"True Philosophers Make Dying Their Profession" some notes on The Cave and the Light
Socrates argues that it is only in death that the soul is released from the fears and limitations of the body (the cave, to use Plato's metaphor), and is finally united in wisdom and beauty. In a round about way this seems to be the same thing as physics/science theory of everything (TOE), the idea that there is all this knowledge (and perhaps beauty) that we don't yet know but if we did, it would explain everything. That lack of knowing is what makes humans so frightened and anxious and makes us act so irrationally. When we die, we are returned to the world and are one with everything, so in essence, we are released from the irrational mind that inhabits our physical bodies. (Einstein says that's why we study science, to make the world make sense)
Socrates makes the claim that in wisdom, the soul rules the body. I used to think this means the "emotional" rules the body, but I take it to mean something else now. I think it means the knowing rules the body, and what I mean by the knowing is that which knows that we can't know and accepts that. Not the mind. The mind can't accept that, it keeps trying to figure it out and drives the body crazy. The soul in contrast tries to guide the mind, allow it to accept things as they are not as we would wish them to be or fear they are. I think, in some ways, the soul is like "generosity of spirit". That which makes us accept and love as things are. But the body always holds us back, more or less.
We cannot have a harmonious universe because
we can never understand everything, we can never be ruled by the soul. The mind/body will always rule us and it has inherent limitations. (Can this also be related to entropy, because everything is always breaking down, it is gone before it can be understood?) Heraclitus said "'There is only change: ceaseless, relentless, and without end" (p. 13). This notion of change (entropy) has to coexist with the notion of energy permanence. That is, the central components of the universe do not change (the world of being) but their complex forms do (the world of becoming).
Can the soul be reduced to a bioneural state? Does each human have the same "soul" from a biological perspective but all the stuff that gathers "on top" of it as we develop is what makes us distinctly who we are?
Accoording to Plato, A good life is spent attempting to uncover and achieve "the good", to in essence, climb out of the cave. A wasted life, in contrast, is spent starting at the shadows of the wall. Dworkin's emphasis on dignity and responsibility are kind of like Plato's emphasis on the good. Only for D, dignity and responsibility are the good. He spent his life attempting to define them, live by them and convince others of their worthiness. Both Plato and D believed that there were inherent "goods", and it was not all relative. If there are inherent goods, are they in some way connected to some physical reality? Or, are they entirely mental constructs?
Plato says the forms are outside the realm of the sense, but this does not mean they are outside the realm of physics. We may not be able to "sense" all that exists. In a sense, if our soul is the ultimate expression of the forms and if our mind never lets us "meet" our soul, we are bound to never sense the forms.
Plato believed that we know things because of the transmigration of souls (our soul knew it in a previous life). This doesn't work for me, but the idea that the knowledge is in the universe as our soul is in the universe makes sense to me. The soul is an "energy" form, if you will, one that we don't understand, and as such it is part of all the energy in the universe and it "knows" that energy. Our body/mind gets in the way of understanding that soul. It is the nature of human being.
So, what makes the cave so appealing, the complete hiding of the soul as it were? Is there something more powerful than the soul? Is the soul divided? Can power be another component of our inherent being? Or is that just more crap we develop as human beings?
Numbers order the universe. They are one.
Aristotle had some profound disagreements with Plato. Aristotle believed that we lived towards something, our potential. Each of us has an agenda and a narrative that we are living towards. It's not random. It is teological destiny--we have an "end" that we tend towards. It's not simply random chance. (Could it be the end though is that which is created by the physical universe and it is out of our hands?). Chaos does not reign but the individual pursuing his destiny. We attempt to be moral but there is no moral perfection. Human being is not a science as Plato might have it be. But it we have a point we are headed for, does that mean we can affect the point? Or can we affect how we get there? Or is it all predetermined? Aristotle says humans have the goal to be happy. I used to think this is true but now I question this idea. Or perhaps question how we define happiness. Is it perhaps more accurate to say human beings have the goal to remove fear and anxiety--the ways humans do it run the gamut from obsessive compulsive behavior to retirement to making money. Stress can even be a way of relieving anxiety. Or, perhaps another way of saying it is that for many humans the desire to relieve anxiety is more powerful than the desire to be (conventionally) happy.
Psychotherapy seems to be run on this principle that man is "supposed" to be happy, and it seems like perhaps this has contributed greatly to lots and lots of major unhappiness.
Plato seeks true knowledge and Aristotle says develop good habits. For Plato, the goal is the ideal and for Aristotle the goal is developing a balance between all the competing extremes.
Aristotle believed the goal of political institutions was man's improvement. Plato believed that we should be led by the truth, the highest forms of morality, the pursuit of virtue based on "the good". This must needs to be imposed on those who resist. The patient must be made to take the medicine or the whole society will be destroyed. Plato lays out a blueprint and attempts to cram man into it. Aristotle looks at man and says what can be done? They both have the same goal, to make society virtuous.
Aristotle did not want crusaders or single minded revolutionaries but individual citizens who do most things 'well enough', developing a balance among competing demands and participating actively in all aspects of social and family life.
