The Great Ideas of Philosophy by Daniel Robinson | Chapter 11: Hippocrates and the Science of Life

[Ycel]

ANGUS: I so missed your posts!

I don't think that our senses are exactly deceptive. It's just that they are limited. No, not even limited but just fit for the practical human life. I mean, what practical application could you use ultraviolet vision?
But…but…I think he just wanted to point out that the answer to the question “what is there?” depends on the kind of being and the differences of range of perception between humans and honey bees.

*Is there right and wrong? Man is the measure of all things. Where are judgments grounded? The search for truth as a misguided quest. - Man, this is just great. When someone asks me for "the truth," this will come in handy. I will summon Robinson and blabber on.
LOL! I can totally picture you doing this, with dismissive waving of the hands…

I wish there was some sort of exercise where I could hold on to these thoughts and let me at remember them.
Hmm, I should get you a recorder then. You can blabber all day, too.

*Pre-Socratic thoughts - Cosmological issues. - I seriously think we should build a glossary.
I’m with you on this. I had to replay the lecture a couple of times and write on the guide to remember all the things he talked about.

[Ycel]

Antigone (anTIgeni) is a tragedy written by Sophocles (SOfoklis). The film that we will view is a 1961 production based on the play. Antigone (a woman) was one of the four offspring of that incestuous marriage between Oedipus and his mother (of the Oedipus complex infamy). In Chapter 5, she is compared to and contrasted against Medea (meDIya), wife of Jason (of the Argonauts/Golden Fleece fame).

[Ycel]

DC:
DC as a gardeNERD
Oh, we have to talk about this. I’ve been wanting to do this because it’s so polluted in the city, but still haven’t started yet.

On dialectical materialism
No need to be apologetic. As ironic as it sounds, we can see dialectical materialism unfold in the US, that bastion of capitalism. So Ayn Rand was not exactly correct when she said that capitalism is the unknown ideal. Or maybe my friend is right, ethics is a missing component in the industrialist gene. Whatever it is, the evidence is overwhelming. We’re now lending money to the US. Isn’t the world a funny place?

[Angus]

Ycel: Good morning! Hello! Sorry if I've been really quiet. But yeah, you are all stuck with me until the end, and you just have to deal with it, hahaha! :D

PS: I may not be that reactive (because I'm either too busy or too stunned) but I always read everyone's posts here.

But…but…I think he just wanted to point out that the answer to the question “what is there?” depends on the kind of being and the differences of range of perception between humans and honey bees.

The only kind of being that can ask a metaphysical question such as "What is there?" is a rational being. Animals, in this case honeybees, are not rational. They are mostly concerned with survival. Their version of "What is there?" is "Where is food?" or "Is that a predator?" So, I think it's more about differences in perception and nothing about differences in the kind of being.

[Ycel]

Ay, parang natarayan ako ni Angus. LOL!

[Angus]

^Hahahaha! Hindi naman. Nagmamadali lang ng konti kanina. :D

[Mark]

Has anyone of you come across the ancient Greeks philosophers' concerns about the One and the Many? And also how they thought about motion and change?

[Ycel]

Hi, Mark. It's been a while since I read about the One and the Many. Could you post your thoughts? A refresher is in order :)

[Tricia]

I'm so late and the discussion is so long I can print it and compile it. O_O

[DC]

(Just a reminder post; will go over everyone's responses later :) Although: Hi Tricia! :D)

Hello everyone!

Last night's viewing was pretty cool! (view spoiler)[Though I knew Antigone is a Greek tragedy, I didn't expect to feel so depressed about it :/ (hide spoiler)] Thanks for those who came along :D

As usual, let's have a last round of reactions for Chapter 4, and maybe move on to Chapter 5: The Greek Tragedians on Man's Fate by tonight or tomorrow :D

[Ycel]

Chapter 5: The Greek Tragedians on Man's Fate

Notes on the Film Viewing: Antigone
(view spoiler)[
The 1961 production has subtitles though a bit hard on the eyes at times (daytime scenes are a challenge), but I still want to commend whoever uploaded the file. It was a very educational material for those who want to know more about one of the more famous tragedies ever written.

Antigone is part of the three plays that Sophocles wrote that follow the fall of the great king, Oedipus, and later the tragedies that his children suffer. The "trilogy" starts with the story of Oedipus (Oedipus the King), then came the story of his exile and death (Oedipus at Colonus) and the story of his children (Antigone). Oedipus is infamous for marrying his own mother and is the basis for Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, but to be fair, Oedipus did not knowingly marry his own mother. His story and the story of his children is part of a prophecy, so the plays explore the issue of man's fate and man's helplessness against the Fates.

Antigone picks up where Oedipus at Colonus leaves off. Oedipus has just passed away in Colonus, and Antigone and her sister decide to return to Thebes with the intention of helping their brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, avoid a prophecy that predicts they will kill each other in a battle for the throne of Thebes.

Upon her arrival in Thebes, Antigone learns that both of her brothers are dead. Eteocles has been given a proper burial, but Creon, Antigone's uncle who has inherited the throne, has issued a royal edict banning the burial of Polyneices, who he believes was a traitor. Antigone defies the law, buries her brother, and is caught. When Creon locks her away in prison, she kills herself.

Meanwhile, not realizing Antigone has taken her own life, the blind prophet Teiresias, Creon's son and Antigone's fiancé Haemon, and the Chorus plead with Creon to release her. Creon finally relents, but in an instance of too-late-timing, finds her dead in her jail cell. Out of despair, Haemon and Creon’s wife have by now also killed themselves, and Creon is left in distress and sorrow.

