that lucidity founders in metaphor, that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?"</p><p><i>a good definition of the <b>absurd</b>: </i>"A stranger to myself and to the world, armed solely with a thought that negates itself as soon as it asserts, what is this condition in which I can have peace only by refusing to know and to live, in which the appetite for conquest bumps into walls that defy its assaults? To will is to stir up paradoxes. Everything is ordered in such a way as to bring into being that poisoned peace produced by thoughtlessness, lack of heart, or fatal renunciations."</p><div>"despite so many pretentious centuries and over the heads of so many eloquent and persuasive men, I know that is false. On this plane, at least, there is no happiness if I cannot know. That universal reason,</div><div>practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh. They have nothing to do with the mind. They negate its profound truth, which is to be enchained. In this unintelligible and limited universe, man’s fate henceforth assumes its meaning."</div><div><br /></div><div>"what is <b>absurd </b>is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart."</div><div><br /></div><div>"On the plane of history, such a constancy of two attitudes illustrates the essential passion of man torn between his urge toward unity and the clear vision he may have of the walls enclosing him."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Chestov, for his part, throughout a wonderfully monotonous work, constantly straining toward the same truths, tirelessly demonstrates that the tightest system, the most universal rationalism always stumbles eventually on the irrational of human thought."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Of all perhaps the most engaging, Kierkegaard, for a part of his existence at least, does more than discover the <b>absurd</b>, he lives it. The man who writes: “The surest of stubborn silences is not to hold one’s tongue but to talk” makes sure in the beginning that no truth is absolute or can render satisfactory an existence that is impossible in itself."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Thinking is learning all over again to see, to be attentive, to focus consciousness; it is turning every idea and every image, in the manner of Proust, into a privileged moment."</div><div><br /></div><div>"I want everything to be explained to me or nothing."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The world itself, whose single meaning I do not understand, is but a vast irrational. If one could only say just once: “This is clear,” all would be saved. But these men vie with one another in proclaiming that nothing is clear, all is chaos, that all man has is his lucidity and his definite knowledge of the walls surrounding him. All these experiences agree and confirm one another. The mind, when it reaches its limits, must make a judgment and choose its conclusions."</div><div><br /></div><div>"<b>Absurd </b>is not in man (if such a metaphor could have a meaning) nor in the world, but in their presence together. For the moment it is the only bond uniting them. If wish to limit myself to facts, I know what man wants, I know what the world offers him, and now I can say that I also know what links them."</div><div><br /></div><div>"A man who has become conscious of the <b>absurd </b>is forever bound to it."</div><div><br /></div><div>"'the unthinkable unity of the general and the particular.' Thus the <b>absurd </b>becomes god (in the broadest meaning of this word) and that inability to understand becomes the existence that illuminates everything. Nothing logically prepares this reasoning. I can call it a <b>leap</b>."</div><div><br /></div><div>"'The only true solution,' [Chestov] said, 'is precisely where human judgment sees no solution. Otherwise, what need would we have of God? We turn toward God only to obtain the impossible. As for the possible, men suffice.'"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Chestov discovers the fundamental <b>absurdity </b>of all existence, he does not say: “This is the <b>absurd</b>,” but rather: “This is God: we must rely on him even if he does not correspond to any of our rational categories.” So that confusion may not be possible, the Russian philosopher even hints that this God is perhaps full of hatred and hateful, incomprehensible and contradictory; but the more hideous is his face, the more he asserts his power. His greatness is his incoherence. His proof is his inhumanity. One must <b>spring into him</b> and by this <b>leap </b>free oneself from rational illusions. Thus, for Chestov acceptance of the <b>absurd </b>is contemporaneous with the <b>absurd </b>itself."</div><div><br /></div><div>"the <b>absurd </b>is the contrary of hope."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The moment the notion transforms itself into eternity’s springboard, it ceases to be linked to human lucidity."</div><div><br /></div><div>"This <b>leap </b>is an escape."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The intoxication of the irrational and the vocation of rapture turn a lucid mind away from the <b>absurd</b>. To Chestov reason is useless but there is something beyond reason. To an <b>absurd </b>mind reason is useless and there is nothing beyond reason. This <b>leap </b>can at least enlighten us a little more as to the true</div><div>nature of the <b>absurd</b>."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The <b>absurd </b>man, on the other hand, does not undertake such a leveling process. He recognizes the struggle, does not absolutely scorn reason, and admits the irrational. Thus he again embraces in a single glance all the data of experience and he is little inclined to <b>leap </b>before knowing. He knows simply that in that alert awareness there is no further place for hope."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Kierkegaard likewise takes the <b>leap</b>. His childhood having been so frightened by Christianity, he ultimately returns to its harshest aspect ... Christianity is the scandal and what Kierkegaard calls for quite plainly is the third sacrifice required by Ignatius Loyola, the one in which God most rejoices: “The sacrifice of the intellect.” ... “In his failure,” says Kierkegaard, “the believer finds his triumph.”</div><div><br /></div><div>"through a strained subterfuge, he gives the irrational the appearance and God the attributes of the absurd: unjust, incoherent, and incomprehensible."</div><div><br /></div><div>"I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone"</div><div><br /></div><div>"The <b>absurd</b>, which is the metaphysical state of the conscious man, does not lead to God. Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the <b>absurd </b>is sin without God."</div><div><br /></div><div>"god is maintained only through the negation of human reason. But, like suicides, gods change with men. There are many ways of <b>leaping</b>, the essential being to <b>leap</b>. Those redeeming negations, those ultimate contradictions which negate the obstacle that has not yet been <b>leaped </b>over."</div><div><br /></div><div><i>another key quote which defines <b>absurdism</b>: </i>"In fact, our aim is to shed light upon the step taken by the mind when, starting from a philosophy of the world’s lack of meaning, it ends up by finding a meaning and depth in it." ... "Thinking is learning all over again how to see ... the act of attention"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Reason and the irrational lead to the same preaching. In truth the way matters but little; the will to arrive suffices. The abstract philosopher and the religious philosopher start out from the same disorder and support each other in the same anxiety. ... It is constantly oscillating between extreme rationalization of reality which tends to break up that thought into standard reasons and its extreme irrationalization which tends to deify it."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Just as reason was able to soothe the melancholy of Plotinus, it provides modern anguish the means of calming itself in the familiar setting of the eternal. The <b>absurd </b>mind has less luck. For it the world is neither so rational nor so irrational. It is unreasonable and only that. ... The absurd is lucid reason noting its limit."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Sin is not so much knowing (if it were, everybody would be innocent) as wanting to know. Indeed, it</div><div>is the only sin of which the absurd man can feel that it constitutes both his guilt and his innocence."</div><div><br /></div><div>"It is that divorce between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints, my nostalgia for unity,</div><div>this fragmented universe and the contradiction that binds them together."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Is one going to die, escape by the <b>leap</b>, rebuild a mansion of ideas and forms to one’s own scale? Is</div><div>one, on the contrary, going to take up the heart-rending and marvelous wager of the <b>absurd</b>?"</div><div><br /></div><div>"At a certain point on his path the <b>absurd </b>man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions or prophets, even without gods. He is asked to <b>leap</b>. All he can reply is that he doesn’t fully understand,</div><div>that it is not obvious."</div><div><br /></div><div>"It was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The theme of <b>permanent revolution</b> is thus carried into individual experience. Living is keeping the <b>absurd </b>alive. Keeping it alive is, above all, contemplating it."</div><div><br /></div><div>"One of the only coherent philosophical positions is thus <b>revolt</b>. It is a constant confrontation between man and his own obscurity. It is an insistence upon an impossible transparency. It challenges the world</div><div>anew every second. Just as danger provided man the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical <b>revolt </b>extends awareness to the whole of experience. It is that constant presence</div><div>of man in his own eyes. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That <b>revolt </b>is the certainly of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Suicide, like the <b>leap</b>, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history. His future, his unique and dreadful future—he sees and rushes toward it. In its way, suicide settles the <b>absurd</b>. It engulfs the <b>absurd </b>in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the <b>absurd </b>cannot be settled. It escapes suicide to the extent that it is simultaneously awareness and rejection of death. ... That <b>revolt </b>gives life its value."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Consciousness and <b>revolt</b>, these rejections are the contrary of renunciation. Everything that is indomitable and passionate in a human heart quickens them, on the contrary, with its own life. It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one’s own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The <b>absurd </b>man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The <b>absurd </b>is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day <b>revolt </b>he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance. This is a first consequence."</div><div><br /></div><div>"either we are not free and God the all-powerful is responsible for evil. Or we are free and responsible but God is not all powerful."