It is a very good question. Today we are going to discuss the philosophy of well... philosophy. To understand the ontological meaning of philosophy we must first look at the philosopher themselves. People who engage in philosophy are doing so to solve some sort of problem. They are applying a means (their brain) to solve a problem (discovery of some truth). However, what is this truth they are trying to discover? The axiom above is true simply because human beings act to achieve an end all the time. I am doing this very thing right now. Right now I am trying to peer into the mysteries of man’s mind to discover what truth he is searching for.
But let us leave the Telos of philosophy and focus on how one philosophizes. The act of philosophy is to apply a means to achieve an end to figure something out. I want to make sure that I am right, therefore, I wish to discover what is true and be able to discern what is true from what is false.
Now of course the truth I am trying to discover is not a total truth of all things. I am not interested in facts that have no bearing to my cause. I do not care what the tallest building in the world is or who is the strongest man. I only care to discover more about philosophy.
Now this means that there are two categories that must be discovered, personal and universal truth. Personal truths are those truths that interest the individual. That Sombra is a hacker can only interest those people who want to play a game like Overwatch. The mating habit of flies may seem rather boring to the average joe but is of infinite interest to the scientist. Philosophy must then not be a matter that only pertains to the few, but to all men who are trying to employ means to achieve some end. This means that philosophy must have a universal applicability. But why?
A thing like science is only of interest to a scientist, but the fact that he is a person who is trying to use means to achieve an end....... means that he is employing the same rational factualities as other people trying to do their own thing. This means that one of the goals of philosophy is trying to figure out how people figure things out. I suppose this is where logic, cosmology, ontology, and epistemology come into play. It is merely an interplay of taking something apart to figure out what it is and then putting it back together to see how it works and then applying it to solve some personal end. However, is there more to philosophy? What if people have the same ends in that they are people?
In one case we can see that if all people are trying to achieve some end by some means, then we can also say that all people can benefit from understanding philosophy’s more actionable items. Rather than using it to simply learn what some famous philosopher said, they can apply that saying to solve some problem and learn to keep applying it to meet various circumstances. However, is philosophy nothing more than a toolbox? Is there more to a common end for humanity other than being a creature trying to solve problems? What happens to this creature once all his problems are solved? Is he then useless? What is a man when he has no problems but is merely content with his life? Will philosophy still be useful?
It would be absurd to state that man is in a constant cycle of means and ends as if their ends never leave them in a state of contentment. I suppose one goal of philosophy is to go beyond the end and figure out what it means to fulfill one’s ends. What is a person who fulfill’s his ends? What does he do?
Let’s say I decide to answer this question from experience or analogy. When I finish eating my food, I no longer want food once the problem is solved. Once I play Overwatch, however, a single victory does not mean that I do not wish to play another round. I seem to find a sense of enjoyment is solving problems that are purely intellectual. When I watch a movie or t.v show, I also seem interested in seeing how people try to solve their problems and I feel a sense of enjoyment in that as well.
This seems to be interesting as we can now separate problem solving into two categories, the necessity and the entertaining. The necessity is one that keeps us alive. It is a need in the sense that not having it means survival will cease. Meanwhile, entertainment is one where I am interested in solving problems or at least watching other people solve problems. It could be that problem solving is in our very nature; it is the essence of what it means to be human.
Okay this thing is acting up every time I type. I am stopping here for today.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Man and Machine
Today, I was reading “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell and a interesting argument was presented in the book:
Star Wars: Star Wars probably was the first major movie that saw man trying to break from the technological world view. On one side you have the empire who built a massive industrial machine run by a humanoid computer, Darth Vader. Through the use of cold reasoning and extreme desire for order in the collapse of the Old Republic, the Empire decided to build the Death Star. Meanwhile, the Jedi are a group that is in touch with the natural and spiritual forces and wish to live in harmony with the universe rather than trying to control it. The Jedi, however, were destroyed as they tried to desperately unite their spiritual ideals unite themselves to the social and technological machine of the Republic. Here we see the struggle between two very opposing views of civilization clash, one founded on nature and the other on technology.
Black Mirror: A more modern telling of the story of the struggle between man and machine is Black Mirror. Several episodes show how technology influences society when it is given priority in dominance. Some episodes show how technology ruins the human person’s authenticity either through a society run by social media or one where everyone is given a memory chip that records their life. Other times we see how technology can lead to tyrannical behavior such as when one game designer holds his digital clones captive through intimidation and unspeakable tortures. All in all, technology is something that can bring out the darkest parts of human behavior or even erase a person’s humanity completely.
Overwatch: Overwatch was once the most popular FPS game winning multiple awards. The game showcases some of the best examples of the problems of technology and how it can disrupt the very fabric of society. The Omnics, creatures given artificial intelligence that seems to give them a sense of self awareness, rebel against the humans who created and enslaved them. This brings to light that human beings need to consider the moral implications of the way they treat the technology they create, or even non- human animals, as not mere things, but part of the human personality. The Omnics are the best example of this moral implication as they are made with human personalities embedded in the programming. The next group is the underground gang known as Talon who wants to use technology to enhance humanity to bring it to its new evolution. For Talon’s main scientist, Moira, there is not ethical boundary besides this evolution. No matter how much pain it will cause the world, her belief is that humanity should, and in the case of Doomfis must, evolve no matter the cost.
There are tons of other media that showcase this struggle between man and machine from the Matrix to Neir Automata to I-Robot. However, the case always seems to be the question of man living with technology without becoming assimilated into it to such an extent they loose their humanity. In Star Trek, this became the centeral struggle with the race of aliens called the Borg which preferred to live life as machines with no individuality, and by prefer, force others to assimilate to this way of life. This may be one of the greatest struggles. Will the new technological age allow people to opt out or does it force assimilation against our will?
Moyers: Machines help us to fulfill the idea that we want to make the world in our image, and we want it to be what we think it ought to be.
Campbell: Yes. But there comes a time when the machine begins to dictate you.The book goes on to explain how the modern story telling surrounding technology has been one where man has to battle with the new technologies he invents. In creating their own technological environment, man has stumbled upon a new problem that they are becoming a slave to the new world of their own making. In this new world, the computer has replaced nature as the primary driving force of man. Guns and bombs are the new wrath of god as most diseases in the advanced world are being conquered one by one. We see this struggle play out in several different ways in video games, t.v., and movies.