I liked Antigone's character because she is one of the first females who kicked ass. Antigone's act of defying the king is an early version of civil disobedience, long before Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mandela. Antigone challenges Creon’s decision and moral authority to prohibit her brother's burial although you are not supposed to disagree with the King. Ever. And she does this with full knowledge that she will suffer death.
(hide spoiler)]

Answers to Guide Questions:
(view spoiler)[
1. In casting Jason and Medea as less than heroic figures, Euripides may be said to have humanized the psychological forces at work in tragedy. Euripides was criticized in his own time for presenting characters who defied the settled values of the polis. Summarize, in this context, what is the artist’s responsibility in relation to morality.
I suppose that Euripides is no different from other controversial writers who wrote unconventional/difficult themes (Nabokov, D.H. Lawrence, Voltaire, Rushdie, to name a few). Euripides is not exactly showing heroic acts unlike The Iliad and The Odyssey. Medea commits the foulest of crimes and gets away scot-free (and riding a dragon, too).
(view spoiler)[

(hide spoiler)]
Is there a moral to this story? Some scholars think that Euripides's great sympathy towards women is the reason he lets Medea fly away. Medea's violence is the result of oppression. She's put upon by a male-dominated society and cast aside like old baggage by her husband. When faced with this incredibly unfair treatment, Medea responds with a shocking act of bloody resistance. By killing her children, she's rebelling against the dominant role of women in her time: motherhood. Also, notice that the children she kills are both males. In a way, she's stopping another generation of potential oppressors from gaining power. The fact that she gets away with it, makes the ending even more unsettling. It's almost as if Euripides wanted to leave his all-male Athenian audience with a note of warning – beware those you oppress. One day they might not take it anymore, and you may not be able to do anything about it.

So the artist's responsibility, I think, is to show the unsettling dark recesses of the mind without embellishments. Even if it means being criticized harshly (which Euripides suffered in his lifetime) or the Shah of Iran issuing a fatwa against you.

2. Antigone is the quintessential exemplar of “civil disobedience.” Conclude whether she was right to oppose the authority of the king or whether her sister was right in recommending the prudent course of compliance.
Of course Antigone was right and Ismene was a ninny. 'Nuff said.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

Hi, Tricia! Thanks for dropping by ;)

[Sarah]

Mark wrote: "Has anyone of you come across the ancient Greeks philosophers' concerns about the One and the Many? And also how they thought about motion and change?"

Ako! :) Change is the result of latent POTENTIALITY. According sa book ni Norris Clarke sa The One and the Many :)


Chapter 5 na pala tayo! Let's do this! :)

[Mark]

You guys might find this link very useful: The chapter on Pre-Socratic thought from the book "Pre-Scholastic Philosophy" by Albert Stockl :-)
http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Marita...

[DC]

Hello!

Here's the link to the mp3 file for Chapter 5: The Greek Tragedians on Man’s Fate : https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37rZ...


Here are the guide questions:
1. In casting Jason and Medea as less than heroic figures, Euripides may be said to have humanized the psychological forces at work in tragedy. Euripides was criticized in his own time for presenting characters who defied the settled values of the polis. Summarize, in this context, what is the artist’s responsibility in relation to morality.

2. Antigone is the quintessential exemplar of “civil disobedience.” Conclude whether she was right to oppose the authority of the king or whether her sister was right in recommending the prudent course of compliance.

[Mark]

Here's a link to Ralph McInerny's "A History of Western Philosophy". Might be useful, too. :-) http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Marita...

[Sarah]

DC

2. Given that nearly universal human customs (nomoi) are taken, therefore, to be “natural,” explain how exceptions can be dealt with.
[>>> I think this is where superstition and religion come in. The thought of – “If you can’t explain it, then it is probably due to some mystical force.” This is obviously the reason Religion (well, more like Religious Faith) and Science is a rather combustible thing to mix. Faith makes people believe in preconceived notions of a something that explains the unexplainable. Science attempts to explain what Faith merely allows to be. (hide spoiler)]

Isa to sa mga thoughts na tnry naming ireconcile sa Metaphysics namin. Though nagemerge nga ung Mystic Philosophy dahil sa ganung notion na pag hindi maexplain then it must be some sort of Divine. But then as our science advances the more na nagkakalight tayo sa mga bagay bagay. Mga pre conceived thoughts natin eh natutuwid. Pero babalik padin talaga tayo dun sa premise ng Irreducible Complexity then we will agree that indeed there is a Prime Mover. Love ko talaga ung argument na un. Hehehe! Na parang after all it does makes sense pala. Ung Faith pwedeng misguided dun sya nagsstart na mawala sa tama. Pero ako personally, I believe that Science and Faith should come hand in hand :)

DC, Ycel - Thanks! Ok ung defense! :)

[Mark]

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” – Fides Et Ratio, Pope John Paul II

Here's Jacques Maritain's "The Range of Reason" http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Marita...