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The only conception of freedom I can have is that of the prisoner or the individual in the midst of the State. The only one I know is freedom of thought and action. Now if the <b>absurd </b>cancels all my chances of eternal freedom, it restores and magnifies, on the other hand, my freedom of action. That privation of hope and future means an increase in man’s availability."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Thinking of the future, establishing aims for oneself, having preferences—all this presupposes a belief in freedom, even if one occasionally ascertains that one doesn’t feel it. But at that moment I am well aware that that higher liberty, that freedom <i>to be</i>, which alone can serve as basis for a truth, does not exist. Death is there as the only reality."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The <b>absurd </b>enlightens me on this point: there is no future. Henceforth this is the reason for my inner freedom."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The <b>absurd </b>man thus catches sight of a burning and frigid, transparent and limited universe in which nothing is possible but everything is given, and beyond which all is collapse and nothingness. He can then decide to accept such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to hope, and the unyielding evidence of a life without consolation."</div><div><br /></div><div>"But what does life mean in such a universe? Nothing else for the moment but indifference to the future and a desire to use up everything that is given. Belief in the meaning of life always implies a scale of values, a choice, our preferences. Belief in the <b>absurd</b>, according to our definitions, teaches the contrary. ... Knowing whether or not one can live without appeal is all that interests me."</div><div><br /></div><div>"belief in the <b>absurd </b>is tantamount to substituting the quantity of experiences for the quality. If I convince myself that this life has no other aspect than that of the <b>absurd</b>, if I feel that its whole equilibrium depends on that perpetual opposition between my conscious <b>revolt </b>and the darkness in which it struggles, if I admit that my freedom has no meaning except in relation to its limited fate, then I must say that what counts is not the best living but the most living. It is not up to me to wonder if this is vulgar or revolting, elegant or deplorable. Once and for all, value judgments are discarded here in favor of factual judgments."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The most living ... quantity and variety of experiences ... there must also be taken into consideration the individual’s spontaneous contribution, the “given” element in him ... on the one hand the <b>absurd </b>teaches that all experiences are unimportant, and on the other it urges toward the greatest quantity of experiences. How, then, can one fail to do as so many of those men I was speaking of earlier—choose the form of life that brings us the most possible of that human matter ... Being aware of one’s life, one’s <b>revolt</b>, one’s freedom, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum ... The <b>absurd </b>and the extra life it involves therefore do not defend on man’s will, but on its contrary, which is death. Weighing words carefully, it is altogether a question of luck. ... The present and the succession of presents before a constantly conscious soul is the ideal of the <b>absurd </b>man."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Thus I draw from the <b>absurd </b>three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death—and I refuse suicide."</div><div><br /></div><div>"For the spectator, if he is <u>conscious</u>, that <b>leap </b>is still <b>absurd</b>. ... the point is to live."</div><div><br /></div><div>"What, in fact, is the <b>absurd </b>man? He who, without negating it, does nothing for the eternal. Not that nostalgia is foreign to him. But he prefers his courage and his reasoning. The first teaches him to live without appeal and to get along with what he has; the second informs him of his limits. Assured of his</div><div>temporally limited freedom, of his <b>revolt </b>devoid of future, and of his mortal consciousness, he lives out his adventure within the span of his lifetime. That is his field, that is his action, which he shields from any judgment but his own. A greater life cannot mean for him another life."</div><div><br /></div><div>"There is but one moral code that the absurd man can accept, the one that is not separated from God: the one that is dictated. ... “Everything is permitted,” exclaims Ivan Karamazov. That, too, smacks of the absurd. But on condition that it not be taken in the vulgar sense."</div><div><br /></div><div><i>He then paints a picture of various absurd characters who embody the philosophy</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don Juanism</div><div><br /></div><div>"There is no noble love but that which recognizes itself to be both short-lived and exceptional."</div><div><br /></div><div>Drama (<i>the actor</i>)</div><div><br /></div><div><div>"The everyday man does not enjoy tarrying. Everything, on the contrary, hurries him onward. But at the same time nothing interests him more than himself, especially his potentialities. Whence his interest</div><div>in the theater, in the show, where so many fates are offered him, where he can accept the poetry without feeling the sorrow."</div></div><div><br /></div><div>"Choosing between heaven and a ridiculous fidelity, preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each must play his part."</div><div><br /></div><div>Conquest (<i>the conqueror</i>)</div><div><br /></div><div>"Conscious that I cannot stand aloof from my time, I have decided to be an integral part of it. This is why I esteem the individual only because he strikes me as ridiculous and humiliated. Knowing that there are no victorious causes, I have a liking for lost causes: they require an uncontaminated soul, equal to its defeat as to its temporary victories."</div><div><br /></div><div>"deprived of the eternal, I want to ally myself with time."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Conquerors know that action is in itself useless ... I have chosen this absurd and ineffectual effort. This is why I am on the side of the struggle."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Victory would be desirable. But there is but one victory, and it is eternal. That is the one I shall</div><div>never have."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Conquerors sometimes talk of vanquishing and overcoming. But it is always ‘overcoming oneself’ that they mean."</div><div><br /></div><div><i>in sum of the characters ... </i>"Let me repeat that these images do not propose moral codes and involve no judgments: they are sketches. They merely represent a style of life. The lover, the actor, or the adventurer plays the absurd. But equally well, if he wishes, the chaste man, the civil servant, or the president of the Republic."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Being deprived of hope is not despairing. ... They are not striving to be better; they are attempting to be consistent."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The imagination can add many others, inseparable from time and exile, who likewise know how to live in harmony with a universe without future and without weakness. This <b>absurd</b>, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator."</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Absurd </b>Creation</div><div><br /></div><div>"War cannot be negated. One must live it or die of it." <i>This quote reminds me of Heraclitus, war is the father of all</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Creation is the great mime."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Even men without a gospel have their Mount of Olives. And one must not fall asleep on theirs either. For the <b>absurd </b>man it is not a matter of explaining and solving, but of experiencing and describing. Everything begins with lucid indifference."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The philosopher, even if he is Kant, is a creator."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Today when thought has ceased to lay claim to the universal, when its best history would be that of its repentances, we know that the system, when it is worth while, cannot be separated from its author. The Ethics itself, in one of its aspects, is but a long and reasoned personal confession." <i>This is his way of saying one must embody their philosophy</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>"I want to know whether, accepting a life without appeal, one can also agree to work and create without appeal and what is the way leading to these liberties. I want to liberate my universe of its phantoms and</div><div>to people it solely with flesh-and-blood truths whose presence I cannot deny. I can perform <b>absurd </b>work, choose the creative attitude rather than another. But an <b>absurd </b>attitude, if it is to remain so, must remain aware of its gratuitousness. So it is with the work of art. If the commandments of the <b>absurd </b>are not respected, if the work does not illustrate divorce and revolt, if it sacrifices to illusions and arouses hope, it ceases to be gratuitous."</div><div><br /></div><div>"What holds for creation, looked upon as one of the possible attitudes for the man conscious of the <b>absurd</b>, holds for all the styles of life open to him. The conqueror or the actor, the creator or Don Juan may forget that their exercise in living could not do without awareness of its mad character."</div><div><br /></div><div>"There is so much stubborn hope in the human heart. The most destitute men often end up by accepting illusion. That approval prompted by the need for peace inwardly parallels the existential consent."</div><div><br /></div><div>Kirilov</div><div><br /></div><div><div>"What distinguishes modern sensibility from classical sensibility is that the latter thrives on moral problems and the former on metaphysical problems. In Dostoevsky’s novels the question is propounded with such intensity that it can only invite extreme solutions. Existence is illusory or it is eternal."</div></div><div><br /></div><div>"Convinced that human existence is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality, the</div><div>desperate man comes to the following conclusions:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>“Since in reply to my questions about happiness, I am told, through the intermediary of my consciousness, that I cannot be happy except in harmony with the great all, which I cannot conceive and shall never be in a position to conceive, it is evident...”</div><div><br /></div><div>“Since, finally, in this connection, I assume both the role of the plaintiff and that of the defendant, of the accused and of the judge, and since I consider this comedy perpetrated by nature altogether stupid, and since I even deem it humiliating for me to deign to play it ...”</div><div><br /></div><div>“In my indisputable capacity of plaintiff and defendant, of judge and accused, I condemn that nature which, with such impudent nerve, brought me into being in order to suffer—I condemn it to be annihilated with me.”</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><div>"There remains a little humor in that position. This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed. In a certain sense he is taking his revenge. This is his way of proving that he “will not be had."