Star Wars: Star Wars probably was the first major movie that saw man trying to break from the technological world view. On one side you have the empire who built a massive industrial machine run by a humanoid computer, Darth Vader. Through the use of cold reasoning and extreme desire for order in the collapse of the Old Republic, the Empire decided to build the Death Star. Meanwhile, the Jedi are a group that is in touch with the natural and spiritual forces and wish to live in harmony with the universe rather than trying to control it. The Jedi, however, were destroyed as they tried to desperately unite their spiritual ideals unite themselves to the social and technological machine of the Republic. Here we see the struggle between two very opposing views of civilization clash, one founded on nature and the other on technology.
Black Mirror: A more modern telling of the story of the struggle between man and machine is Black Mirror. Several episodes show how technology influences society when it is given priority in dominance. Some episodes show how technology ruins the human person’s authenticity either through a society run by social media or one where everyone is given a memory chip that records their life. Other times we see how technology can lead to tyrannical behavior such as when one game designer holds his digital clones captive through intimidation and unspeakable tortures. All in all, technology is something that can bring out the darkest parts of human behavior or even erase a person’s humanity completely.
Overwatch: Overwatch was once the most popular FPS game winning multiple awards. The game showcases some of the best examples of the problems of technology and how it can disrupt the very fabric of society. The Omnics, creatures given artificial intelligence that seems to give them a sense of self awareness, rebel against the humans who created and enslaved them. This brings to light that human beings need to consider the moral implications of the way they treat the technology they create, or even non- human animals, as not mere things, but part of the human personality. The Omnics are the best example of this moral implication as they are made with human personalities embedded in the programming. The next group is the underground gang known as Talon who wants to use technology to enhance humanity to bring it to its new evolution. For Talon’s main scientist, Moira, there is not ethical boundary besides this evolution. No matter how much pain it will cause the world, her belief is that humanity should, and in the case of Doomfis must, evolve no matter the cost.
There are tons of other media that showcase this struggle between man and machine from the Matrix to Neir Automata to I-Robot. However, the case always seems to be the question of man living with technology without becoming assimilated into it to such an extent they loose their humanity. In Star Trek, this became the centeral struggle with the race of aliens called the Borg which preferred to live life as machines with no individuality, and by prefer, force others to assimilate to this way of life. This may be one of the greatest struggles. Will the new technological age allow people to opt out or does it force assimilation against our will?
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Reading Inbetween the Words
Language is often considered a pretty concrete thing. When I say the word “baseball bat”, most people who speak English assume to know what those words mean. No one is thinking of a flying rodent pitching a baseball. However, language is only part of how we know the world around us and often relying too heavily on language can result in misunderstandings.
First, an introduction to linguistics may be in order. A word or group of words that form a single idea is called a signifier. This means that words signify some concept in a person’s mind. A “tree” for example is the signifier to a particular genus of plant. However, within this one signifier is a plethora of other denoting signifiers like trunk, leaves, branches, roots, color, shape, size, soil... etc. In his “Blue Book” Ludwig Wittgenstein said that to know one part of a language is to know all of it (at least conceptually). This conception of a word or group of words is called the signified and the process is called signifying.
Now, let us come to the fun part of language where misunderstandings happen. Misunderstandings usually occur to a words ambiguity (having more than one signified concept) or vagueness (having a mostly ignorant concept of a word). Justice in Plato’s “The Republic” fits the concept of vagueness. When someone says Justice, most of the people in Plato’s work are at a loss on how to define the word. What ends up happening is a who competing concepts of the word Justice begin to emerge from might makes right to everyone getting what they deserve. These competing concepts of justice reveal that sometimes the vagueness of a word is due to the ambiguity of the connotations that come with a word. A connotation of a word is a specie or specific application of a word. For example, a peach tree, a maple tree, or an apple tree can connote the word “tree”. The word tree can also take on subjective concepts like feelings or telos (ends or purpose) for each individual person.
How can one then avoid misunderstanding? It is mostly impossible, really. The best that people can hope for is to avoid the wall of misunderstanding when misunderstandings arise. The wall of misunderstanding occurs when one side completely shuts out the other side’s point of view, which is often the result of generalities. Let’s go back to our justice argument. One side said “Might makes right” while the other said “When a person gets what they deserve”. Might both arguments be right in a sense? Imagine a world where only the unjust were powerful and could do as they please without any consequence or moral compass. Such a world would obviously be a bad one. No one would be able to get what they deserve. So might is a factor in justice. However, if it were the sole factor of justice, then, how would one measure might. By usefulness in maintaining power one would suppose. If a person does not have the skill and talent to maintain a country, then all the might makes right will result in a better able ruler to come and take the power. Sure, one might be great at military power, but there is also economic power, cultural power, and to be more powerful means one must be more useful and thus deserving of the power.
This where we come into what is called a language game. The goal of the language game is first to understand the rules of the game so both people can then play it. This requires that all parties understand each others’ arguments and what their logic, emotion, and ethical point of view they are working with. The basic rule is first understand, then be understood. Once you understand where someone is coming from on the multiple levels of language, then you can figure out what they really want. Sometimes this will require you to be less logical and more emotionally understanding. If someone is ranting, for example, understand that the argument carries a lot of emotional weight. Sometimes people are more interested in being right (retaining their honor) than their argument being true (that there argument in accord with reality). Long internet debates are often the result of egos clashing. There is more honor than truth on the Internet. But that is the language game and understanding what game one is playing can help to avoid or manage misunderstandings when they arise and can even tell a person which game is even worth playing.
First, an introduction to linguistics may be in order. A word or group of words that form a single idea is called a signifier. This means that words signify some concept in a person’s mind. A “tree” for example is the signifier to a particular genus of plant. However, within this one signifier is a plethora of other denoting signifiers like trunk, leaves, branches, roots, color, shape, size, soil... etc. In his “Blue Book” Ludwig Wittgenstein said that to know one part of a language is to know all of it (at least conceptually). This conception of a word or group of words is called the signified and the process is called signifying.
Now, let us come to the fun part of language where misunderstandings happen. Misunderstandings usually occur to a words ambiguity (having more than one signified concept) or vagueness (having a mostly ignorant concept of a word). Justice in Plato’s “The Republic” fits the concept of vagueness. When someone says Justice, most of the people in Plato’s work are at a loss on how to define the word. What ends up happening is a who competing concepts of the word Justice begin to emerge from might makes right to everyone getting what they deserve. These competing concepts of justice reveal that sometimes the vagueness of a word is due to the ambiguity of the connotations that come with a word. A connotation of a word is a specie or specific application of a word. For example, a peach tree, a maple tree, or an apple tree can connote the word “tree”. The word tree can also take on subjective concepts like feelings or telos (ends or purpose) for each individual person.