[Sarah]

Because humans in nature is inclined to do what is ontologically good. Gaining knowledge is ontologically good. Tama na we desire to seek the truth. If this desire leads us to the Divine. Then kayo na magconclude :)

[Sarah]

Hellooooooooo :)

pinakinggan ko na ung chapter 5 kanina. bakit kaya sya kasali sa course na to? dahil ba dun sa patriarchy ng law noon na presented sa mga dramas? ung mga ethical issues ba na mas "evil" ang pagpatay sa mga lalaki kesa sa mga babae? or dahil dun sa last question na niraise. Yung if there is a god then why there are babies who dies of brain cancer? kung meron nga isa sa mga un. bakit padin sya kasali sa course? :)

[DC]

My quick go-over of Chapter 5:

I like this chapter because:
1) It has a feminist vibe.
2) It deals with arts and drama and culture.
3) I feel it's more about stories than actual philosophy! Haha, what a welcome break :)

Notes: (view spoiler)[
*I love how Robinson talks of the evolution of drama and, well, philosophical dialogue. I love the DANCE -> SONG -> DRAMA -> DIALOGUE -> PHILOSOPHY angle. Never thought of it that way before! I find the evolution of the visual to the philosophical very interesting. It's like: (view spoiler)[I pick a berry, taste it, and find that it is good. I cannot speak in joy, so I gesture to my peers that the berry is good. We sing of its goodness. We talk over its beauty. We end up thinking of how the berry is important to our lives and what joy it gives us. :D Then we simultaneosly die because apparently they're nightlock or something of that variety. (hide spoiler)]

*Euripides and Sophocles were hipster WAY before hipster-ism was a thing :D

*The Medea vs Antigone perspective is great. We see the victimized woman VS the independent woman. I find the note of decisive women (whether Homeric or Shakesperean) very cool, because it's funny how patriarchal society is - whether of then or of now.

*I LOL-ed at the mention of "middle-class values", with regards to Jason's Golden Fleece and all that shiz. HAHA.

*The entire "Mother Earth" chthonic religion gave me happy, quite cleansing feels. Agriculture, crops, birth and renewal...

*Ah, the passion over reason debate comes to view. LOL at Plato being in the audience, taking notes!

*I read in another book that one of the feelings that we can immediately share with other people is FEAR. I suppose it's because it's very primal, very basic. We all immediately RELATE to this feeling, almost involuntarily :)

*"... direst consequences occur when reason is trumped by passion."

*The question of LAW being naturally right? according to nature? and all that - can't wait to hear more of this! (Natural Law Theory!)

*Decisive, independent women are always considered sexy, right? Even up to now? :)

*Eros and love- yes, we can all relate to this, I believe ;)

*"Madness is to surrender reason to passion."

*Aristotle: "Tragedy is when bad things happen to good people"

*I feel that the chapter ends with the philosopher king vibe - which we'll get to soon, I believe :D

(hide spoiler)]

Go, leave me; I cannot bear to see you any longer.
Overcome by grief, now I understand what I am about to do;
Passion—that cause of our most dire woes—
Has vanquished my rational power.

Other comments to follow :)

[Sarah]

^ i love your notes :)

[Ycel]

Sarah:

I think the inclusion of chapter 5 is better understood and appreciated if we know the historical context for the development of Greek tragedy, especially those written by Sophocles and Euripides. The Greek tragedies flourished in Athens in the 5th century BC after they defeated the Persians. In the aftermath of the war, Athens enjoyed optimism, political power, and wealth which brought with it unprecedented artistic, intellectual, and literary innovation. During this time they held festivals to honor Dionysus, and the highlight is a variety of choral performances which developed into tragedy. The festival took place in a religious context, required civic support and funding, played to the masses, and had as an immediate objective the winning of a prize (for the best playwright). It is important to note, too, that the long war that ensued between Athens and Sparta (the Peloponnesian War) brought great hardships to Athenians and, indeed, all Greeks and resulted in the defeat of Athens. Athenian literature later in the century, most notably tragedy, reflects life during this war. So we are seeing now a shift from the Greeks looking from a cosmological point of view to looking at the self. This lecture (and the lecture on Herodotus) bridges this shift from the Pre-Socratics to Socrates.

[Sarah]

kaya pala. thank you Ycel for explaining. :) hindi ako masyadong maalam sa history. but with this I can see the relevance :)

[Ycel]

Classmates:

I just realized that we did not really define philosophy in Lecture 2 because it’s not in the guide question, I suppose. In any case, it was not defined to my satisfaction until I came across Bertrand Russel’s History of Western Philosophy. Following is an illuminating quote from the introduction. I think it’s important because it explains why we find theologians and scientists thrown in the basket of philosophical thinkers.
(view spoiler)[
The conceptions of life and the world which we call "philosophical" are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called "scientific," using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy.

"Philosophy" is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain.

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving toward death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

Why, then, you may ask, waste time on such insoluble problems? To this one may answer as a historian, or as an individual facing the terror of cosmic loneliness.

The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work. Ever since men became capable of free speculation, their actions, in innumerable important respects, have depended upon their theories as to the world and human life, as to what is good and what is evil. This is as true in the present day as at any former time. To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances. This interaction throughout the centuries will be the topic of the following pages.

There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.
(hide spoiler)]

[Angus]

Hi classmates! Sorry I've been absent for a week. I will try my best to listen to Chapter 5 before the week ends. If not, please carry on and I will try to catch up.

I was just wondering about your stand on this: Can a novelist write philosophically? Can a novel be both fiction and philosophical?

I think this deserves a new thread, but I suppose I'd ask you guys first because this is, after all, a philosophy thread.

[Sarah]

^ yes. Jostein Gaarder, Ayn Rand and Satre may mga ganun silang libro.