</div><div><br /></div><div>"“I shall kill myself in order to assert my insubordination, my new and dreadful liberty.” It is no longer a question of revenge, but of revolt. Kirilov is consequently an absurd character—yet with this essential reservation: he kills himself. ... he wants to kill himself to become god. ... “If God does not exist, I am god,"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Kirilov in fact fancies for a moment that Jesus at his death did not find himself in Paradise. He found out then that his torture had been useless. “The laws of nature,” says the engineer, “made Christ live in the midst of falsehood and die for a falsehood.”" ... He is the complete man, being the one who realized the most absurd condition. He is not the God-man but the man-god. And, like him, each of us can be crucified and victimized—and is to a certain degree."</div><div><br /></div><div>"If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Kirilov must kill himself out of love for humanity ... it is not despair that urges him to death, but love of his neighbor."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Kirilov’s pistol rang out somewhere in Russia, but the world continued to cherish its blind hopes."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Consequently, it is not an <b>absurd </b>novelist addressing us, but an existential novelist. Here, too, the leap is touching and gives its nobility to the art that inspires it. It is a stirring acquiescence, riddled with doubts, uncertain and ardent. Speaking of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky wrote: “The chief question that will be pursued throughout this book is the very one from which I have suffered consciously or unconsciously all life long: the existence of God."</div><div><br /></div><div>"It is not an <b>absurd </b>work that is involved here, but a work that propounds the <b>absurd </b>problem."</div><div><br /></div><div>"what contradicts the <b>absurd </b>in that work is not its Christian character, but rather its announcing a future life. It is possible to be Christian and <b>absurd</b>."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The surprising reply of the creator to his characters, of Dostoevsky to Kirilov, can indeed be summed up thus: existence is illusory and it is eternal."</div><div><br /></div><div>Ephemeral Creation</div><div><br /></div><div>"To work and create “for nothing,” to sculpture in clay, to know that one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries—this is the difficult wisdom that <b>absurd </b>thought sanctions."</div><div><br /></div><div>"At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own condition, to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses."</div><div><br /></div><div>"human will had no other purpose than to maintain awareness. But that could not do without discipline. Of all the schools of patience and lucidity, creation is the most effective. It is also the staggering evidence of man’s sole dignity: the dogged <b>revolt </b>against his condition, perseverance in an effort considered sterile. It calls for a daily effort, self-mastery, a precise estimate of the limits of truth, measure, and strength. It constitutes an ascesis. All that “for nothing,” in order to repeat and mark time."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Thus, I ask of <b>absurd </b>creation what I required from thought— <b>revolt</b>, freedom, and diversity. Later on it will manifest its utter futility. In that daily effort in which intelligence and passion mingle and delight each other, the <b>absurd </b>man discovers a discipline that will make up the greatest of his strengths."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The final effort for these related minds, creator or conqueror, is to manage to free themselves also from their undertakings: succeed in granting that the very work, whether it be conquest, love, or creation, may well not be; consummate thus the utter futility of any individual life."</div><div><br /></div><div>The Myth of Sisyphus</div><div><br /></div><div>"The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor."</div><div><br /></div><div>"You have already grasped that Sisyphus is the <b>absurd </b>hero. He is, as much through his passions as through his torture. His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Then Sisyphus watches the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he</div><div>will have to push it up again toward the summit. He goes back down to the plain. It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me."</div><div><br /></div><div>"If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Happiness and the <b>absurd </b>are two sons of the same earth."</div><div><br /></div><div>"the <b>absurd </b>man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols."</div><div><br /></div><div>"The <b>absurd </b>man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing."</div><div><br /></div><div>"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."</div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-9186605557772666812022-10-27T05:00:00.001-05:002022-10-27T09:58:07.782-05:00Phil 303: John Wycliff: Cornerstones of Heresy<p style="text-align: center;">John Wycliff: Cornerstones of Heresy</p><p>Ages come and ages go. With the hindsight of history, figures can be squarely placed in various epochs. However, there are figures who act as seams between the fabric of eras who instigate and facilitate transition between one age and the next. John Wycliff was such a figure and was named the “evening star of scholasticism and the morning star of the Reformation” (Michael, 343). Wycliff was considered the “greatest secular philosophical theologian in Oxford of his day” because of his controversial ideas which had a profound impact on many people over the next one hundred years (Lahey, 7). In a sense, Wycliff was a strong advocate of removing power from the Church and giving it to the people. Those who had power tried to stop him, while those without power supported him. Two of his ideas, which acted as catalysts for transferal of power, were heretical cornerstones for the coming Reformation. First was his philosophical thoughts on logic and how one ought to approach God, which led him to produce a vernacular Bible making it more accessible to the people. And second, his beliefs on metaphysics, which led to his highly controversial views on transubstantiation. Both ideas, in principle, remain relevant today. What ties the two ideas together is the notion of removing intermediaries between the worshiper and God.</p><p>John Wycliff was born in either Hipswell or Wycliff-on-Tees in Yorkshire England, sometime in the 1320s (Lahey, 3-4). Roughly 20 years later, he began his studies in Oxford, during which he would have witnessed “the Black Death in 1349” (5). Through the next 20 years, he completed his bachelor’s and master’s degrees and then went on to work as a priest in various parishes (5-6). By 1363 he began theological training, while continuing his parish duties; and he completed his theology and doctorate degrees by 1372 (6). Much of his work and schooling became the impetus for his writings and agitation against the Church. The last decade of his life is marked with work on the translation of the Bible, political work and conflict with the Church. Two of the cornerstones of that conflict are his work on a vernacular Bible and his controversial views on the sacrament. He died, after a series of strokes, on December 31, 1384 (29).</p><p>The first cornerstone was Wycliff’s elucidation of a logical system which was tightly related to metaphysics. Conti, a medieval philsophy professor and researcher at the University of Salerno, succinctly notes Wycliff “firmly believed that language was an ordered collection of signs, each referring to one of the constitutive elements of reality.” These signs were further clarified with the tripart division of universals. First are ideal universals or “the ideas of God;” second are formal universals or “common natures shared by individual things;” and third, intentional universals or “mental signs” (Conti). In a sense, intentional universals refer to formal universals which refer to ideal universals or the ideas of God. Lahey, a professor who has written extensively on Wycliff, summarizes a letter Wycliff wrote, regarding the importance of focusing on universals and scripture: “if we have access to something so universal, so perfectly connected to the divine mind, as a written record of truth, we must surely use it if we are to love God in all that we do” (142). Therefore, to learn of these universals and to understand the ideas of God, one must look to the supreme philosopher, Christ, and one learns from Christ through scripture, which “is the source of every valid system of logic and the eternal source of truth in creation” (138). Furthermore, Wycliff maintained “that the many terms and propositions” in the Bible would retain “their logical veracity as long as they are read as originally intended by their Divine Author” (The Wycliffite Bible, 31). To this end, Wycliff sought to translate scripture to make it the most clear and meaningful to the reader (44).</p><p>If the clergy and the members of the Church had access to the complete law of Christ and if it were clear in meaning to them, then they would have the complete “Law of Love” and consequently would fully grasp and live by the “perfect law of charity” (43). Indeed, they would have access to ideal universals (ideas of God) and as a result, would live the laws of God because they understand the mind of God. This concept of attaining direct access to God’s laws through scripture would have an immediate effect on society as it would be evident to all (lay people and clergy), that the leaders of the Church ought to more strictly follow the admonition of Christ and become mendicant. For this reason, among others, Wycliff was the target of persecution. If the people fully grasped Christ’s teachings, they would demand clergy relinquish their wealth, therefore, the “friars and bishops [shuddered] at the notion that the gospel might be known in English” (45). Up to this point in history, they acted as gatekeepers of God’s law to the people, and consequently propagated inaccuracies in meaning of scriptures “at an alarming rate” (30). To slow the rate or cease this trend, Wycliff essentially labored to hold clergy accountable to the Laws of Love and to strip the powers from the gatekeepers and facilitate direct access to God’s words to the people.</p><p>The second cornerstone would appear towards the end of his life, when Wycliff would advance another controversial idea based on his ideas of metaphysics. In his day, the prevailing view of the Lord’s Supper was that after the blessing of the actual bread and wine, they were transformed into Christ's body and blood respectively, and what remained were simply “outward appearances, or accidents, beneath which [existed] the body of Christ” (Levy, 22). Wycliff objected to this view based on his ideas of essence and being. He argued that essence and being were one and the same. Conti summarizes the view as, “essence without being would imply that an individual could be something of a given type without being real in any way, and being without essence would imply that there could be the existence of a thing without the thing itself.” To connect this to the idea of transubstantiation, Wycliff would argue that bread and wine are exactly and precisely bread and wine; and to believe these essences could be transformed into the body and blood of Christ would amount to the “annihilation of a particular thing [resulting] in the destruction of its entire genus” (Levy, 23). To further emphasize this point, Wycliff argued that God had established the law and processes of the universe (i.e. God creating the essence of something), and for God to sidestep “the processes that he himself put in place” would be gratuitous and turn God into a “deceiver” and make the “cosmos unintelligible” (24). Wycliff makes a solid argument against transubstantiation, when advancing the idea that God cannot sidestep the physics he has established. But one cannot help but wonder why the supporters of the idea of transubstantiation, in order to refute Wycliff, did not compare Christ’s miracle of converting water to wine to the concept of transubstantiation. If Christ could convert the essence of water into wine, they why would it be impossible for God to convert sacramental tokens into flesh and blood?