How can one then avoid misunderstanding? It is mostly impossible, really. The best that people can hope for is to avoid the wall of misunderstanding when misunderstandings arise. The wall of misunderstanding occurs when one side completely shuts out the other side’s point of view, which is often the result of generalities. Let’s go back to our justice argument. One side said “Might makes right” while the other said “When a person gets what they deserve”. Might both arguments be right in a sense? Imagine a world where only the unjust were powerful and could do as they please without any consequence or moral compass. Such a world would obviously be a bad one. No one would be able to get what they deserve. So might is a factor in justice. However, if it were the sole factor of justice, then, how would one measure might. By usefulness in maintaining power one would suppose. If a person does not have the skill and talent to maintain a country, then all the might makes right will result in a better able ruler to come and take the power. Sure, one might be great at military power, but there is also economic power, cultural power, and to be more powerful means one must be more useful and thus deserving of the power.
This where we come into what is called a language game. The goal of the language game is first to understand the rules of the game so both people can then play it. This requires that all parties understand each others’ arguments and what their logic, emotion, and ethical point of view they are working with. The basic rule is first understand, then be understood. Once you understand where someone is coming from on the multiple levels of language, then you can figure out what they really want. Sometimes this will require you to be less logical and more emotionally understanding. If someone is ranting, for example, understand that the argument carries a lot of emotional weight. Sometimes people are more interested in being right (retaining their honor) than their argument being true (that there argument in accord with reality). Long internet debates are often the result of egos clashing. There is more honor than truth on the Internet. But that is the language game and understanding what game one is playing can help to avoid or manage misunderstandings when they arise and can even tell a person which game is even worth playing.
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Scienctism and Religion
Last night my Men’s ministry meeting had a little discussion on religion and science. The debate went about as usual, spotting the problem of Darwinian Evolution, the ethical role religion plays in science (like in bioethics and weapons and stuff). The debate, to me anyway, was very straightforward with nothing new to add to the conversation. As I sat there, I almost predicted all the talking points among my fellow intellectuals and decided to remain silent as I really had nothing new to contribute. However, as my mind started to simmer in the issue, I realized that the debate between science and religion did not start with Darwin, but with Epicurus.
Epicurus was the first to believe that man was made of nothing more than atoms (smallest units of physical matter) and that man had no immortal soul. While stoic philosophers tended to speculate on this matter, they never really adhered to the philosophy and remained mostly theists. This belief that man is nothing more than matter plays a huge role in the debate between science and religion.
What science is not.
Science must first be stated by what it is not. It is not value free as many scientists want to claim. Even religious people, like those who sat around me, claimed that religion is about “Why” while science is more the “What and How”. However, the rules of praxeology do not permit any value free judgements. Famous economist, Ludwig von Mises, once stated that all human action is ration. Man is a creature who wishes to solve problems and uses means to accomplish some subjective end. This end in all action is never objective, but subjective to their taste, which means that all action has value. A scientist who studies medicine wants to cure people (or make money), a person studying meterology may want to figure out how the climate works (or make money), or even an astrophysicist may want to study the stars to see how far human knowledge can go with regard to space travel (or get famous because there really is no money in that). Jokes aside, we see that every time a scientist wants to start an experiment they are starting with their whole “being”, not some objective scientific ideal.
Now that we have determined that science is not value free, we must ask, “Why the war between science and religion?” Firstly, this statement itself is a slight of hand. There is no war between faith and reason. The question is loaded with preconceptions that one cannot both be into science and religion. As was pointed out in the discussion some of the greatest saints in the Orthodox Church were scientists like Basil the Great, Pantelemon, Cosmas, and Damian. St. Luke, the writer of one of the four Gospels, was a doctor. The myth of science v religion is nothing more than a ruse to distract from the real debate, sin v holiness.
Sin v Holiness in the Debate
Epicurus was a man who lived for pleasure. To live for pleasure meant that he believed he needed to break the back of religious ideals that could hinder his goal for self fulfillment. This does not mean he was a drunk or sexually active, in fact he was practically a monk in sobriety and chastity, however, he was one who believed that an organized faith would only get in the way of man seeking after pleasure in this life because they were willing to suffer for the promise of the next life. Frederick Nietzsche would echo this in his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” where he ties the belief that “God is dead” with the “Ubermench” or “Superman” who, by sheer act of will, will carve his own destiny off grave of a dead God. This is where sin and holiness differ.
Science is a convenient metaphysical belief that can be used as an excuse to support all kinds of behavior. Eugenics was an excuse to kill Jews, blacks, and other non desirables during the early 20th Century. A so called scietific approach to the sexual preferences makes the sins of homosexuality into a natural part of the world. However, the “natural” of scietific understanding is a value judgement. If it is natural, then it is good. However, coincide is natural, but that does not mean it is good for you to injest.
Not all natural actions are good because we live in a fallen world. In the words of St. Paul, “Man has exchanged what is natural with what is unnatural.” This means that ignoring the faith handed down to us from God has made man into something unnatural and science, while it can study the physical world, it cannot make man holy, which is his natural state. Science is incomplete without faith, but to be fair, faith can gain a lot of tools to help it along the way from science. That is my view.
Epicurus was the first to believe that man was made of nothing more than atoms (smallest units of physical matter) and that man had no immortal soul. While stoic philosophers tended to speculate on this matter, they never really adhered to the philosophy and remained mostly theists. This belief that man is nothing more than matter plays a huge role in the debate between science and religion.
What science is not.
Science must first be stated by what it is not. It is not value free as many scientists want to claim. Even religious people, like those who sat around me, claimed that religion is about “Why” while science is more the “What and How”. However, the rules of praxeology do not permit any value free judgements. Famous economist, Ludwig von Mises, once stated that all human action is ration. Man is a creature who wishes to solve problems and uses means to accomplish some subjective end. This end in all action is never objective, but subjective to their taste, which means that all action has value. A scientist who studies medicine wants to cure people (or make money), a person studying meterology may want to figure out how the climate works (or make money), or even an astrophysicist may want to study the stars to see how far human knowledge can go with regard to space travel (or get famous because there really is no money in that). Jokes aside, we see that every time a scientist wants to start an experiment they are starting with their whole “being”, not some objective scientific ideal.