[Sarah]

Ycel

Interesting ung point na in between siya ng Science and Theology. Pero hindi naman kaya na ung Philosophy eh parte ng bawat "ideas" na parang siya ung barometer ng validity ng pinaniniwalaan mo. Kumbaga eh parte sya ng lahat ng bagay hindi sya hiwalay na concept. When there is an idea philosophy arises.

[Angus]

Uh, Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World is a philosophical work framed inside a novel (haven't read any novels by Rand or Sartre). It's not strictly a philosophical novel. One novel that strikes me as such is The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera (arguments are presented and then fiction follows). The Stranger by Albert Camus also comes to mind, but it somehow falls flat. I am not sure if it's trying to mirror a truth or to speculate a truth.

[Sarah]

Ay wait. Ano palang Philosophical novel ang ibig mong sabihin? namisunderstood ata kita. hahaha!

[Ycel]

Sarah wrote: “When there is an idea philosophy arises.”

I think this is true only when you examine the idea critically and test its validity. When we execute an idea, we have to be able to explain why we’re doing it. Philosophy kicks in when you consider the implications, weigh the pros and cons and validate/test/carry it out. But wait, did I not just describe the scientific method?

[Ycel]

Angus:
Can a novelist write philosophically? Can a novel be both fiction and philosophical?

Maybe this is a good place to start.

[Mark]

//Angus:
Can a novelist write philosophically? Can a novel be both fiction and philosophical?//

Yes. In fact Western literature teems with examples. On top of mind there's Dante's Divina Comedia, which is regarded as the equivalent in poetry of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. There's also the literature of the existentialists in the works of Camus and Kafka, the literature of the objectivists represented by Rand's novels, and that of the nihilists represented by the works of Nietzche. Christian philosophy is seen in the works of Tolkien and CS Lewis; and also in the works of Flannery O'Connor, Mary Higgins Clark, and Cormac McCarthy; and there's also some hints of Christian thought in the works of Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games) and JK Rowling (Harry Potter series).

[Angus]

Looks like people, even writers and philosophers, are on a great divide regarding the philosophical novel (although I am more interested to hear thoughts from people who do not have an academic background in either philosophy or literature). Thanks for the inputs!

[Ycel]

DC:

I pick a berry, taste it, and find that it is good. I cannot speak in joy, so I gesture to my peers that the berry is good. We sing of its goodness. We talk over its beauty. We end up thinking of how the berry is important to our lives and what joy it gives us. :D Then we simultaneosly die because apparently they're nightlock or something of that variety.

Brilliant! I couldn’t stop laughing! *spasms*

[Ycel]

Angus wrote: "Looks like people, even writers and philosophers, are on a great divide regarding the philosophical novel (although I am more interested to hear thoughts from people who do not have an academic background in either philosophy or literature."

Hey, I don’t have an academic background in either philosophy or literature :) so my two cents: I haven’t read a lot of philosophical novels, but Ayn Rand successfully wrote 3 (I only read 2) to illustrate her Objectivist philosophy. What I really want to read is STrANgER IN A StRANgE LAnD. Epic, entertaining, blasphemous, banned. I will get to this one soon enough I hope.

[Mark]

The philosopher and Catholic priest Fr. Joseph De Torre (I think he's Spanish) gave a definition of philosophy that is better and very much shorter than Russell's. De Torre wrote in his book Christian Philosophy, "Philosophy is the natural and spontaneous use of reason in trying to understand reality itself". He then proceeds to explain the differences between philosophy, theology, and science; as well as the differences between philosophy and "common sense". I highly recommend this book Christian Philosophy by Joseph De Torre. It's available in St. Paul's bookstore in Mega Mall. The price is less than P300 and believe me it's worth many times over. Reading it feels like getting in a two-year course under a first class philosopher and a master of the art of teaching. Goodreads has a page for it. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...

[Angus]

Ycel wrote: "Hey, I don’t have an academic background in either philosophy or literature :) so my two cents: I haven’t read a lot of philosophical novels, but Ayn Rand successfully wrote 3 (I only read 2) to illustrate her Objectivist philosophy. What I really want to read is STrANgER IN A StRANgE LAnD. Epic, entertaining, blasphemous, banned. I will get to this one soon enough I hope."

Hahaha! I know I sound masungit (hihihi), but anyway, people say that readers will react differently to Ayn Rand's books depending on what age they read her. The younger ones, particularly the precocious post high school kids, will adore her. The older ones, probably middle-aged people, will laugh at her.

And seriously? It's spelled that way? STrANgER IN A StRANgE LAnD? Makes me a little wary. Parang jejemon alert. XD

And oh, have you all put your fingers on Martin Heidegger's Being and Time, or Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation? I've seen them on a list of most challenging books and I think these two are heavy on philosophy.

(May utang pa akong Chapter 5. Sorry! My books are distracting me. :D)

[Ycel]

Angus: Ganyan yung typeset sa cover nung copy ko. I don't wanna judge it by its cover though :) It's a chunkster btw kaya nag-iipon pa ko ng lakas.