Aristotle introduced the notion that all inferences that are true have to come in two forms (p. 194). When teaching critical thinking, we talked about support being "evidence" of some kind, but also "logic". Aristotle's two forms elucidates this difference more clearly for me. In deductive reasoning given one or more "true" premises the conclusion we draw is necessary (there is no other option--Men are mortal. Socrates is a Man. Thus Socrates is mortal. There is no other possible conclusion). These propositions Socrates called syllogisms which are necessary conclusions to the proposition but are not necessarily true conclusions.
In inductive reasoning, given one or more facts, the conclusion we draw is reasonable. It makes sense given the evidence, but it isn't necessarily true. Both are used in arguments. While deduction is certainly important and useful it is induction that is most beneficial in science because it allows the creation of new knowledge.
Bernard argued that by making God the center of our lives, instead of OUR SELF, we are spiritually transformed (p. 209). Reason should not be a path toward vanity or self aggrandizement (but neither should religion). Reason is simply a way of making decisions that depends more on evidence then faith. Because evidence can be measured and some evidence can be found "better" than other evidence it is a less subjective form of knowledge creation than faith.
Why is it that so many "faiths" focus on in some way getting rid of the self? In religion you surrender it to God or you become "one" with God. In meditation, you become "one" with the universe. What makes the self/soul so problematic that we want to get rid of it in order to achieve some kind of "higher" meaning or enlightenment? Why the emphasis on "knowing thyself?" what about knowing the world instead? Isn't it when we attempt to "know thyself" that we become self absorbed?
Aristotle, Herman suggests, was not of this mind set. His belief was that the world and the human was complete and satisfactory. There was no need for a "higher" world or to cast off the self and embrace something else. His desire was to make sense of the world (p. 228). St Thomas Aquinas, it seems or at least according to Herman, agreed, "the human being is a soul within a body" (p. 237), and we cannot jettison the body or wish to get rid of it. For Aristotle, it was man's nature to know things. For Aquinas, to know is to be in an existential sense/ to know the world is to be part of the world ourselves" (p. 239)
William of Ockham (of Ockham's razor fame) believed that the stuff of religion should be left to religion and the stuff of science to human beings. Religion relies on faith and cannot be "understood" so why bother. Science, on the other hand, allows for understanding (p. 246)
Aristotle believed that politics depends on ethics. Live virtuously and the government will also be virtuous. But what happens, asked Machiavelli, if we have to do non-virtuous acts in order to maintain our free society? Machiavelli argues that society needs people who are virtuous but are willing to do evil things in order to ensure the survival of society (p. 278).
Niels Bohr wrote, "we achieve clarity through breadth" (p. 295). Through understanding all the little pieces we can start to see the whole. If this is accurate, then a University education (or any education . . . ) should be one of breadth over depth. Introduction to many things.
Socrates makes the claim that in wisdom, the soul rules the body. I used to think this means the "emotional" rules the body, but I take it to mean something else now. I think it means the knowing rules the body, and what I mean by the knowing is that which knows that we can't know and accepts that. Not the mind. The mind can't accept that, it keeps trying to figure it out and drives the body crazy. The soul in contrast tries to guide the mind, allow it to accept things as they are not as we would wish them to be or fear they are. I think, in some ways, the soul is like "generosity of spirit". That which makes us accept and love as things are. But the body always holds us back, more or less.
We cannot have a harmonious universe because
we can never understand everything, we can never be ruled by the soul. The mind/body will always rule us and it has inherent limitations. (Can this also be related to entropy, because everything is always breaking down, it is gone before it can be understood?) Heraclitus said "'There is only change: ceaseless, relentless, and without end" (p. 13). This notion of change (entropy) has to coexist with the notion of energy permanence. That is, the central components of the universe do not change (the world of being) but their complex forms do (the world of becoming).
Can the soul be reduced to a bioneural state? Does each human have the same "soul" from a biological perspective but all the stuff that gathers "on top" of it as we develop is what makes us distinctly who we are?
Accoording to Plato, A good life is spent attempting to uncover and achieve "the good", to in essence, climb out of the cave. A wasted life, in contrast, is spent starting at the shadows of the wall. Dworkin's emphasis on dignity and responsibility are kind of like Plato's emphasis on the good. Only for D, dignity and responsibility are the good. He spent his life attempting to define them, live by them and convince others of their worthiness. Both Plato and D believed that there were inherent "goods", and it was not all relative. If there are inherent goods, are they in some way connected to some physical reality? Or, are they entirely mental constructs?
Plato says the forms are outside the realm of the sense, but this does not mean they are outside the realm of physics. We may not be able to "sense" all that exists. In a sense, if our soul is the ultimate expression of the forms and if our mind never lets us "meet" our soul, we are bound to never sense the forms.
Plato believed that we know things because of the transmigration of souls (our soul knew it in a previous life). This doesn't work for me, but the idea that the knowledge is in the universe as our soul is in the universe makes sense to me. The soul is an "energy" form, if you will, one that we don't understand, and as such it is part of all the energy in the universe and it "knows" that energy. Our body/mind gets in the way of understanding that soul. It is the nature of human being.