Now that we have determined that science is not value free, we must ask, “Why the war between science and religion?” Firstly, this statement itself is a slight of hand. There is no war between faith and reason. The question is loaded with preconceptions that one cannot both be into science and religion. As was pointed out in the discussion some of the greatest saints in the Orthodox Church were scientists like Basil the Great, Pantelemon, Cosmas, and Damian. St. Luke, the writer of one of the four Gospels, was a doctor. The myth of science v religion is nothing more than a ruse to distract from the real debate, sin v holiness.
Sin v Holiness in the Debate
Epicurus was a man who lived for pleasure. To live for pleasure meant that he believed he needed to break the back of religious ideals that could hinder his goal for self fulfillment. This does not mean he was a drunk or sexually active, in fact he was practically a monk in sobriety and chastity, however, he was one who believed that an organized faith would only get in the way of man seeking after pleasure in this life because they were willing to suffer for the promise of the next life. Frederick Nietzsche would echo this in his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” where he ties the belief that “God is dead” with the “Ubermench” or “Superman” who, by sheer act of will, will carve his own destiny off grave of a dead God. This is where sin and holiness differ.
Science is a convenient metaphysical belief that can be used as an excuse to support all kinds of behavior. Eugenics was an excuse to kill Jews, blacks, and other non desirables during the early 20th Century. A so called scietific approach to the sexual preferences makes the sins of homosexuality into a natural part of the world. However, the “natural” of scietific understanding is a value judgement. If it is natural, then it is good. However, coincide is natural, but that does not mean it is good for you to injest.
Not all natural actions are good because we live in a fallen world. In the words of St. Paul, “Man has exchanged what is natural with what is unnatural.” This means that ignoring the faith handed down to us from God has made man into something unnatural and science, while it can study the physical world, it cannot make man holy, which is his natural state. Science is incomplete without faith, but to be fair, faith can gain a lot of tools to help it along the way from science. That is my view.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
The Four Causes of Aristotle
According to Aristotle there are four causes to every affect. Now, a cause is not meant to be something taken in time, like putting an electrical plug in a socket (cause) will lead to my phone being charged (effect). It is really about how and why a thing orignates.
<b>Material Cause</b> The material cause is what something is made out of. It contains all the physical elements that make up its being. For example, a wooden chair is made of wood and metal nails.
<b>Formal Cause</b> The formal cause is the idea of the thing. It is the design, shape, or principle that is applied to make the thing what it is. For example, the material cause (wood) can be shaped by the formal cause into somthing other than a chair like a table, bed, or bench. The ideas that are put into the formal cause are what gives the material form.
<b>Efficient Cause</b> Also known as the moving cause, the efficient cause is what arranges the materials into the form that it takes. So a carpenter will be the one that transforms the wood into a chair, table, or bench with his tools.
<b> Final Cause</b> The final cause is the purpose for which a thing is made. The final cause may be objective like a seed growing into a tree or it might be subjective like building a chair so that a person may sit upon it.
Friday, June 14, 2019
Pretending to be Actors
The entertainment industry lives in a world of pretend. They go out of their way to say they are feminists while the strip women to their bare breasts and sexually objectify them to nothing more than slavish desires of men who watch them. The cry for the poverty of the many while they live in the lap of luxury. They cry against the other wealthy, even though they provide more for the necessities of the poor. They pretend to be heroes but have fought in no struggle. They pretend to be moral while promoting lust and violence. The alter of Hollywood sells dreams and creates nightmares. Some may say they work hard for their money. So do teachers, who are paid far less but provide so much more. So do farmers, who provide the food we need to eat. Miners risk their very lives for our buildings, our fuel, and our very way of life, yet are not paid a fraction of the entertainers who provide at most a few hours worth an escape. Then again, what is Hollywood but capitalism raging against itself, marketing its hatred, and selling these sentiments to those who refuse to live. Hollywood may cry against the corporate establishment only to prentend they are not part of it.
(Just my ranting. I actually like capitalism and entertainment. But this is good food for thought as I ponder the actors who hypocritically oppose a system they are a part of.)
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Plato and Gender Pt. 2
In the last post we discussed the nature of the debate for Plato’s time and the thesis of his view on gender. Firstly, a person must not be afraid to go against the grain of society when discussing matters that would otherwise seem strange. Secondly, his belief was that men and women should receive the same education as both are equally able to become gaurdians (philosopher rulers) of his ideal state. The thesis he presented was that women, although the weaker sex, are still capabable of performing the same functions as men and that their role is society is only a social construct.
Plato begins by seeking to divide the natural element of women and men by figuring out what they have in common and what makes them different and whether or not these differences makes them unable to receive the education to become gaurdians.
The objection to Plato’s argument was that men and women have different natures and thus are suited best to different tasks. Plato argues that may be true in general, but it is true that men also differ in their skill and it is not due to their physical appearance (like how having and hair and being bald) that determines their skill, but how they developed their nature. Again, it is also true that women may have more talen than men in certain areas of life, but that talen can be overshadowed by men if they were to devote themselves to their talent. The only physical difference between men and women is that women beget children and men provide the seed for the begetting and that men are potentially stronger than women (both a part of their natural biology). However, no proof as to how this physical difference makes women inferior to men with regards to rulership. “Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in assigning music and gymnastic to the wives of gaurdians.”
It should be pointed out how revolutionary this concept of man/woman relationship was for Greece at the time. Women were often seen as a type of property and thus unable to rise above their station as being merely a mother to children and taking care of the home. Plato in these passages raises women up to a new station as “companions and colleagues of men.”
As for the Gender debate raging today, we see how Plato divides up the human person. Their are two natures: the physical and the social. The physical nature is the biological nature of a woman in what we term today as her sex. The next is the social which is how one is trained and chooses the path that is set before them. This seems to suggest that Plato believes that gender roles of men and women are arbitrarily decided much like those who believe that gender is fluid and not fixed by sex. Next post will explore if such an educational program were possible and what it would look like according to Plato.
Plato begins by seeking to divide the natural element of women and men by figuring out what they have in common and what makes them different and whether or not these differences makes them unable to receive the education to become gaurdians.