[DC]

To the others (also known as “the lurkers”, you know who you are :P), do try to watch the Antigone movie when you get the chance. It’ll give you a better perspective of the kind of Greek tragedy Robinson talked about in Chapter 5 :)

Here's my previous invite (with link to the movie): http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Ycel’s overview on the movie: (view spoiler)[Antigone (anTIgeni) is a tragedy written by Sophocles (SOfoklis). The film that we will view is a 1961 production based on the play. Antigone (a woman) was one of the four offspring of that incestuous marriage between Oedipus and his mother (of the Oedipus complex infamy). In Chapter 5, she is compared to and contrasted against Medea (meDIya), wife of Jason (of the Argonauts/Golden Fleece fame). (hide spoiler)]

Ycel’s notes on the movie here (note: spoilers ahead!): http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

[DC]

NOW: (view spoiler)[OMG, backreading this thread is CRAZY. CRAZY, I tell you. I do apologize for being scarce for some time, though! (hide spoiler)]

ANGUS
(view spoiler)[On Chapter 4 post: (view spoiler)[
*The nondeceptive mode of discovery. - I don't think that our senses are exactly deceptive. It's just that they are limited. No, not even limited but just fit for the practical human life. I mean, what practical application could you use ultraviolet vision? Or probably we have been so used to the human vision that we have learned to live with the limited vista it offers.
>>> First off, I like your note of living to learn with the human vision we have :D

Secondly: I think that people keep inventing and upgrading technology because they keep looking for practical ways to do things. There is also a vision that artists, authors, painters and a whole plethora of the art-related realms that we cannot fathom... But I suppose this is beside the point.


*Nothing transcends the level of physicality. The soul as finer kind of atomic structure. - But I often thought of the transmigration of soul to be a transcendent event, not a reducing of a body part into some fine stuff. Wait, does a soul even have to be composed of something? Is that an ontological inquiry? @_@
>>> Hahaha, YES.


*Is there right and wrong? Man is the measure of all things. Where are judgments grounded? The search for truth as a misguided quest. - Man, this is just great. When someone asks me for "the truth," this will come in handy. I will summon Robinson and blabber on.
>>> LOL, genius!


*Unclarity of the subject and the shortness of human life. - Okay, I think I've been using this excuse not to ponder deeply on the questions posed here. Because I know that the human knowledge is limited and because there are things that are beyond our capacity, I just let it be. I mean, I am not even trying hard; I don't even attempt to reach that limit. Sorry if I can't be like your super philosophical friends who have a solution to almost any problem, but that's because I actually get scared that my brains will burst out. Seriously! And have you ever felt that your thoughts are just running so wild, linking from this to that, and just at the moment that you realize that they are actually streaming out from whatever part of your mind, you lose grasp of them. I wish there was some sort of exercise where I could hold on to these thoughts and let me at remember them.
>>> I think that’s the point of the entire epistemology thing, wherein people attempt to classify and organize your thoughts. Or maybe you should start a card catalog per topic ;)

On another note, this somehow reminds me of meditation. You’re not supposed to absorb anything when you’re meditating, right? Because the point of meditation is to open your mind and let the thoughts flow. You’re supposed to be a filter, not a sponge :)


*Pre-Socratic thoughts - Cosmological issues. - I seriously think we should build a glossary.
>>> YES.


The only kind of being that can ask a metaphysical question such as "What is there?" is a rational being. Animals, in this case honeybees, are not rational. They are mostly concerned with survival. Their version of "What is there?" is "Where is food?" or "Is that a predator?" So, I think it's more about differences in perception and nothing about differences in the kind of being.
>>> I’ve often wondered about this. I mean, animals have that kind of instinct that we don’t quite have – like when animals freak just before a major disaster is about to happen. Is instinct something like a kind of rationality that’s been ingrained into them? I’m no zoologist, so I’m just speculating here.
(hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

YCEL
(view spoiler)[On other comments: (view spoiler)[
Oh, we have to talk about this. I’ve been wanting to do this because it’s so polluted in the city, but still haven’t started yet.
>>> My mom dropped by yesterday at the Manila Seedling Bank, and got me a lot of new plants to name and take care of. (I’ve got Pepper Peter and Pepper Patricia now, in addition to Pepper Portia!) Maybe you can start there :D


On dialectical materialism
No need to be apologetic. As ironic as it sounds, we can see dialectical materialism unfold in the US, that bastion of capitalism. So Ayn Rand was not exactly correct when she said that capitalism is the unknown ideal. Or maybe my friend is right, ethics is a missing component in the industrialist gene. Whatever it is, the evidence is overwhelming. We’re now lending money to the US. Isn’t the world a funny place?
>>> Maybe not the right place to start talking about this (because I might start blabbering about the Invisible Hand and all that stuff), but yeah. After all, we can all just keep speculating about things – but there’s stuff already happening out there. Thus the economics term “ceteris paribus”. And also thus “developmental economics”, Gross National Happiness, etc. And yeah, ironic, for now... Until another war comes along and--- blah blah :D

Brilliant! I couldn’t stop laughing! *spasms*
>>> Thanks :D
(hide spoiler)]

On Chapter 5 post: (view spoiler)[

First off: Thanks on your notes for the film viewing :) I like storytime! *gazes dreamily between bent elbows* But the actors in the movie were great! And I love the rejoinders between Creon and Antigone & Creon and Haemon :D

I liked Antigone's character because she is one of the first females who kicked ass. Antigone's act of defying the king is an early version of civil disobedience, long before Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mandela. Antigone challenges Creon’s decision and moral authority to prohibit her brother's burial although you are not supposed to disagree with the King. Ever. And she does this with full knowledge that she will suffer death.
>>> Yes, she’s great! I remember you mentioning that she’s considered as the world’s first feminist :D Though I feel kind of bad for Creon. I know that politics and power probably just went into his head, but, well, he DID suffer for it at the end. *sighs*

I’ll read over your Chap 5 answers when I’ve gone over the questions myself :)
(hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

SARAH
(view spoiler)[
On Chapter 5 post: (view spoiler)[
pinakinggan ko na ung chapter 5 kanina. bakit kaya sya kasali sa course na to? dahil ba dun sa patriarchy ng law noon na presented sa mga dramas? ung mga ethical issues ba na mas "evil" ang pagpatay sa mga lalaki kesa sa mga babae? or dahil dun sa last question na niraise. Yung if there is a god then why there are babies who dies of brain cancer? kung meron nga isa sa mga un. bakit padin sya kasali sa course? :)
>>> I think it’s about the take of the Greeks in terms of how they look towards the fate of Man. I mean, we’ve been talking about the Greeks and how they did their ontological and epistemological things during their time. The dramatist note is probably a means to bridge the how? I’m also guessing it’s because it’s a good thing to mention before we get to Plato and his anti-dramatist stance?