</p><p>Woven in the heretical cornerstones of scripture accessible to the common people and a non-literal transubstantiation, is Wycliff’s overarching aim at seeing the world as it really is, without an intermediary, or at least an intermediary with less influence (i.e., a less influential Church). If the Church had the power to define meaning of scripture while the people did not have access to it and if the Church leaders and members were indulging in idolatry by staunchly defending transubstantiation, then their very souls were being led astray (Levy, 24). Therefore, Wycliff wanted to explain things as they really are, to reclaim power over his own eternal fate rather than leave it to the whims of fallible leaders. When his philosophical concepts are viewed in this light, one may grasp sound principles of what it means to philosophize. Seeking and attaining access to primary sources and questioning the physics of the sacraments are sound ideas which led the individual to comprehending the world as it really is.</p><p>In sum, Wycliff advocated the transferal of religious power to the people. His heretical ideas, which promoted an understanding of the world as it really is, act as cornerstones for the coming Reformation. His theories on logic and how one ought to approach God, led him to produce a vernacular Bible making it more accessible to the people. And his viewpoints on metaphysics led to his highly contentious views on transubstantiation. Both general ideas, in principle, remain applicable today. What ties the two ideas together is the notion of removing veils which stand between the worshiper and the divine. </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Conti, Alessandro. “John Wyclif.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2017, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif/.</p><p>Lahey, Stephen Edmund. John Wyclif. Oxford University Press, 2009. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=nlebk&AN=257682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.</p><p>Levy, Ian C. "John Wyclif and the Eucharistic Words of Institution: Context and Aftermath." Church History, vol. 90, no. 1, 2021, pp. 21-44. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fjohn-wyclif-eucharistic-words-institution-context%2Fdocview%2F2546959151%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640721000731.</p><p>Michael, Emily. "John Wyclif on Body and Mind." Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 64, no. 3, 2003, pp. 343. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fjohn-wyclif-on-body-mind%2Fdocview%2F203367805%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.</p><p>The Wycliffite Bible: Origin, History and Interpretation, BRILL, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4773531.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-8288414207162565072022-10-01T05:00:00.001-05:002022-10-01T19:37:44.509-05:00Phil 303 Alcuin: Reason in Service of Revelation<p style="text-align: center;">Alcuin: Reason in Service of Revelation</p><p>At the time of Charlemagne, the Roman Empire was fragmented between East and West, with the power residing in the East in Constantinople. The balance eventually shifted with Charlemagne assuming power. When he was coronated as the Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III, there was a “transferral of the imperium Romanum from the Greeks [in the East] to the West” (Lamers). Leading to his coronation, Charlemagne consolidated power and ensured “the acceptance of orthodox doctrine as well as a uniform liturgy throughout the empire” (“Charlemagne”). As part of instituting a uniform liturgy, he recruited clergy and scholars throughout Europe. One of the key individuals was Alcuin.</p><p>Born around 735, Alcuin of York had the mental acumen to be noticed at a young age and was appointed as “master of the cathedral school” in 766 (Ruud). As schoolmaster, Alcuin worked on establishing a significant library and would travel to continental Europe to acquire or copy manuscripts. Through these and other types of travels, fate would bring Charlemagne and Alcuin together; and in 781, Alcuin accepted Charlemagne’s invitation to live in Aachen and assume responsibilities of schoolmaster (Burns).</p><p>Alcuin was more of a “teacher rather than a thinker” and therefore was not an “originator of knowledge” (Burns). However, three of Alcuin’s key philosophical beliefs were centered around, subjecting philosophy and liberal arts to revelation, the applied use of logic to strike down heresies to unite diverse and competing cultures, and lastly, structuring and reforming a system for a liberal education. Foremost in his mind was ensuring all studies and application of education only served revelation. Keeping this priority in mind, Alcuin applied rhetoric and logic to convince various archbishops and students to abandon unorthodox ideas such as Adoptionism (Alberi). While the importance of arguing against Adoptionism may not be a critical task to modern students, the framework of learning and promoting a classical liberal education remains significant today. This third key philosophical belief focused on the structure of a classical liberal education and was part of a larger effort in a first attempt at a European renaissance. However, the Carolingian renaissance did not endure. What endured and still remains viable today was Alcuin’s efforts in the promotion of education and the use of logic. Perhaps what does not remain as practical today is the philosophical concept of revelation taking priority over reason.</p><p>At Charlemagne’s behest, Alcuin continued his work of training the clergy and “accurately translating ancient literature” as well as creating programs of learning at the school in Aachen (Brooks). As he established curriculum for liberal arts, Alcuin never forgot to keep the priority of God and revelation first. While it may seem that Charlemagne was endeavoring to create a ‘new Athens,’ in actuality, the prevailing perspective was Aachen already “possessed in Christ’s teaching the key to wisdom superior to ‘all the wisdom of academic exercise’” (Alberi, 36). For Alcuin specifically, he “preferred to advocate reform of politics and scholarship according to the standards of the Bible and the Fathers” (41). The real power of a liberal arts education was in its application to strike down heresies which ensured Charlemagne’s kingdom remained unified and aligned with the Pope. By aligning with the Pope, Charlemagne ensured a successful consolidation power in the western empire.</p><p>Always mindful of the power of logic and rhetoric, Alcuin was vigilant in ensuring liberal arts supported the word of God. As long as reason was advised by “the Bible and the Fathers” then the use of logic and rhetoric to tear down heresies was appropriate (Alberi, 37). One example of using logic to tear down a heresy was Alcuin fighting the idea of Adoptionism. Adoptionism was the revival of “Nestorian ideas about the dual substance of Christ (i.e., Christ was ‘adopted’ as the son of God) [and] was declared anathema by the papacy” (Carlson). It was of great import for this heresy to be eradicated as it threatened Charlemagne’s “military and political control” in the regions where this idea was being propagated (Alberi, 39). Alcuin leveraged his rhetorical skills and “composed a number of treatises against the Spanish Adoptionists, including a small book” (Carlson). In these writings, he defined terms and constructed syllogisms and successfully proved the “logical impossibility” of Adoptionism (Carlson). One supporter of Adoptionism was still not convinced of his errors and was subsequently summoned to Aachen to argue with Alcuin before Charlemagne and the bishops. Alcuin’s excellent skills were too much for this advocate and he subsequently was forced to make a “public ‘confession’” (Carlson). </p><p>Alcuin’s motto in life was “disce ut doceas (learn in order to teach)” (Burns). To this end, Alcuin and his peers tirelessly worked to attend to, safeguard and expand the libraries in York and Aachen. He often traveled Europe acquiring or copying books. This work laid the foundation for the real Renaissance. As Burns notes, Alcuin was pivotal in “the revival of learning which distinguished the age in which he lived, and which made possible the great intellectual renaissance of three centuries later.” Because of Alcuin’s efforts, western civilization’s Renaissance possessed libraries from which it would bloom. And because of the Renaissance, modern society’s higher institutions of learning enjoy continued success in educating today’s students.</p><p>The institutionalization of the study of liberal arts endures today, thanks to the work of Alcuin. One modern-day Master of Theological Studies described the “classical modes of learning,” which were divided into two groups: trivium and quadrivium (Brooks). The trivium was comprised of grammar, logic and rhetoric; and the quadrivium was comprised of arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. These seven areas of study formed a liberal arts curriculum and were the basis for further studies in theology and medicine, as examples. Alcuin “popularized the liberal arts and paved the way for the later creation of the universities by the Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries” (Brooks). Because of Alcuin’s promotion of libraries and a curriculum, society today enjoys the benefits of higher learning.</p><p>Are Alcuin’s philosophical ideas regarding revelation trumping reason, the application of logic to strike down heresies, and the promotion of education still practical today? Because of his efforts in promoting education, many today enjoy a strong foundation from which to apply reasoning and critical thinking, therefore his idea of promoting education remains viable. Critical thinking and logic go hand in hand. In the age of misinformation, one must have all the reasoning skills at one’s disposal to not be led astray by extremism. While capable of sound reasoning, humans often are sluggish in decision making. In his book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt noted a research study which demonstrated humans have the capacity for sound reasoning, but when not held accountable (i.e., “know in advance that they’ll have to explain themselves”), they devolve into “errors, laziness, and reliance on gut feelings” (Haidt). In a related way, humans ought to be mindful of how much faith they place in revelation. Is it practical to subjugate our reasoning to revelation? One science fiction author bluntly cautioned when he wrote, “One of my most valued friends believes in astrology; I would never offend her by telling her what I think. The capacity of humans to believe in what seems to me highly improbable—from table tapping to the superiority of their children—has never been plumbed. Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness” (Heinlein, 249). Today, Alcuin may not find himself in familiar territory, as appeals to unproven varying opinions, including revelation, are widely not seen as viable.