So, what makes the cave so appealing, the complete hiding of the soul as it were? Is there something more powerful than the soul? Is the soul divided? Can power be another component of our inherent being? Or is that just more crap we develop as human beings?
Numbers order the universe. They are one.
Aristotle had some profound disagreements with Plato. Aristotle believed that we lived towards something, our potential. Each of us has an agenda and a narrative that we are living towards. It's not random. It is teological destiny--we have an "end" that we tend towards. It's not simply random chance. (Could it be the end though is that which is created by the physical universe and it is out of our hands?). Chaos does not reign but the individual pursuing his destiny. We attempt to be moral but there is no moral perfection. Human being is not a science as Plato might have it be. But it we have a point we are headed for, does that mean we can affect the point? Or can we affect how we get there? Or is it all predetermined? Aristotle says humans have the goal to be happy. I used to think this is true but now I question this idea. Or perhaps question how we define happiness. Is it perhaps more accurate to say human beings have the goal to remove fear and anxiety--the ways humans do it run the gamut from obsessive compulsive behavior to retirement to making money. Stress can even be a way of relieving anxiety. Or, perhaps another way of saying it is that for many humans the desire to relieve anxiety is more powerful than the desire to be (conventionally) happy.
Psychotherapy seems to be run on this principle that man is "supposed" to be happy, and it seems like perhaps this has contributed greatly to lots and lots of major unhappiness.
Plato seeks true knowledge and Aristotle says develop good habits. For Plato, the goal is the ideal and for Aristotle the goal is developing a balance between all the competing extremes.
Aristotle believed the goal of political institutions was man's improvement. Plato believed that we should be led by the truth, the highest forms of morality, the pursuit of virtue based on "the good". This must needs to be imposed on those who resist. The patient must be made to take the medicine or the whole society will be destroyed. Plato lays out a blueprint and attempts to cram man into it. Aristotle looks at man and says what can be done? They both have the same goal, to make society virtuous.
Aristotle did not want crusaders or single minded revolutionaries but individual citizens who do most things 'well enough', developing a balance among competing demands and participating actively in all aspects of social and family life.
Aristotle introduced the notion that all inferences that are true have to come in two forms (p. 194). When teaching critical thinking, we talked about support being "evidence" of some kind, but also "logic". Aristotle's two forms elucidates this difference more clearly for me. In deductive reasoning given one or more "true" premises the conclusion we draw is necessary (there is no other option--Men are mortal. Socrates is a Man. Thus Socrates is mortal. There is no other possible conclusion). These propositions Socrates called syllogisms which are necessary conclusions to the proposition but are not necessarily true conclusions.
In inductive reasoning, given one or more facts, the conclusion we draw is reasonable. It makes sense given the evidence, but it isn't necessarily true. Both are used in arguments. While deduction is certainly important and useful it is induction that is most beneficial in science because it allows the creation of new knowledge.
Bernard argued that by making God the center of our lives, instead of OUR SELF, we are spiritually transformed (p. 209). Reason should not be a path toward vanity or self aggrandizement (but neither should religion). Reason is simply a way of making decisions that depends more on evidence then faith. Because evidence can be measured and some evidence can be found "better" than other evidence it is a less subjective form of knowledge creation than faith.
Why is it that so many "faiths" focus on in some way getting rid of the self? In religion you surrender it to God or you become "one" with God. In meditation, you become "one" with the universe. What makes the self/soul so problematic that we want to get rid of it in order to achieve some kind of "higher" meaning or enlightenment? Why the emphasis on "knowing thyself?" what about knowing the world instead? Isn't it when we attempt to "know thyself" that we become self absorbed?
Aristotle, Herman suggests, was not of this mind set. His belief was that the world and the human was complete and satisfactory. There was no need for a "higher" world or to cast off the self and embrace something else. His desire was to make sense of the world (p. 228). St Thomas Aquinas, it seems or at least according to Herman, agreed, "the human being is a soul within a body" (p. 237), and we cannot jettison the body or wish to get rid of it. For Aristotle, it was man's nature to know things. For Aquinas, to know is to be in an existential sense/ to know the world is to be part of the world ourselves" (p. 239)
William of Ockham (of Ockham's razor fame) believed that the stuff of religion should be left to religion and the stuff of science to human beings. Religion relies on faith and cannot be "understood" so why bother. Science, on the other hand, allows for understanding (p. 246)
Aristotle believed that politics depends on ethics. Live virtuously and the government will also be virtuous. But what happens, asked Machiavelli, if we have to do non-virtuous acts in order to maintain our free society? Machiavelli argues that society needs people who are virtuous but are willing to do evil things in order to ensure the survival of society (p. 278).
Niels Bohr wrote, "we achieve clarity through breadth" (p. 295). Through understanding all the little pieces we can start to see the whole. If this is accurate, then a University education (or any education . . . ) should be one of breadth over depth. Introduction to many things.
Comments
Post a Comment