But interesting question. Napaisip din tuloy ako xD But Ycel’s answer… (view spoiler)[
I think the inclusion of chapter 5 is better understood and appreciated if we know the historical context for the development of Greek tragedy, especially those written by Sophocles and Euripides. The Greek tragedies flourished in Athens in the 5th century BC after they defeated the Persians. In the aftermath of the war, Athens enjoyed optimism, political power, and wealth which brought with it unprecedented artistic, intellectual, and literary innovation. During this time they held festivals to honor Dionysus, and the highlight is a variety of choral performances which developed into tragedy. The festival took place in a religious context, required civic support and funding, played to the masses, and had as an immediate objective the winning of a prize (for the best playwright). It is important to note, too, that the long war that ensued between Athens and Sparta (the Peloponnesian War) brought great hardships to Athenians and, indeed, all Greeks and resulted in the defeat of Athens. Athenian literature later in the century, most notably tragedy, reflects life during this war. So we are seeing now a shift from the Greeks looking from a cosmological point of view to looking at the self. This lecture (and the lecture on Herodotus) bridges this shift from the Pre-Socratics to Socrates. (hide spoiler)]
… is good too ;) Thanks, Ycel :D
(hide spoiler)]

On other notes: (view spoiler)[

DC, Ycel - Thanks! Ok ung defense! :)
>>> Good to know! :D


Isa to sa mga thoughts na tnry naming ireconcile sa Metaphysics namin. Though nagemerge nga ung Mystic Philosophy dahil sa ganung notion na pag hindi maexplain then it must be some sort of Divine. But then as our science advances the more na nagkakalight tayo sa mga bagay bagay. Mga pre conceived thoughts natin eh natutuwid. Pero babalik padin talaga tayo dun sa premise ng Irreducible Complexity then we will agree that indeed there is a Prime Mover. Love ko talaga ung argument na un. Hehehe! Na parang after all it does makes sense pala. Ung Faith pwedeng misguided dun sya nagsstart na mawala sa tama. Pero ako personally, I believe that Science and Faith should come hand in hand :)
>>> I don’t know. I feel it’s really difficult to keep this argument up, since it’s about a force (hah, The Force) we cannot see and therefore cannot fully substantiate. I mean, sure, there are miracles and stories about a something/someone that governs the universe, but I am not convinced for the moment.

But you are correct too. That’s also why I enjoyed reading about Irreducible Complexity, since it gives a good premise about a Mover. I guess I’m still in my “to see is to believe” stage at the moment, and cannot yet fully grasp (hah, pun intended) the entire argument. (Interestingly enough, however, I think that Mark has provided a number of resources that can assist us in our trek this way :) (Thanks, Mark!)

Science and Faith coming hand in hand though? Hmm. I’ll have to think about that. What are your thoughts on Scientology, though? :) … Though perhaps that could wait until we get to Aquinas or Augustine or something xD

Because humans in nature is inclined to do what is ontologically good. Gaining knowledge is ontologically good. Tama na we desire to seek the truth. If this desire leads us to the Divine. Then kayo na magconclude :)
>>> Hmm, is it indeed natural to do what is ontologically good? What about those who accept almost anything – hook, line and sinker? But then again, I guess it’s about “the truth” and what kind of “truth” people can stomach handling? How sure are we, however, that this will lead us to the Divine? Wait, wait, huwag muna tayong mag mala-Aquinas xD

^ i love your notes :)
>>> LOL, thanks! I remember that even Angus was once amused by my silly book notes/updates :P
(hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

MARK
(view spoiler)[Thanks for your links and comments. I find your approach towards the spiritual/religious side of things interesting, although I hope to get more insights about your arguments as we go past more chapters :) (hide spoiler)]

[DC]

On the “philosophical novel”:

Can a novelist write philosophically? Can a novel be both fiction and philosophical?

1. I like Ycel’s link :)
2. I like the examples provided by everyone with regards to the philosophical novel (JK Rowling, Nietzche, Gaarder <3, Ayn Rand, etc)
3. My thoughts: (view spoiler)[

First off, let’s define a “novel”: a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes. (http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...)

Secondly, I’d ask for us to define “philosophy”, but we’ve already gotten to that in the previous chapters, and Ycel herself lately noted a brilliant discourse on the subject.

I think that a writer of novels CAN aim to write about philosophy, as noted in, say, Gaarder’s Sophie's World. When I say they can write about it, I mean that they give ontological discourse about a philosophical viewpoint.

Now, I also believe that novelists can write philosophically, in the sense that their writing aims to meander in the philosophical thought. When I say philosophical thought, I don’t necessarily mean that they’ll bluntly mention the names of “Plato” or “Hegel”, but rather that they tend to think about things in a certain way that could be taken to be as “deep”. I can take for example Gangcuangco's Orosa-Nakpil, Malate, wherein the author is telling a story, while also trying to make sense of the things that are happening to him, which in this case was about sexually transmitted diseases.