</p><p>In sum, Alcuin’s key philosophical beliefs were centered around, subjecting the study of philosophy and liberal arts to revelation, the applied use of logic to strike down heresies, and structuring and reforming classical education. Alcuin applied the use of rhetoric and logic in the service of revelation to defeat heretical ideas. He also ensured a strong framework for classical education endured, and today, modern society enjoys the fruits of his labors. While the viability of revelation over logic may not exist today, his other ideas around the practical use of logic and education endure in a society which appreciates their value. </p><p>Works Cited</p><p>Alberi, Mary. “Alcuin and the ‘New Athens.’ (Intellectual Life in Charlemagne’s Court).” History Today, vol. 39, no. 9, 1989, pp. 35–41.</p><p>Brooks, Tyler. “If You like Philosophy, Thank This Guy.” Catholic Answers, 22 Dec. 2021, www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/if-you-like-philosophy-thank-alcuin-of-york.</p><p>Burns, James. "Alcuin." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 17 Sept. 2022 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01276a.htm>.</p><p>Carlson, Laura M. “Carlson—the Rhetoric of Heresy: Alcuin, Adoptionism, and the Art of Language.” Heroicage.org, 2015, www.heroicage.org/issues/16/carlson.php.</p><p>"Charlemagne." Gale Biographies: Popular People, edited by Gale Cengage Learning, 1st edition, 2020. Credo Reference, https://search-credoreference-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/content/entry/galegbpp/charlemagne/0. Accessed 17 Sep. 2022.</p><p>Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2012.</p><p>Heinlein Robert A. Stranger in a Strange Land. Ace Books 1961.</p><p>Lamers, Han. Greece Reinvented : Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism in Renaissance Italy, BRILL, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=4397567.</p><p>Ruud, Jay. "Alcuin of York." Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature, Jay Ruud, Facts On File, 2nd edition, 2014. Credo Reference, https://search-credoreference-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/content/entry/fofmedieval/alcuin_of_york/0. Accessed 17 Sep. 2022.</p><div><br /></div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-66891216510968339382022-08-28T05:00:00.001-05:002022-08-28T05:00:00.156-05:00Phil 302 Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism<p style="text-align: center;">Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism</p><p>Born in 55, Epictetus was enslaved early in his life or even from birth, as he was taken to Rome “as a boy” by Epaphroditus (Seddon). As a slave, he was introduced to and studied Stoicism with Musonius Rufus, who some modern scholars call “the Roman Socrates” (Gaius Musonius Rufus and Lutz, 4). Prior to 89, he was freed and then sometime between 89 and 95 he was part of the group of philosophers who were expelled from Rome by the emperor Domitian (Long, 9). From Rome, he fled to Nicopolis where he founded his philsophy school and taught there for the remainder of his life (Seddon). Epictetus’ student Arrian wrote much of what survives of his teachings today. Arrian wrote them “as a literal record of Epictetus’ teachings, based on the notes he took as a student” (Epictetus, et al., ivvv). If nothing else could be said of Epictetus, the one idea he relentlessly taught was to live Stoicism. In the Handbook, he emphasizes that the only pride one ought to have is not for the ability to read and understand the teachings, but to apply them (Handbook 49). Because of his impact on his students, he earned a legendary reputation and was more popular in his day than Plato was in his (Seddon).</p><p>Stoicism is learned and lived in three parts: logic, physics, and ethics. All three work together to explain the whole philosophy. Early founders of Stoicism used analogies to explain the three topics. One analogy is that of an egg where the shell represents logic, the egg white represents ethics, and the yolk represents physics. Two other analogies compared philosophy to the body (bones and sinews as logic, flesh as ethics, and the soul as physics), and a fruit field (wall as logic, fruit as ethics, land, and trees as physics) (Long and Sedley, 158). The point of these analogies was to show that all three are necessary and one could not truly understand or live Stoicism with only one or two topics.</p><p>In similar fashion, Epictetus used analogies to teach his students how to learn and apply various aspects of Stoicism. This essay will focus on four examples, which provide a rough explanation of the philosophy. The first will focus on logic as a standard for knowledge and the analogy of knowing what a measurement is and how to use tools to measure. The second and third will focus on physics and how one can live in agreement with Nature or God, as well as living in agreement with one’s individual nature by using the analogies of visiting one of the seven wonders of the world as well as being a vivid thread. And lastly, the fourth analogy will focus on how ethics ought to be lived and not merely discussed, by using an analogy of a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely discussing it.</p><p>Logic and the use of senses help one learn how the world works and really is, which help an individual to use his volition to make the best choice. Epictetus compares logic with understanding how to measure or weigh something. If an individual’s goal is to build or bake something, then that person must have a sound understanding of the concepts of measuring and weighing, as well as how to use the tools to accomplish good measurement and weighing. If one does not know what measurement or weight is, or what a ruler or scale does, then how could he begin to build or make something? In Discourses 1.17.7, he teaches, “unless we start off by establishing what a unit of measurement is, and what a balance is, how shall we ever be able to weigh or measure anything?” Applied to philsophy, one must know the standard of knowledge and how to use the tool humans have been given (their mind) to demonstrate sound judgement and volition. Equipped with standards and the correct use of his mind, the individual begins to distinguish the things which up to him and which are not. From this knowledge, the person begins to comprehend how he is a minuscule part of the Whole and begins to gain an appreciation for the spectacle of the Cosmos, or the Stoic god.</p><p>Because much of the world and Cosmos is “not up to us” the individual ought to assume the wise attitude of following and seeking to understand Nature as opposed to seeking to control it or complain about it (Handbook 1). Part of living this wise attitude is to appreciate Nature rather than wasting time complaining about it. In another analogy Epictetus compares one’s attitude to that of visiting a sculpture of Phidias, who sculpted one of the seven wonders of the world (Jordan, 77). While many people would endure heat, crowds, rains, shouting and “other irritations” just for the chance to see the work of Phidias, when it comes to appreciate the works of Nature directly in front of them, they have no desire to comprehend them, but would rather complain about the trials and hardships of life (Discourses 1.6.23-28). Therefore, just as people endured all types of hardships for the chance to see one of the seven wonders of the world, so too should they endure much to learn, appreciate, and live according to Nature. And not only are people to follow Nature, but they are to align their individual wills or their inner daimon with the greater Cosmos (Bonhöffer and Stephens, 13)</p><p>Part of aligning one’s will with Nature is to determine who one really is and stand out by performing his own unique part in life. In the third analogy, Epictetus teaches that one ought to learn his unique role and then be the distinctive thread in a cloth. One should say to himself, “I want to be the purple, the small gleaming band that makes all the rest appear splendid and beautiful” (Discourses 1.2.18). Epictetus similarly teaches one should learn his unique talents and not ignore them (Handbook 37). Lastly, one learns that he may have an assigned role which he is to play and rather than complaining about what parts he does not get to play, he ought to learn his part and play it well (Handbook 17). The unifying concept in many of these analogies is action.</p><p>Philosophy is to be lived, not merely studied. If one were only to study philosophy, but not live it, he is no better than a person who expounds about the process of building, but never actually builds something. “A builder doesn’t come forward and say, ‘Listen to me as I deliver a discourse about the builder’s art,’ but he acquires a contract to build a house and shows through actually building it that he has mastered the art” (Discourses 3.21.4). In the same passage, Epictetus continues by enumerating many duties a Stoic ought to perform in order to live an ethical life, including how to eat, drink, take care of oneself, rear a family, participate as a citizen, endure insults, and tolerate family and neighbors when they behave badly. All duties relate back to the core virtues. The best practiced volition is one that demonstrates justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom regardless of circumstances (Hadot, 233).</p><p>While this essay only focused on four analogies, Epictetus’ wide and varied use of parallels can be seen throughout all his works. This essay focused on a subset of comparisons, which guide the reader in a general direction of how Stoicism can be explained and lived. Epictetus used measuring to demonstrate how one ought to be familiar with logic, concepts, and tools. He compared visiting one of the wonders of the world, as well as a vibrant thread for how one ought to view life in general. And lastly, he compared living one’s philosophy to a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely talking about it. When the student actually sees the wonders of life, or a vibrant thread, or a measuring ruler or a carpenter, then perhaps he will be more likely to remember Epictetus’ teachings and strive to live them.</p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Bonhöffer, Adolf Friedrich, and William O. Stephens. The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus : An English Translation. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, 2021.Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.</p><p>Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.</p><p>Gaius Musonius Rufus, and Cora E. Lutz. Musonius Rufus - “the Roman Socrates.” Yale Univ. Press, 1947.</p><p>Hadot, Pierre, and Michael Chase. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, Mass. London Harvard University Press, 2001.</p><p>Long, A. A. Epictetus : A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Clarendon Press, 2013.</p><p>Long, A. A., and David N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 1987.</p><p>Jordan, Paul. Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Taylor & Francis Group, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1683541.</p><p>Seddon, Keith H. “Epictetus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 Jan. 2003, iep.utm.edu/epictetu/.