The objection to Plato’s argument was that men and women have different natures and thus are suited best to different tasks. Plato argues that may be true in general, but it is true that men also differ in their skill and it is not due to their physical appearance (like how having and hair and being bald) that determines their skill, but how they developed their nature. Again, it is also true that women may have more talen than men in certain areas of life, but that talen can be overshadowed by men if they were to devote themselves to their talent. The only physical difference between men and women is that women beget children and men provide the seed for the begetting and that men are potentially stronger than women (both a part of their natural biology). However, no proof as to how this physical difference makes women inferior to men with regards to rulership. “Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in assigning music and gymnastic to the wives of gaurdians.”
It should be pointed out how revolutionary this concept of man/woman relationship was for Greece at the time. Women were often seen as a type of property and thus unable to rise above their station as being merely a mother to children and taking care of the home. Plato in these passages raises women up to a new station as “companions and colleagues of men.”
As for the Gender debate raging today, we see how Plato divides up the human person. Their are two natures: the physical and the social. The physical nature is the biological nature of a woman in what we term today as her sex. The next is the social which is how one is trained and chooses the path that is set before them. This seems to suggest that Plato believes that gender roles of men and women are arbitrarily decided much like those who believe that gender is fluid and not fixed by sex. Next post will explore if such an educational program were possible and what it would look like according to Plato.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Thoughts on God and Perception
(These are my notes and thoughts during Bible study. My ADD has me all over the place so this is not a coherent thought but more of a collection of ideas that came to me as I was listening to the Bible study. As my priest mentions something I already know, I tend to write things I know to see how far I can take the lesson in a deeper way or understanding. Disclaimer: What is written may or may not be in line with the Orthodox teaching. Like I said, it’s me pondering things while my priest is talking, lol. However, what I wrote seemed interesting and worth looking into later.)
“A new heaven and a new Earth”
Sometimes Scripture speaks about a single heaven. The ancient astronomers called outer space “heaven” and then there is the heaven that is beyond the heavens where God dwells. The Christians would always adopt the science of the time to understand the Bible’s scientific understanding. The Church in Byzantium as in fact a very scientific society as well as religious.
The church would often use symbols, allegories, and analogies, like Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, to explain things that were not understandable.
This verse refers to a transformation of the physical world, but not the spiritual world since the spiritual world is beyond time and space. St. Peter says that it will be as if the world is cleansed by fire (all that we know will be gone). Paul says such a heavenly realm is beyond our current comprehension.
God’s glory is not visible with the physical eye, but only with the spiritual eye. This is basically a new phenomenological experience. Christ’s Transfiguration was an Ontological revelation of God’s glory for the Apostles to experience. Western tradition states that the Transfiguration was not a phenomenological experience, but a sort of physical manifestation of God’s glory… basically, He was just glowing. Thus we cannot behold God in an existential way, but in an analogous way only. (Palamas thus stated that we experience God via an existential revelation of God through our experience of Him through His energies. The Catholics say that God created Grace so that we can have a relationship to Him through a type of analogy as they do not separate his Essence (God’s very being) and His energies (God’s being in time and space through His acts)
This idea that the Earth will be new but recognizable sounds a lot like Dostoyevsky’s “Ridiculous Man” in that the man recognized the Earth and Mankind, yet he found them to be different and incomprehensible. Muck like the Apostle Paul, he was unable to utter what he saw in words, but tried his best to convey his experience. Wittinstien’s theory of language plays a role here as we cannot transmit experience through words, but only ideas through an analogous way.
In Genesis we see that Chaos, which is represented by water, is something subservient to God. It is a polemic against the ancient Pagan understanding that chaos is what rules all the universe and must be subdued by the gods, but they are even unable to fight back. Babylonians saw man as nothing more than servants of the gods. Ancient Babolyn would then make statues of the gods and “breathe” life into them. Genesis would deconstruct those ideas and show God as the controller over the “chaos” and that he would breathe life into man after making man from the dust of the earth. We are the images of God made by God while idols are the image of the gods made by man.
“The best of all possible worlds…” Lebinz’s philosophy as opposed to Voltaire who attacked this view in “Candide”. I suppose that Kierkegaard’s philosophy on angst would also oppose this idea. If man is a sinner, then the only reason we don’t have the best of all possible worlds is because of our own actions, not God’s.
In an analogous way, married couples become one, like we become one with God. Couples who are together begin to develop similar personalities but not confused as a single being.
Step 1: Relationship with God develops into an inclination of the spiritual life in a very carnal way ( a desire or Eros)
Step 2: Man, when he develops this relationship with God, develops a personality similar to God, which starts the process towards becoming like God. (Being here is an ontological, not an ontical or analogous understanding like in the West.) (Philio in that we are now God’s friends by virtue and Storge in that now we are children of God)
Step 3: Man’s growing ontological change to be like God (theosis) allows man to experience God in a way that is beyond the carnal. To understand God in an analogous or ontical way (belief) is very different from faith, which is an understanding in an ontological way. (Agape love develops in that our love for God is what it is supposed to be in that it is a focus outside of ourselves (the Ego) to God as we experience the subjective ontology where we perceive Him perceiving us for all eternity). Okay… that philosophy lesson really developed my understanding lol.
Corruption and death are the enemies caused by sin. Corruption in that our nature or essence is transformed into something more and more unable to perceive God as He is. Death is both spiritual and physical. Spiritual death is when a person is no longer aware that God is perceiving him and thus is falling headlong into the judgement when man, whose nature has not been cleansed, is forced to forever be aware of God in the Ego. “Man loves the darkness and hates the light lest it reveal his evil deeds.”
Man was not created until Christ. Prior to Christ we are simply subhuman since we have not reclaimed our essence from sin.
Image v. Likeness. Image is what we are by nature. Likeness is about becoming like God through theosis. This is what is meant by becoming a new creation.
Is even a single murder a type of genocide (or even a desire to exterminate all mankind)? When a man kills someone, it is because that person does not meet their standard of deserving life in some way, shape, or form. The idea that only those who deserve to live are those we deem worthy means that any person who does not wish for a person to live means they do not want anyone like that person to live either. In the end, a single murder is a desire to end all who are not us, but yet it is also a type of suicide in that we are all really like one another. Person caused me pain. No you cause yourself pain in reaction to that person. That person has what I want. No, you simply want what they have. That person is evil. So you are evil in wanting to kill them. I am justified in killing that person. No, you are justified in dying if you are justified in killing. Huh? The circular reasoning of sin lol.