On another note, I believe that saying that a certain author is “philosophical” is relative to the reader themselves. Like, for example, perhaps Meg Cabot’s Princess Diaries may seem to be about the daily life adventures of princess, but I can take her musings on what dress to wear to the prom to be philosophical, because her thoughts about it may be epistemological in nature.

But can a novel be both fiction and philosophical? I think yes, especially since, if we think about it, a fictional novel is from a novelist’s thoughts about the world they live in. They portray reality based on their own viewpoints. Even Hemingway’s The Old Man and The Sea may be called philosophical, without actually reading of a deeper meaning in the actual book.

As usual, I’m just speculating here :) But I do like the thought about it. It's funny, since reading fiction is meant to be for enjoyment, and yet here we are, trying to make it sound like it can be a chore xD Haha, kidding! But thanks for the food for thought, Angus :D
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

DC: Will comment later. Can't open spoiler tags on the phone :(

[DC]

On Ycel’s quote of a part of Russell’s introduction:

(Ahem, I kinda got lost thinking about thinking that I believe I over-thought and over-shot the supposed thought. Yeah, you get what I mean, even if I think I don't.)

To quote (or to copy-paste): (view spoiler)[
The conceptions of life and the world which we call "philosophical" are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called "scientific," using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy.

"Philosophy" is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain.

Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and, if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of impure carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving toward death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

Why, then, you may ask, waste time on such insoluble problems? To this one may answer as a historian, or as an individual facing the terror of cosmic loneliness.

The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work. Ever since men became capable of free speculation, their actions, in innumerable important respects, have depended upon their theories as to the world and human life, as to what is good and what is evil. This is as true in the present day as at any former time. To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances. This interaction throughout the centuries will be the topic of the following pages.

There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it. (hide spoiler)]

Sarah: Interesting ung point na in between siya ng Science and Theology. Pero hindi naman kaya na ung Philosophy eh parte ng bawat "ideas" na parang siya ung barometer ng validity ng pinaniniwalaan mo. Kumbaga eh parte sya ng lahat ng bagay hindi sya hiwalay na concept. When there is an idea philosophy arises.

Ycel: I think this is true only when you examine the idea critically and test its validity. When we execute an idea, we have to be able to explain why we’re doing it. Philosophy kicks in when you consider the implications, weigh the pros and cons and validate/test/carry it out. But wait, did I not just describe the scientific method?

Mark: De Torre wrote in his book Christian Philosophy, "Philosophy is the natural and spontaneous use of reason in trying to understand reality itself". He then proceeds to explain the differences between philosophy, theology, and science; as well as the differences between philosophy and "common sense".

My notes: (view spoiler)[
*The conceptions of life and the world which we call "philosophical" are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called "scientific," using this word in its broadest sense.
>>> I like this, because I am reminded of a Tabula Rasa and Rousseau’s Man in Chains theory. Hee. But preconceived notions because we grew up with them? Yes.

*… terror of cosmic loneliness
>>> *shudders*

* There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances.
>>> This is interesting, because it’s true. It’s like (view spoiler)[ LOL, a sawi situationer-> how you were hurt in a relationship by your ex-S.O. of the opposite sex, so you believe that the opposite sex is out to hurt you. So due to this belief, you end up dating a member of the opposite sex only in order to hurt them “first”. (hide spoiler)]

*There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe.
>>> So does this mean you should have a cosmic balance? But it seems impossible to achieve! Also, so you can either be a scientist or a theologian, and not both? (view spoiler)[Or is it like how you can be a geek and a nerd at the same time? (TABOO BUT POSSIBLY TRUE?!) (hide spoiler)] Or perhaps it’s dependent on the field one’s interested in?
(hide spoiler)]

My thoughts: (view spoiler)[

I think that the problem herein lies with the definitions we all note for the word “philosophy”. (view spoiler)[Which is funny, because we’re trying to philosophize the word “philosophy” like good philosophers. Philo-ception. (Ahem, sorry, it’s my thing lately.) (hide spoiler)] After all, doesn’t Science and Theology themselves stem from Philosophy? Isn’t Philosophy the start-off of all the great ideas and the magical realm of thought?

And how can you call a Thought valid? By your own perception of the validity? By the majority? You think and think and accept in yourself, but in the end there are also the thought and perspectives of other people that you can’t quite account for – so you continuously validate? Which I guess is the scientific method of guesswork ;)

And to say that Philosophy is “part of the concept”, how can that be? When you observe, you supposedly need to step aside and think about the object as separate, right? The third party observer? Like THERE IS NO SPOON?

I find it funny also that we’re trying to look at Thought as concrete, and not abstract. As if they’re some kind of bread you ingest and suddenly BOOM! you think about them. (Wow, that would actually be pretty great. And (view spoiler)[HAHA YAKITATE JAPAN REFERENCE BOO YAH! (hide spoiler)]) To “execute” an idea, wouldn’t it mean movement? Wouldn’t it mean that it’s going past the abstract realm and into the concrete one, and therefore an entirely different frame of mind is needed? Whoa, wait, I rambled.