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-39685536739276043072022-08-11T05:00:00.002-05:002022-08-11T11:14:32.785-05:00Phil 302 - Anonymity and Justice<p style="text-align: center;"> <b>Anonymity and Justice</b></p><p>There is no universally agreed-upon definition of justice. Since humanity and various cultures hold different meanings of justice and injustice, the Ring of Gyges thought experiment can be leveraged to explore this topic and how it still plays out in modern society. The movie Batman Begins offers multiple character examples of how anonymity is like wearing the Ring of Gyges, and how anonymity is used to commit injustices as well as to fight injustices. Perhaps anonymity simply demonstrates the on-going challenge of defining justice and Heraclitus’ claim that “strife is justice” and “war is father of all” aptly sums up the problem (Graham). Or perhaps there is a lesson to be learned in empathy in how to apply justice by way of another thought experiment called the empathy machine (Groothuis). Thought experiments like the Ring of Gyges and the empathy machine, and movies like Batman Begins, are valuable because they prompt discussion and dialogue of what it means to be just and how to act accordingly.</p><p>Glaucon and Socrates discuss the concept of justice in book two of Plato’s Republic. Glaucon contends that the just person would ultimately run the same course as an unjust person. He explains through the thought experiment, called the Ring of Gyges, that the wearer of the ring could become invisible and commit any act they wish; and subsequently a person claiming to be just would ultimately commit injustice if granted invisibility (Plato, et. al., 359c – 361a). Does anonymity make everyone unjust? Or are there examples of people who use anonymity to fight injustice. The film Batman Begins offers insight into various characters who have the power of quasi-anonymity.</p><p>Batman Begins is a 2005 film which explores the origins of the comic book hero Bruce Wayne, whose parents were murdered when he was a boy (Nolan). When Bruce was a college student, the murderer of his parents, Joe Chill, was to be released on parole. At the hearing, Bruce comes prepared with a handgun with the intent to kill Chill. He is about to shoot Chill, when an assassin for the mobster Falcone, kills Chill. Bruce watches intently as Chill dies. Later, his close friend, Rachel Dawes, discovers Bruce’s intent. When she learns this, she slaps him across his face, telling him that his father would be ashamed of him for bypassing the justice system. Feeling the sting of shame, Bruce vows to fight injustice by immersing himself in the criminal underworld for seven years.</p><p>While exploring the criminal underworld, Bruce is recruited by a man named Henri Ducard, who belongs to the League of Shadows and whose leader is Ra’s al Ghul. As a member of the League of Shadows, Bruce learns martial arts and arts of deception and disguise. At the pinnacle of his initiation, he is forced to decide whether to behead a murderer or part ways with the league. Having determined that he would never kill, he escapes the League of Shadows, saving his friend Ducard and thinking that Ra’s al Ghul dies in a fire at the home of the League of Shadows.</p><p>Bruce returns to his home in Gotham and crafts his alter-persona: Batman. As he assumes anonymity, he begins to fight the Gotham criminal underworld, using his quasi-invisibility to exact justice on the mobsters of Gotham. Through the course of his detective work, he learns that Ra’s al Ghul still lives, and in fact, is his friend Ducard. Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows have plotted to destroy Gotham, intending to commit injustice. Batman fights Ra’s al Ghul, who dies in a train wreck, and subsequently, Gotham is saved.</p><p>Both the protagonist and antagonist of Batman Begins wrap themselves in invisibility and disguise. Bruce Wayne does so to fight injustices on the streets of Gotham which the police department is powerless to fight because of corruption. Bruce’s choices demonstrate that a cloak of invisibility does not align with Glaucon’s contention that a proverbial Ring of Gyges corrupts the wearer. On the other hand, while the antagonist Ra’s al Ghul has a warped sense of justice by destroying everything to force civilization to reboot, he is willing to commit significant injustices to accomplish some justice in the world. Ra’s al Ghul is an example of what Glaucon contends: that invisibility only encourages the person to commit injustices.</p><p>It does not take much imagination to make the leap from the fiction of Batman Begins to the non-fiction of the real world. Today, cyber criminals and malicious actors work in hidden shadows and the dark web to steal people’s identities and commit all types of injustices from buying and selling drugs to human trafficking. Also cloaked in anonymity and invisibility are justice warriors from governments and military organizations and even vigilantes. Like Batman, the cyber world is full of invisible actors, many committing grave crimes, and others, such as vigilantes, fighting them in the name of justice (e Silva).</p><p>Is Glaucon’s thought experiment, resolved? Does invisibility turn all people into actors of injustice? Applying the analysis of Batman Begins and the battles being fought on the Internet, it can be stated that invisibility does not turn all into actors of injustice. Therefore, what is to be learned from this thought experiment? Perhaps the real lesson from Batman Begins and the gift of anonymity is that it reveals humanity will always be locked in a struggle to define what is just and unjust. What happens overtly also occurs anonymously as the fight for justice and against injustices simply moves to a meta world. Consequently, when Heraclitus says, “We must recognize that war is common, strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity” and that “war is father of all and king of all” it simply denotes the endless fight over the definition of justice (Graham). Ra’s al Ghul felt compelled to fight injustice in his own way, and in turn Batman felt compelled to fight Ra’s al Ghul and the criminal underworld. Humanity is trapped in a perpetual struggle to define and execute justice and how to fight injustice. But is humanity truly trapped in this unending battle?</p><p>To begin to address injustice, all people need to gain self-awareness and empathy. One University of Sydney academic philosopher wrote, “invisibility may be self-induced through self-justifying rationalizations, and ignorance may be manifested and expressed as lack of self-reflection and self-knowledge” (Edward, 564). This idea of ignorance and lack of self-examination and reflection may be key to unlocking a universal understanding of justice. What if justice began with self-examination and reflection? If more people were to be instilled with empathic awareness, could humanity step closer to universal justice? Two scenes from Batman Begins show two characters with a sense of empathy and how these acts of kindness had knock-on effects.</p><p>One scene shows a young Bruce at the police station, shortly after his parents were murdered by Chill. With empathy and kindness, a police officer named James Gordan took time to think of the feelings of a frightened child. His act was to simply put a coat around the young boy and offer comfort. Later in the film, in difference scene, the hero similarly shows empathy for a young boy whose life is full of stress. While surveilling a rough part of the city, a young boy walks onto the balcony to leave a heated argument between his parents. To his surprise, he sees Batman on the terrace. He explains to Batman that none of his friends would believe him if he told them he saw Batman. Without saying a word, Batman hands the boy a surveillance tool and the boy breaks out in a wide, happy expression. Having the ability to understand what it feels like to be in another person’s shoes and then to treat that person, accordingly, may be the right thought experiment to advance the conversation of justice.</p><p>One professor of philosophy proposes that moral virtue, including justice, may be better understood with a thought experiment called the empathy machine.</p><p>When one is hooked up to the empathy machine, there is a radical shift from the third-person and second-person to the first-person; from propositional knowledge to experiential knowledge … from hearing about pain and observing pain to being in pain and thus knowing it from the inside out. It is a shift from hearing-about or being-near to being-there (Groothuis, 86). </p><p>Experiencing the pains of injustice may begin to shape humanity to reconsider actions which may be unjust. Instead of allowing baser instincts of protection, revenge and survival to guide humanity, perhaps there ought to be greater focus on tapping into emotional intelligence in an effort to expand not only self-awareness, but other-awareness.</p><p>While humanity may long argue over what justice is and is not, the thought experiments of the Ring of Gyges and the empathy machine, along with the plot of Batman Begins help to sort out how humanity can apply justice at the interpersonal level. Indeed, Heraclitus may always be correct about humanity being trapped in a perpetual cycle of strife and war. Or, perhaps there may be some hope in a more enlightened civilization, in which the citizenry taps into the rich potential of empathy and reaches escape velocity from the ceaseless cycle of conflict. </p><p>Works Cited</p><p>e Silva, K. K. “Vigilantism and Cooperative Criminal Justice: Is There a Place for Cybersecurity Vigilantes in Cybercrime Fighting?” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 21–36. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1080/13600869.2018.1418142.</p><p>Edward, Howlett S. "The Sixth Estate: Tech Media Corruption in the Age of Information." Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, vol. 18, no. 4, 2020, pp. 553-573. ProQuest, https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/scholarly-journals/sixth-estate-tech-media-corruption-age/docview/2499028149/se-2, doi:https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1108/JICES-02-2020-0014.</p><p>Graham, Daniel W. “Heraclitus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/.</p><p>Groothuis, Douglas. "THE EMPATHY MACHINE: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT." Think, vol. 19, no. 55, 2020, pp. 85-94. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/empathy-machine-thought-experiment/docview/2384820659/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175620000081.</p><p>Nolan, Christopher. Batman Begins. Warner Bros., 2005. </p><p>Plato, et al. A Plato Reader : Eight Essential Dialogues. Hackett Pub. Co, 2012.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-11523519332516086982022-07-24T05:00:00.001-05:002022-07-29T19:29:56.031-05:00Phil 302 - Socrates the Devoted<p style="text-align: center;"><b>Socrates the Devoted</b></p><p>Socrates was unwavering and was devoted to the god (his daimon) and his country. Through heeding his daimon, he remained loyal to the god. Through military service and concern for the citizens of Athens, including his accusers, he remained loyal to his country. His allegiance to his daimon enabled him to pursue a life dedicated to love and care for himself and others. Plato’s dialogues provide evidence of a Socrates who cared not for wealth, land, offices of authority, power or even his life, but rather his only concern: devotion to philosophy and helping others care for their souls (Plato, et. al., Apology 30a, 36b). From his early childhood experiences with his daimon, to his courage on the battlefield, to his stalwart care for the state and citizens, Socrates embodied his philsophy. In her PhD. thesis, Abigail Fritz summarizes, “Socrates is, and always has been, concerned with whether his behavior is just, without regard to his personal safety” (Fritz, 76). His pattern of devotion began in childhood with the introduction to his daimon.