We didn’t get into verse 6 yet, did we? -_-
Sin is a movement toward nothingness. What does it mean to not be? In this sense, it is to remove from our personhood away from our spiritual being, which is about desiring God (Eros) to attain Theosis (Agape). The ego by itself is not an ontological being. It is the ego that is perceived and knows it is perceived that is truly human. To objectify a person (fornication, murder, etc.) is to desubjectify them and thus you are not perceiving their perception of you (not loving man as yourself) nor is one’s relationship with God when we misuse His creation is able to realize one is always being perceived and thus being a human.
How does this relate to Berkley’s conception of the perceiver, the perceived, and the action of perception itself?
The act of perception is the act of intention and consciousness.
The perceiver is the one who exists and experiences that existence.
The perceived is either objective or subjective perception.
Objective perception is that which a person perceives based upon their relative perception (i.e. sight, sound, cognitive understanding etc.) or their objective perception which is things that do not need perception to exist in relation to the person perceiving them(being, time, space etc.). Oh wait, Locke spoke of this, I have to look it up later lol.
God is both an objective and subjective perception. Objective in the sense that His existence is a necessary cause of all things (Cosmological Reality of cause and effect). He is also a teleological in his subjective perception. Without man, there is no end of God for man, so this perception is only possible with man (goodness and beauty for example)
Nothing but truth can either be a good thing for man’s perception of God (Mercy is better than life) or terrible in that we can only perceive God with our ego and not by the perceiver being perceived.
Being in the perception of God is “beholding His Face”.
Ontically= knowing something as fact. (Apples are red or God is creator of heaven and Earth)
Analogy= knowing something by comparison (The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed)
Ontologically= knowing something through being (“I think, therefore I am” or We have beheld His glory)
Perfect is a teleological, not ontological category. Perfect means that the thing has reached its potential end while an ontological category means is that it is inherently without flaw (meaning that it has no need of change or is incapable of change to something greater). It is impossible for anything but God to be ontologically perfect. Man was teleologically imperfect, but moving towards perfection, which for man may be impossible as we are always to be perceived by the perfect God, in the Garden. To be perceived by God and to perceive that perception without ego. Perception with ego again is to objectify the thing that is being perceived, which for a subjective creature is to really ignore their perception of you and only focus on your perception.
I am giving myself a headache lol XD
When one is perceiving God, nothing in the world is objectifiable but must be perceived subjectively as one being perceived. Gluttony, for example, is to objectify God by overindulging in His creation. One’s love of God’s creation without the love of God will cause one to ignore God while one is indulging in creation. To always think about God’s creation without God is the lust of the eyes. The pride of life is the complete ignorance of God perceiving you and only focusing on the ego. Here “cogito ergo sum” is now replaced with “esse est percipi” < I am sure I spelt this wrong lol)
“A new heaven and a new Earth”
Sometimes Scripture speaks about a single heaven. The ancient astronomers called outer space “heaven” and then there is the heaven that is beyond the heavens where God dwells. The Christians would always adopt the science of the time to understand the Bible’s scientific understanding. The Church in Byzantium as in fact a very scientific society as well as religious.
The church would often use symbols, allegories, and analogies, like Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, to explain things that were not understandable.
This verse refers to a transformation of the physical world, but not the spiritual world since the spiritual world is beyond time and space. St. Peter says that it will be as if the world is cleansed by fire (all that we know will be gone). Paul says such a heavenly realm is beyond our current comprehension.
God’s glory is not visible with the physical eye, but only with the spiritual eye. This is basically a new phenomenological experience. Christ’s Transfiguration was an Ontological revelation of God’s glory for the Apostles to experience. Western tradition states that the Transfiguration was not a phenomenological experience, but a sort of physical manifestation of God’s glory… basically, He was just glowing. Thus we cannot behold God in an existential way, but in an analogous way only. (Palamas thus stated that we experience God via an existential revelation of God through our experience of Him through His energies. The Catholics say that God created Grace so that we can have a relationship to Him through a type of analogy as they do not separate his Essence (God’s very being) and His energies (God’s being in time and space through His acts)
This idea that the Earth will be new but recognizable sounds a lot like Dostoyevsky’s “Ridiculous Man” in that the man recognized the Earth and Mankind, yet he found them to be different and incomprehensible. Muck like the Apostle Paul, he was unable to utter what he saw in words, but tried his best to convey his experience. Wittinstien’s theory of language plays a role here as we cannot transmit experience through words, but only ideas through an analogous way.
In Genesis we see that Chaos, which is represented by water, is something subservient to God. It is a polemic against the ancient Pagan understanding that chaos is what rules all the universe and must be subdued by the gods, but they are even unable to fight back. Babylonians saw man as nothing more than servants of the gods. Ancient Babolyn would then make statues of the gods and “breathe” life into them. Genesis would deconstruct those ideas and show God as the controller over the “chaos” and that he would breathe life into man after making man from the dust of the earth. We are the images of God made by God while idols are the image of the gods made by man.
“The best of all possible worlds…” Lebinz’s philosophy as opposed to Voltaire who attacked this view in “Candide”. I suppose that Kierkegaard’s philosophy on angst would also oppose this idea. If man is a sinner, then the only reason we don’t have the best of all possible worlds is because of our own actions, not God’s.
In an analogous way, married couples become one, like we become one with God. Couples who are together begin to develop similar personalities but not confused as a single being.
Step 1: Relationship with God develops into an inclination of the spiritual life in a very carnal way ( a desire or Eros)
Step 2: Man, when he develops this relationship with God, develops a personality similar to God, which starts the process towards becoming like God. (Being here is an ontological, not an ontical or analogous understanding like in the West.) (Philio in that we are now God’s friends by virtue and Storge in that now we are children of God)
Step 3: Man’s growing ontological change to be like God (theosis) allows man to experience God in a way that is beyond the carnal. To understand God in an analogous or ontical way (belief) is very different from faith, which is an understanding in an ontological way. (Agape love develops in that our love for God is what it is supposed to be in that it is a focus outside of ourselves (the Ego) to God as we experience the subjective ontology where we perceive Him perceiving us for all eternity). Okay… that philosophy lesson really developed my understanding lol.
Corruption and death are the enemies caused by sin. Corruption in that our nature or essence is transformed into something more and more unable to perceive God as He is. Death is both spiritual and physical. Spiritual death is when a person is no longer aware that God is perceiving him and thus is falling headlong into the judgement when man, whose nature has not been cleansed, is forced to forever be aware of God in the Ego. “Man loves the darkness and hates the light lest it reveal his evil deeds.”
Man was not created until Christ. Prior to Christ we are simply subhuman since we have not reclaimed our essence from sin.