And… (view spoiler)[LOL, I’m just trolling, really. (hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

I'd also like a copy of the book you mentioned, Mark. I think I'll try to look for it when I get the chance to :)

[DC]

Guys, let’s again do another last round of reactions, and if you’re ready, let’s move on to Chapter 6: Know Thyself - Herdotus and the Lamp of History tomorrow, okay? :)

[DC]

Oh, goodness. The questions for this chapter irk me, for some reason. I feel like I ended up ranting, instead of happily discussing the chapter xD

But here it goes:

1. In casting Jason and Medea as less than heroic figures, Euripides may be said to have humanized the psychological forces at work in tragedy. Euripides was criticized in his own time for presenting characters who defied the settled values of the polis. Summarize, in this context, what is the artist’s responsibility in relation to morality.

(view spoiler)[Well, to start off: does an artist actually have a responsibility in relation to morality? Isn’t art meant to be taken for itself? Art for art’s sake and all that? Why should artists so be cordoned as to believe that they have a responsibility to morality? That gives an unfair playing field that an artist, who merely wants to bare his soul, now has to think about social responsibility instead of them just showcasing their art!

It makes me think: What if, what if, WHAT IF Euripides just wanted the fame of becoming the first person to actually show off less than heroic figures? I mean, look at him right now: He has risen to fame precisely because of that! What if he was after the fame, and not the scars and stories?

I’m sorry, I don’t think I can answer this question without ranting and rambling too much. I guess I can safely say that I believe that an artist has NO responsibility in relation to morality…

Although thinking about it, art and all that has become instrumental when it comes to propaganda. Take, for example, comic books, radio shows and TV programs in the time of World War II. I suppose that’s something about its relation to morality?

I think I’ll get into the paid art VS the art for art’s sake debate here, so I’ll stop right there, and reiterate what I mentioned: I believe that an artist has NO responsibility in relation to morality.
(hide spoiler)]

2. Antigone is the quintessential exemplar of “civil disobedience.” Conclude whether she was right to oppose the authority of the king or whether her sister was right in recommending the prudent course of compliance.

(view spoiler)[Antigone was moved by passion. In a way, she also had the backing of the people (which prompted Creon to reverse his decision about Antigone). She was a like living in a powder keg and giving off sparks!

I can say what Robinson said about Antigone saying that there’s a higher law than the king’s law, and she merely followed the law of the ancient religions, and therefore is right. Yeah, there's that, I guess.

But I personally believe that the prudent course would have been better for Antigone, just because she could have sparked a revolution while alive. Well, for all I know, she already sparked it by death (my prof once mentioned that change is like giving birth – that it is naturally violent), which is typically the reason why people suddenly mobilize. Like Jose Rizal, the Guillotine (view spoiler)[my creys because I remembered Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities (hide spoiler)], Ninoy Aquino.

Personally, I believe that your life is more important than proving you’re right, but if everyone believed that we would not have the martyrs who died trying to change the system. (God bless you, Andres Bonifacio.) So I guess this is an “it depends on your upbringing and what you think is important” kind of question.

(hide spoiler)]

[Mark]

@Ycel: Thanks, I hope you could put some time to studying that book (I could send you a copy if you like!) :-) I also highly recommend these books to you all:

1) Ten Philosophical Mistakes (Mortimer Adler) <-- this is a must read!
2) The Last Superstition (Edward Feser) <-- this is a must read :-)
3) Aristotle For Everybody (Mortimer Adler)

and, for those interested in the history of Philosophy,

4) A History of Philosophy (Frederick Copleston)
This book is essential reading :-)

For now I'd like to share this collection of short essays from Jacques Maritain - "The Range of Reason", which pretty much covers all the things discussed so far, and provides useful clarifications. Please have a look: http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Marita...

:-)

[Ycel]

DC:

I will troll back later, but this deserves my immediate response:

Well, to start off: does an artist actually have a responsibility in relation to morality? Isn’t art meant to be taken for itself? Art for art’s sake and all that? Why should artists so be cordoned as to believe that they have a responsibility to morality? That gives an unfair playing field that an artist, who merely wants to bare his soul, now has to think about social responsibility instead of them just showcasing their art!

I loved it when Lualhati Bautista said (in her excellent martial law novel Dekada ’70) that it is the writer who preserves society’s sanity (she said this better in Filipino, but I don’t have the book now to quote directly). I can’t quite believe that Twain, Rizal and Voltaire wrote for art’s sake. I had them in mind when I thought of Euripides. He wrote about female oppression in a male-dominated society, and did too in a shocking way. It’s good to have writers who entertain but we need writers with brutal pens, too.

[Mark]

I studied Fine Arts (and I'm an artist myself) and I do not believe that art activity is loosed from any responsibility whether it is moral responsibility or whatever. In fact it is the exact opposite. Art has purpose and meaning, and it has an important place in the life of man; and because of this, art has a great responsibility. That art has come to be thought to mean whatever it is that anyone wants it to is a reflection of the mistakes which characterize modern philosophy. I am not about to explain here why I believe this to be so, only I promise you this misconception of art is a feature of the modern world and can be traced to the rise and dominance of subjectivist/relativist philosophies. I encourage you to read about art history and philosophy (for these are closely tied to each other). The philosopher Roger Scruton laid it all out in a BBC documentary "Why Beauty Matters". I hope you all have time to watch it.

This might help: A History of Western Philosophy (Ralph McInerny) http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Marita...

[Ycel]

MOVIE ALERT!

Since we’ll be moving on to Herodotus soon, The Persian Wars and all that:
(view spoiler)[

(hide spoiler)]
(view spoiler)[Have to wait though. (hide spoiler)]