</p><p>There is no specific account or detail surrounding how Socrates first encountered his daimon, other than when he states that it had been with him since childhood, and it prevents him from doing something that he ought not (Plato et. al., Apology 31d). What is known, is that he remained devout to the god by acknowledging, and adhering to oracles and divine dreams, and to examine people’s lives including his own (33c). Not once did he succumb to the pressure to lower himself by disobeying the divine; he stood his ground on this matter like he stood his ground in pitched battle. Socrates’ ultimate commander was the god – his daimon – and when Socrates was called to his station by his commander, he remained there “steadfast in danger, taking no account at all of death or anything else” (28d). And this station, at which he faithfully stood, was to live philosophically. As one modern professor of philosophy wrote: “Insofar as Socrates’ god demands of men that they live philosophically, insofar as the station at which the god stations Socrates is philosophy, it follows that to do as the god demands is to be the very opposite of uncritically submissive” (Weiss, 85). His qualities of determination and loyalty not only applied to his daimon, but they were also demonstrated on the battlefield.</p><p>Socrates fought in three pitched hoplite battles: Potidaea in 432 B.C.E., Delium in 424 B.C.E, and Amphipolis in 422 B.C.E. (Ambury). History books describing hoplite battle are replete with descriptions of soldiers succumbing to “gaping wounds to the unprotected neck and groin, involuntary defecation and urination, and panic” (Hanson, 144). These pitched battles absolutely required “weight and discipline” and “the greater cohesion and thrust of the column, the more likely it was for a phalanx to shove itself over and through the enemy” (144). Soldiers who selfishly abandoned their comrades were derided as a “shield tosser” or a “throw-awayer” because they “threatened the integrity of the phalanx and revealed the hoplite’s worry about his own, rather than the group’s, survival” (145). Socrates was not a tosser but exhibited strength and stamina as a “good citizen … who always [held] his shield steady and right, and [stayed] in rank in the phalanx” (145). In other words, Socrates demonstrated his devotion to his citizens by remaining resolute in battle, caring more for this fellow citizens than himself. Fritz draws a parallel to Socrates’ actions on the battlefield to his “commitment to the philosophical life” as both activities help the state, as well as put one in danger of death (77). Socrates’ willpower to hold rank on the battlefield, prepared him for engaging in the philosophical and cultural arena of Athens, in defense of his city comprised of fellow citizens and even accusers.</p><p>Socrates loved his city and her citizens. The only entity he held in higher esteem than the city, was the god. In persuading Crito as to why he will not escape his death, Socrates tells Crito that he “must treat [his] fatherland with piety, submitting to it and placating it more than [he] would [his] own father” (Plato, et. al., Crito 51b). Not once in his 70 years of life, did he break the law (Apology 17d). Furthermore, he was willing to engage with anyone and everyone in the city to persuade it to care about the most important things, even in the face of hostility (36b-c, 21e). And finally, the ultimate hostility he faced was being accused of impiety and corrupting the youth and subsequently being brought to court for the first time in his life (24b-c). But despite these accusations, he still had care and concern for his accusers. So great was his devotion to the god, the city, and his fellow-citizens, he supplicated his accusers, “I’m far from pleading in my own defense now, as might be supposed. Instead, I’m pleading in yours, so that you might not commit a great wrong against the god’s gift to you by condemning me” (30e).</p><p>In sum, Socrates was resolute, faithful to his daimon and to his country, through military service and an unyielding concern for the citizens of Athens, including his accusers. His loyalty to the god and his country prodded him to never mind his own business and instead, to be the unrelenting gadfly (29d, 37e-38a, 30e-31a). In all that he did, he stood as a shining example of one who was truly a lover of wisdom and one who embodied it. Pierre Hadot’s extensive research in this area succinctly captures this ancient idea of a lived philosophy. “Philosophy was a way of life, both in its exercise and effort to achieve wisdom” (265). Socrates’ devotion to wisdom, as applied to his fellow citizens, demonstrated the way in which humanity is to pursue the examined life: through dialogue and embodiment of one’s philosophy. </p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Ambury, James M. “Socrates | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/socrates/.</p><p>Fritz, Abigail R. The Life of Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, and the Untapped Potential of</p><p>the Socratic Problem, Utah State University, Ann Arbor, 2022. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/life-socrates-plato-xenophon-untapped-potential/docview/2634870370/se-2.</p><p>Hadot, Pierre, et al. Philosophy as a Way of Life : Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Blackwell Publishing, 2017.</p><p>Plato, et al. A Plato Reader : Eight Essential Dialogues. Hackett Pub. Co, 2012.</p><p>Victor Davis Hanson. A War like No Other : How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. Random House, 2006.</p><p>Weiss, Roslyn. “For Whom the ‘Daimonion’ Tolls.” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, vol. 38, no. 2, 2005, pp. 81–96, www.jstor.org/stable/40913997.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-54753075392150143942022-07-09T05:00:00.001-05:002022-07-09T12:06:37.166-05:00Raphael's School of Athens: Is it Heraclitus or Epictetus?<p>Towards the end of 2020, while doing some work on a college research paper, I found an image of Epictetus I had never seen before. I was exploring my college's various research engines and one of my searches yielded an image from the British Museum; an drawing of Epictetus.</p><p>You can find the print here: <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1935-0828-5">https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1935-0828-5</a></p><p>The description states, "Epictetus: bearded man seen head and shoulders, head resting on his left hand; on white ground; detail from the School of Athens, after Raphael"</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcZyRkDQZLQItAHEar-lrGGFBMA3K6DgSpE6WtMZCDDcWHgEA7N4YkG2pnsdqYDGl06R0i4kA1rvqxZz3Y2pRWHfaFwMYM43huc2QQDtgxb8ZFldydNvyfxtuIFdTI_7W1auvTRyhlxZF2V0iQXH_g5fLWPSFIsjfIvYtT-fEgl80cZOm75iIDA-pNVw/s1190/Epitteto.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1190" data-original-width="870" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcZyRkDQZLQItAHEar-lrGGFBMA3K6DgSpE6WtMZCDDcWHgEA7N4YkG2pnsdqYDGl06R0i4kA1rvqxZz3Y2pRWHfaFwMYM43huc2QQDtgxb8ZFldydNvyfxtuIFdTI_7W1auvTRyhlxZF2V0iQXH_g5fLWPSFIsjfIvYtT-fEgl80cZOm75iIDA-pNVw/s320/Epitteto.jpg" width="234" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The artist who drew this image of Raphael's School of Athens is Antonio Regona and he would have drawn it sometime between 1775 and 1853, according to the site's data on 'production date.'</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He drew other objects from the School of Athens; see this link to his works at the British Museum: <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG191367">https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG191367</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Epicurus</li><li>Zeno of Citium</li><li>Diogenes</li><li>Plato</li></ul><div>Now to the question. As I've studied a bit about the painting, I've come to learn that there seems to be wide consensus that the image that Antonio Regona claims is Epictetus, is in fact Heraclitus.</div><div><br /></div><div>The wikipedpia page on the painting claims it is Heraclitus: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens</a></div><div><br /></div><div>The site Art in Context claims it is Heraclitus: <a href="https://artincontext.org/the-school-of-athens-raphael/">https://artincontext.org/the-school-of-athens-raphael/</a></div><div><br /></div><div>But perhaps the best information or analysis on this figure comes from the BBC and talks a bit more extensively about him: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200910-the-school-of-athens-a-detail-hidden-in-a-masterpiece">https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200910-the-school-of-athens-a-detail-hidden-in-a-masterpiece</a></div><div><br /></div><div>This article, too, claims he is Heraclitus, but also notes that this figure and many of the other figures are deliberately ambiguous.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, perhaps, Antonio Regona may have known more about this figure or he chose to not claim this figure as Heraclitus, but Epictetus. Perhaps Regona had seen another image of Epictetus by William Sonmans - the image that many of us may be more familiar with (link: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epicteti_Enchiridion_Latinis_versibus_adumbratum_(Oxford_1715)_frontispiece.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epicteti_Enchiridion_Latinis_versibus_adumbratum_(Oxford_1715)_frontispiece.jpg</a>) This image would have been created prior to 1715 and would pre-date Regona's drawing.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisOTHBv4Y8Ai5lzZJi8vyJUd42XCtTl4aUS8RllDd-HNMZLqte1WoijI9pTtPuHSqUpiuuPzyhkXfwU12go8O2QagPpqWYEINpWHawsFc4vYsJ2vLG9hwjn1ubqzWjk0-Iic9qAqNu4CVP2eANpsgpxN5w-TdSiU9omfOflaRcL08VRdeCTzLtee3T-A/s1206/Epictetus%201715.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1206" data-original-width="684" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisOTHBv4Y8Ai5lzZJi8vyJUd42XCtTl4aUS8RllDd-HNMZLqte1WoijI9pTtPuHSqUpiuuPzyhkXfwU12go8O2QagPpqWYEINpWHawsFc4vYsJ2vLG9hwjn1ubqzWjk0-Iic9qAqNu4CVP2eANpsgpxN5w-TdSiU9omfOflaRcL08VRdeCTzLtee3T-A/s320/Epictetus%201715.jpg" width="181" /></a></div><br /><div>Both images show Epictetus, holding his head up with his left hand, while writing. Perhaps these two clues are why Regona claims the figure in the School of Athens is Epictetus and not Heraclitus.</div><div><br /></div><div>In conclusion, it's a interesting mystery and piques my curiosity about why would Antonio Regona call that figure Epictetus and not Heraclitus.</div></div>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6232762280990514471.post-25555043387121262132022-06-28T05:00:00.001-05:002022-06-28T09:55:20.453-05:00Phil 300 - Logic - Fasting to Cure Cancer<p style="text-align: center;">Fasting to Cure Cancer</p><p>One of the earliest claims of cancer being cured by fasting comes from an avid proponent of the practice, Upton Sinclair. His claim that fasting cures many diseases, including cancer, is summed up in a book entitled, “Terrors of the Table: The Curious History of Nutrition.” The author notes,</p><p></p><blockquote>Without doubt the cheapest of the many prescriptions for dietary health was fasting. The cult has been around since ancient times, but enjoyed a wide resurgence towards the beginning of the 20th century. … A fervent apostle of the creed was the inimitable Upton Sinclair, author of (among many other novels) The Jungle and the most credulous of faddists. He published in 1911 his book The Fasting Cure in which he assured his readers that a strict regime of deprivation would cure any of a long inventory of diseases, including cancer, tuberculosis, asthma, syphilis, locomotor ataxia, and, to cap it all, the common cold. In what passes for a caveat he remarks: 'I have known two or three cases of people dying while they were fasting, but I feel quite certain that the fast did not cause their death'" (Gratzer, 201).