Image v. Likeness. Image is what we are by nature. Likeness is about becoming like God through theosis. This is what is meant by becoming a new creation.
Is even a single murder a type of genocide (or even a desire to exterminate all mankind)? When a man kills someone, it is because that person does not meet their standard of deserving life in some way, shape, or form. The idea that only those who deserve to live are those we deem worthy means that any person who does not wish for a person to live means they do not want anyone like that person to live either. In the end, a single murder is a desire to end all who are not us, but yet it is also a type of suicide in that we are all really like one another. Person caused me pain. No you cause yourself pain in reaction to that person. That person has what I want. No, you simply want what they have. That person is evil. So you are evil in wanting to kill them. I am justified in killing that person. No, you are justified in dying if you are justified in killing. Huh? The circular reasoning of sin lol.
We didn’t get into verse 6 yet, did we? -_-
Sin is a movement toward nothingness. What does it mean to not be? In this sense, it is to remove from our personhood away from our spiritual being, which is about desiring God (Eros) to attain Theosis (Agape). The ego by itself is not an ontological being. It is the ego that is perceived and knows it is perceived that is truly human. To objectify a person (fornication, murder, etc.) is to desubjectify them and thus you are not perceiving their perception of you (not loving man as yourself) nor is one’s relationship with God when we misuse His creation is able to realize one is always being perceived and thus being a human.
How does this relate to Berkley’s conception of the perceiver, the perceived, and the action of perception itself?
The act of perception is the act of intention and consciousness.
The perceiver is the one who exists and experiences that existence.
The perceived is either objective or subjective perception.
Objective perception is that which a person perceives based upon their relative perception (i.e. sight, sound, cognitive understanding etc.) or their objective perception which is things that do not need perception to exist in relation to the person perceiving them(being, time, space etc.). Oh wait, Locke spoke of this, I have to look it up later lol.
God is both an objective and subjective perception. Objective in the sense that His existence is a necessary cause of all things (Cosmological Reality of cause and effect). He is also a teleological in his subjective perception. Without man, there is no end of God for man, so this perception is only possible with man (goodness and beauty for example)
Nothing but truth can either be a good thing for man’s perception of God (Mercy is better than life) or terrible in that we can only perceive God with our ego and not by the perceiver being perceived.
Being in the perception of God is “beholding His Face”.
Ontically= knowing something as fact. (Apples are red or God is creator of heaven and Earth)
Analogy= knowing something by comparison (The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed)
Ontologically= knowing something through being (“I think, therefore I am” or We have beheld His glory)
Perfect is a teleological, not ontological category. Perfect means that the thing has reached its potential end while an ontological category means is that it is inherently without flaw (meaning that it has no need of change or is incapable of change to something greater). It is impossible for anything but God to be ontologically perfect. Man was teleologically imperfect, but moving towards perfection, which for man may be impossible as we are always to be perceived by the perfect God, in the Garden. To be perceived by God and to perceive that perception without ego. Perception with ego again is to objectify the thing that is being perceived, which for a subjective creature is to really ignore their perception of you and only focus on your perception.
I am giving myself a headache lol XD
When one is perceiving God, nothing in the world is objectifiable but must be perceived subjectively as one being perceived. Gluttony, for example, is to objectify God by overindulging in His creation. One’s love of God’s creation without the love of God will cause one to ignore God while one is indulging in creation. To always think about God’s creation without God is the lust of the eyes. The pride of life is the complete ignorance of God perceiving you and only focusing on the ego. Here “cogito ergo sum” is now replaced with “esse est percipi” < I am sure I spelt this wrong lol)
Genesis and Marriage: An Unclear Meaning
I love going for walks because, when I do, I think about some fo the most random things. Today, I was thinking about Bible study, and then, I thought about Genesis 2:23-24 that says, “So Adam said, ‘This is the bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man. For this reason man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’” It is rather a sweet idea except that no Godly man in Genesis ever left his father and mother upon marriage.
The first time we see a man leaving his father and mother to form a family was when Cain left his family after killing brother, Abel in chapter 4. It is unclear whether or not Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, ever left his father and mother to form a family. The physical separation of son with mother and father does not appear to be a blessing, but rather a curse.
What about a social or spiritual separation. We do see that Noah’s three sons stayed close to home both before and after the flood both in a social and spiritual context thus undermining the social or spiritual interpretation. When Ham was cursed for embarrassing his father when Noah accidentally got drunk, there was a sign that the father still had dominion over his children even after death when it says “Blessed be the God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his searvant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in teh habitation of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant as well.” (Gen. 9:26-27). This idea of the father still having dominion over their sons even after marriage was further signified when Joseph blessed the 12 tribes of Israel. It should also be noted that the name of the respective territories were named after the fathers of the 12 tribes and their collective country was named after their father Israel.
Going further into detail, there are several examples of the wife joining with the husband’s family and leaving their father and mother behind. Rebekah left her family even though her family wanted her to stay (Gen 24:55-61) to go to her betrothed, Issac. Jacob was sent away because of an issue between him and his brother, Essau. When he left, he got two wives, Rachel and Leah, but would then seek to leave his father and law’s property to return to his family and patch things up with his brother (Gen 31-33). The last person who will leave is Joseph, but again, not of his own accord as he was sold into slavery to Egypt by his brothers. His brothers were still close to his father (Gen. 42-43) and Joseph would reunite with his father. Upon this reunion, Joseph and his brothers would all receive a blessing from their father, which had both a social significance that they were still under their father’s authority and a spiritual significance that God would pass His blessing through the father even though all of them were married at the time.
What exactly, then, did Adam mean when he said that a man shall leave father and mother to be joined to his wife? It appears that in the Patriarchal society of Israel, the father and mother are the authority figures even after marriage both in a spiritual and social sense. The idea that one leaves one’s parents as a bird leaves the nest is also a fallacious interpretation, though popular in the modern world. The modern interpretation cannot square with the Biblical message.
Side Note: I believe that, in sense, both leave the complete authority of father and mother as the families now become one in that both parties are “one flesh”. This goes in line with Rebekah’s obedience to Abraham’s servant, showing that since she is betrothed, she is also under her new family’s authority. Moses will later be under the authority of his father-in-law, Jethro (Ex 3:1 and Ex 18:1-12). In a sense this leaving is about a combination under the authority of several families. This is probably why, in a social context, Israel goes from one head of the family to multiple heads of families. (Num. 1:2). This also squares with the commandment to honor one’s father and mother and puts a social, as well spiritual, significance behind not committing adultery. This would most likely mean that instead of a separating, the “leaving” is more of a bonding between multiple families to form new families, and societies, with multiple heads instead of a single patriarch. However, this is all just speculation.
The first time we see a man leaving his father and mother to form a family was when Cain left his family after killing brother, Abel in chapter 4. It is unclear whether or not Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, ever left his father and mother to form a family. The physical separation of son with mother and father does not appear to be a blessing, but rather a curse.
What about a social or spiritual separation. We do see that Noah’s three sons stayed close to home both before and after the flood both in a social and spiritual context thus undermining the social or spiritual interpretation. When Ham was cursed for embarrassing his father when Noah accidentally got drunk, there was a sign that the father still had dominion over his children even after death when it says “Blessed be the God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his searvant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in teh habitation of Shem. Let Canaan be his servant as well.” (Gen. 9:26-27). This idea of the father still having dominion over their sons even after marriage was further signified when Joseph blessed the 12 tribes of Israel. It should also be noted that the name of the respective territories were named after the fathers of the 12 tribes and their collective country was named after their father Israel.
Going further into detail, there are several examples of the wife joining with the husband’s family and leaving their father and mother behind. Rebekah left her family even though her family wanted her to stay (Gen 24:55-61) to go to her betrothed, Issac. Jacob was sent away because of an issue between him and his brother, Essau. When he left, he got two wives, Rachel and Leah, but would then seek to leave his father and law’s property to return to his family and patch things up with his brother (Gen 31-33). The last person who will leave is Joseph, but again, not of his own accord as he was sold into slavery to Egypt by his brothers. His brothers were still close to his father (Gen. 42-43) and Joseph would reunite with his father. Upon this reunion, Joseph and his brothers would all receive a blessing from their father, which had both a social significance that they were still under their father’s authority and a spiritual significance that God would pass His blessing through the father even though all of them were married at the time.
What exactly, then, did Adam mean when he said that a man shall leave father and mother to be joined to his wife? It appears that in the Patriarchal society of Israel, the father and mother are the authority figures even after marriage both in a spiritual and social sense. The idea that one leaves one’s parents as a bird leaves the nest is also a fallacious interpretation, though popular in the modern world. The modern interpretation cannot square with the Biblical message.
Side Note: I believe that, in sense, both leave the complete authority of father and mother as the families now become one in that both parties are “one flesh”. This goes in line with Rebekah’s obedience to Abraham’s servant, showing that since she is betrothed, she is also under her new family’s authority. Moses will later be under the authority of his father-in-law, Jethro (Ex 3:1 and Ex 18:1-12). In a sense this leaving is about a combination under the authority of several families. This is probably why, in a social context, Israel goes from one head of the family to multiple heads of families. (Num. 1:2). This also squares with the commandment to honor one’s father and mother and puts a social, as well spiritual, significance behind not committing adultery. This would most likely mean that instead of a separating, the “leaving” is more of a bonding between multiple families to form new families, and societies, with multiple heads instead of a single patriarch. However, this is all just speculation.
Gender and Plato
I remember walking around the mall with my girlfriend this week and began to notice just about every store was promoting “Pride” merchandise. The colors of the LGBTQ+ were everywhere and I started to think about the debate. I decided to watch a video on the debate and quite frankly both its bias and its lack of insight were quite uneventful to me. Then, I remembered my time in college where I read Plato’s famous work, “The Republic”. I decided to turn to chapter 5 where he talks about the education of women and children in his grand political design and saw just how ancient this discussion on gender roles was and how it has come time to see the different angles of the debate.
Now I must, of course, give the disclaimer that I am an Orhtodox Christian and, thus, my views are aligned with Church doctrine and teaching. Whatever may be my view, however, I intend to give an expository view for the purpose of understanding and not a rhetorical view that can sway an opinion one way or another. What I intend to write is simply an summary and interpretation of Plato’s work to better understand the debate that the world is currently having on the issue of Sex and Gender. (Also note that the “Side Note” will be written in brackets. You can choose to read these or not as they are stream of conscious thoughts that come to me as I write and read the work)
Plato begins his argument by stating that what he may say will be looked at as absurd. Society, Plato thought, would be shocked by his comments because they run too contrary to their beliefs and thus he may be in error. Socrates says in the work, “ [T]he danger is not that I shall be laughed at.... but that I shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sure of my footing and drag my friends after me in the fall.” He is assured by his hearers (particularly Glaucon) that they will challenge him and not hold it against him for preaching the wrong thing. He should continue to speak his mind on the matter even if it runs contrary to what is held by society.
(Side Note)Now, Plato has never really been one that is afraid to counter society’s way of thinking. He often portrays Socrates as one who will question societal norms so that they live a lives of virtue rather than the materialistic life of popularity or wealth (see the Apology). In “Meno”, Socrates would even go against the societal rules by stating that a slave can be just as educated and worthy of rule as his master. This will go against Aristotle’s views on Gender and Class in his works “The Politics” which I hope to comment on later.
Plato begins with his thesis that men and women should receive the same education, even in matters of military training. The purpose of this training is to train future leaders, the Gaurdians, which Plato seems to hint that he wants the women to have a place in. To prove the validity of his point he uses an analogy between sexes of hunting dogs and their accepted gender roles. “Are dogs divided into he’s and she’s, or do they both share equally in hunting and in keeping watch and in other duties?.. No.. they share alike and the only difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker.” This idea of nature will form the thesis of Plato’s theory for education and gender in general.
In the next post I will explore Plato’s thesis on the difference of nature between men and women and that impact on their education and societal roles. For now, what do you guys think? Does the differences in men and women force us to imagine them in differing societal roles?
(Side Note) Some things that I thought about when considering his argument. What about women as mothers and their vulnerabilities (and their children’s vulnerabilities), especially during pregnancy? Plato in earlier and later chapters states a society should promote people to the best possible station to match their talents. Men, being naturally stronger by admission of the author, would seem better suited for studying warfare and combat. However, as was pointed out in the play by Aristophanes, “Lysistrata”, women must also bear the trials of warfare. Any reading of the “Iliad” will tell you that women are often victims of warfare. How would this theory of woman fighting change the dialogue between Andromache and Hector? Might this change if a woman is trained in combat? Now, if a woman is trained in combat, what is the opportunity cost on her and society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)