</blockquote><p></p><p>In more modern times, the idea of fasting aiding in and being the cause of people being healed from cancer, seems to be gaining momentum. Three examples of these claims come from three different people. First, Dr. David Jockers promotes the idea of fasting as a healer of cancer with this headline: “Using Fasting Strategies for Natural Cancer Healing.” Second comes from another person who was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer at the age of 19 and who went on to become a doctor, and now claims fasting contributes to the healing of patients from cancer. Her name is Dr. Nasha Winters, and she tells her story and makes her claims on the Diet Doctor Podcast (Scher). The last example is a medical foundation based on the idea water only fasts fix many health ailments, including cancer. The TrueNorth Health Foundation makes many claims about the benefits of fasting and one of their claims is of a woman who was healed of “stage IIIa, grade 1 follicular lymphoma” after she completed a ”21-day medically supervised, water-only fast” and then began eating a plant food only diet (Myers, et al.).</p><p>Using Michael Shermer’s “Baloney Detection” questions, I will analyze the claim that fasting cures cancer. This paper will note each of his questions and then provide an answer to the question.</p><p>How reliable is the source of the claim? The original claim, from Sinclair, does not appear to have any scientific basis. While I’ve not read his book The Fasting Cure, I did peruse a copy of it online and found that he did not cite any studies, rather, he based his claims from his own experiences and testimonials of others. As for Jockers, Winters, and The TrueNorth Foundation, it would take a trained scientist to investigate their studies and determine if their conclusions indicate deliberate bias. However, all three of these sources do stake their reputation on their claims.</p><p>Does this source often make similar claims? Sinclair not only claims that fasting cures cancer, but as previously cited in this paper, he claims fasting cures all kinds of other diseases. With a plethora of outlandish claims, he seems to have gone beyond the scope of the facts. As for Jockers, his site makes other interesting claims related to fasting. Reviewing headlines from his website, one of his articles claims “How a 3 Day Fast Resets the Immune System.” As for Winters, she claims that not only does fasting aid in healing cancer, but she takes an alternative and holistic approach to beating cancer. Her website states, “Dr. Winters considers the body as one interrelated, integrated system and believes cancer comes from the body being neglected at some level via nourishment, physical stress, psychological stress, or a combination of those stressors” (“MATC Book | Dr. Nasha”). Lastly, the TrueNorth Foundation site strongly advocates for the use of “water-only fasting and exclusively whole-plant-food diet” for the health of the body (“TrueNorth Health Foundation | Live Longer, Live Better”).</p><p>Have the claims been verified by another source? While an extensive review of all the material from Sinclair, Jockers, Winters, and the TrueNorth Health Foundation would be a significant challenge, all of them, except Sinclair, provide ample citations of studies that back up their claims. It should also be noted that the general subject of fasting in the aiding of healing cancer, does not have a lot of research to date. One peer-reviewed article states,</p><p></p><blockquote>Clinical research studies of fasting with robust designs and high levels of clinical evidence are sparse in the literature. Whereas the few randomized controlled trials and observational clinical outcomes studies support the existence of a health benefit from fasting, substantial further research in humans is needed before the use of fasting as a health intervention can be recommended” (Horne et al.)</blockquote><p></p><p>Therefore, while there are some studies that begin to draw connections and conclusions that fasting may heal patients from cancer, the evidence to date has not been fully verified by a broad spectrum of sources.</p><p>How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? The generally accepted, main cause of cancer is the mutation of DNA (Mayo Clinic). There is not much a person can do to be healed from genetic mutations. However, in the same Mayo Clinic article, it cites that obesity is a contributing factor for DNA mutations and subsequently individuals ought to “maintain a healthy weight.” Therefore, if an individual safely fasts, it may contribute to him or her having a healthy weight and even contribute to the healing process. This is what some studies are trying to understand. Beyond this connection, we know that chemotherapy and other drugs must be used to fight an active case of cancer and that fasting alone won’t heal the person. Additionally, we also know that fasting can be extremely difficult even under the best of circumstances, let alone having to suffer through side effects of chemotherapy at the same time as fasting. Even assuming fasting is effective at fighting cancer, the feasibility of the patient completing a fasting routine would have to be considered.</p><p>Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought? While no research has been designed to disprove fasting as an effective treatment to heal cancer, “[a] group of researchers recently started to develop the so called ‘fasting mimicking diets’” which would imply that fasting is not needed, per se, to cure some cancers (Caccialanza). In these studies, the patient does not actually fast, but modifies his or her eating habits to mimic the effects of fasting. If these and future studies are proven efficacious, it would demonstrate that fasting does not heal patients from certain types of cancer.</p><p>Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or to a different one? Clearly, from the lack of ample studies proving that fasting heals cancer, it is apparent that most of the evidence indicates that chemotherapy and drugs are more effective at healing cancer than fasting alone. And while some studies and cases indicate that fasting aided in the healing process, such as the case with Winters, other studies reveal that fasting in cancer patients introduces other serious health risk factors such as malnutrition and sarcopenia (Caccialanza).</p><p>Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? Sinclair does not employ generally accepted rules of reason and research tools. However, Jockers, Winters and the TrueNorth Health Foundation do employ them in search of well-established and reasoned conclusions. Sinclair, on the other hand, begins with a desired conclusion and sacrifices the integrity of the scientific process. While he may have been influential, his forte was not in scientific research.</p><p>Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation? Jockers, Winters, and the TrueNorth Health Foundation do much to explain the connection between obesity and cancer and then go on to explain that by addressing the nutrition of the cancer patient and even having the patient fast, cancer cells are deprived of the energy needed to grow and, that fasting activates the immune system to kill cancer cells (Myers). Sinclair, however, lacks any technical explanation for his claim that fasting heals cancer.</p><p>If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did? Claims made my Jockers, Winters, and the TrueNorth Health Foundation do not dispute the explanation for the cause of cancer. Rather, they are focused on factors that contribute to the growth and subsequent fight against cancer cells. While genetics may be the biggest factor in a person developing cancer, the claims of Jockers, Winters and the TrueNorth Health Foundation are made to widen the aperture of the studies in the fight against cancer, as opposed to offering a new explanation for the cause and cure for cancer.</p><p>Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? Jockers has an entire business built around books, recipes, programs, and lifestyle coaching. While Jockers cites many research articles, the bias for financial success may be a factor. For Winters, she faced imminent death from cancer and through much of her research, has found a way to survive. Therefore, she may suffer a strong bias from personal experience. She too has developed a business around her success story. The TruthNorth Health Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization which is organized around the idea of researching and finding benefits from water-only fasting and whole-plant-food diet. No significant bias is evident from reviewing their informational web pages. Lastly, Sinclair may have had ulterior motives for his claims that fasting heals cancer. He sought political and culture influence throughout his career and therefore may have had other motivations for making his claims.</p><p>In conclusion, we must ask, does fasting heal cancer? After conducting a lot of research on this topic, it does not appear that it can be definitively claimed that when patients fast, they will be healed from cancer. As noted previously, this area of research is young and is growing with more studies investigating the link between fasting and cancer cell reduction. As scientists and researchers pinpoint the exact effects of fasting on cancer cells, they may eventually conclude there are other ways to achieve the same outcomes without forcing patients to endure long fasts.</p><p style="text-align: center;">Works Cited</p><p>Caccialanza, Riccardo et al. “To fast, or not to fast before chemotherapy, that is the question.” BMC cancer vol. 18,1 337. 27 Mar. 2018, doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4245-5</p><p>Gratzer, Walter. Terrors of the Table : The Curious History of Nutrition, Oxford University Press, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=272784. Created from apus on 2022-06-19 17:45:16.</p><p>Horne, Benjamin D, et al. “Health Effects of Intermittent Fasting: Hormesis or Harm? A Systematic Review.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 102, no. 2, 1 July 2015, pp. 464–470, academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/102/2/464/4564588, 10.3945/ajcn.115.109553.</p><p>Jockers, David. “How a 3 Day Fast Resets the Immune System.” DrJockers.com, 22 Oct. 2019, drjockers.com/3-day-fast-immune-system/. Accessed 20 June 2022.</p><p>---. “Using Fasting Strategies for Natural Cancer Healing.” DrJockers.com, 27 Mar. 2018, drjockers.com/fasting-strategies-cancer/. Accessed 19 June 2022.</p><p>“MATC Book | Dr. Nasha.” Dr. Nasha, 11 Jan. 2019, www.drnasha.com/matcbook/.</p><p>Mayo Clinic. “Cancer - Symptoms and Causes.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic, 12 Dec. 2018, www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/symptoms-causes/syc-20370588.</p><p>Myers, Toshia R, et al. “Follow-up of Water-Only Fasting and an Exclusively Plant Food Diet in the Management of Stage IIIa, Low-Grade Follicular Lymphoma.” BMJ Case Reports, 9 Aug. 2018, p. bcr-2018-225520, 10.1136/bcr-2018-225520. Accessed 19 June 2022.</p><p>Scher, Bret. “Diet Doctor Podcast #34 — Dr. Nasha Winters.” Diet Doctor, July 2019, www.dietdoctor.com/video/podcast/episode-34-dr-nasha-winters. Accessed 19 June 2022.</p><p>Shermer, Michael Brant. “Michael Shermer.” Michael Shermer, 1 Nov. 2001, michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/baloney-detection/. Accessed 19 June 2022.</p><p>“TrueNorth Health Foundation | Live Longer, Live Better.” www.truenorthhealthfoundation.org, www.truenorthhealthfoundation.org/.</p>rockyrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04244111671544689660noreply@blogger.com0