Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion -Boethius
>
Consolation of Philosophy - Book 2
Silver wrote: "As to the question of the Happiness within, I think that it is a question of the will, that one does not need outside things to decide for themselves that they are going to be happy. ..."Thanks for the clarification, Silver. The idea itself sounds familiar to me, but I don't know whether it actually works. We may will or choose to hope against hope, and persevere against adversity, but we can't will to feel happy. Yes, we can will to focus on the things that would make us happy, but then again, those things are outsides of ourselves, i.e., provided by fortune.
Speaking of familial love, I'm reminded of a story in Herodotus' Histories:When a woman was given a choice by King Darius to save the life of only one of her male family members who had been sentenced to death, including her husband, children and brother. She chose her brother, because she reasoned that she could marry another husband and have other children, but her brother was irreplaceable as both of her parents were dead.
Nemo wrote: "Speaking of familial love, I'm reminded of a story in Herodotus' Histories:"This had been said earlier by Sophocles in Antigone, as she addresses her dead brother:
And yet I honoured thee, as the wise will deem, rightly. Never, had been a mother of children, or if a husband had been mouldering in death, would I have taken this task upon me in the city's despite. What law, ye ask, is my warrant for that word? The husband lost, another might have been found, and child from another, to replace the first-born: but, father and mother hidden with Hades, no brother's life could ever bloom for me again. Such was the law whereby I held thee first in honour; but Creon deemed me guilty of error therein, and of outrage, ah brother mine! And now he leads me thus, a captive in his hands; no bridal bed, no bridal song hath been mine, no joy of marriage, no portion in the nurture of children; but thus, forlorn of friends, unhappy one, I go living to the vaults of death.
Everyman wrote: "It essentially rejects the basic belief system of modern Western thought...."What do you consider that to be? With what are you comparing?
Nemo wrote: "We may will or choose to hope against hope, and persevere against adversity, but we can't will to feel happy....."Well, I shall only repeat what I have said elsewhere: the specialists who study the brain seem to be increasingly saying that the brain (nervous system?) controls much of what the human "feels" -- whether "consciously" or much more rapidly, sometimes/ oftimes in response to external stimuli.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Speaking of familial love, I'm reminded of a story in Herodotus' Histories:"This had been said earlier by Sophocles in Antigone, as she addresses her dead brother: ..."
Thanks for the quote, Everyman. By "earlier", did you mean that Antigone was "published" before Histories? I thought it was the other way around.
The choices and actions of these two women were approved in ancient cultures, or so it seems. I wonder how many women would make the same choice today.
Nemo wrote: "The choices and actions of these two women were approved in ancient cultures, or so it seems. I wonder how many women would make the same choice today...."What do Bosnia or Rwanda tell us on the subject?
There is a wonderful, but dark book on the burial of the dead in Russia following many of the purges there. I'll try to find its name in my files when I get home.
Many of us take for granted the right to bury our dead, but those of us close to NYC know the contentions associated with the decimated remains of 9/11.
But these ARE different than choosing sibling versus spouse. Like you, not sure how those ethics are argued in current Western life. Something similar sometimes does happen relative to organ transplants.
Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "It essentially rejects the basic belief system of modern Western thought...."What do you consider that to be? With what are you comparing?"
The model of modern Western thought, I think, is that we are in control of our lives and fortunes. How many graduates have just been told by eminent graduation speakers that you can be anything you want to be? That the future lies open before you and it's up to you to make it what you want it to be? And similar messages claiming that wealth, love, esteem, power, etc. are all out there waiting for you to go seize them? With the implication that they are what will make you happy, and indeed that they are the ultimate dream of the happy life?
Nemo wrote: "By "earlier", did you mean that Antigone was "published" before Histories? I thought it was the other way around."We don't have an exact date for Antigone, but it was before 409 and could have been as early as 468, which as far as I'm aware was his first known entry into the competition. We don't, as far as I know, know when the Histories were written, but but at least the early chapters had been written by 425. So we don't really know which came first, though given that Sophocles was a creator and Herodotus was basically a collector of information and thoughts from others, I suspect that if either of them got it from the other, it would be H from S and not S from H. But they may both have gotten it from an earlier source. There's not a lot of detailed information about the question of precedence!
Lily wrote: "the brain (nervous system?) controls much of what the human "feels" --whether "consciously" or much more rapidly, sometimes/ oftimes in response to external stimuli. ..."In response to external stimuli, yes. The question is whether the brain can, at the command of our will, generate the feeling of happiness from within, contrary to (or in the absence of) external stimuli.
Everyman wrote: "Sophocles was a creator and Herodotus was basically a collector of information and thoughts from others, ..."I think Herodotus was more than a collector, because he created a masterpiece from the materials he collected.
Nemo wrote: "I think Herodotus was more than a collector, because he created a masterpiece from the materials he collected. "Oh, I don't disagree at all. My point was that he didn't invent ideas, so if you find a concept in Herodotus it wasn't original with him, but yes, he was brilliant about collecting, choosing, organizing, and commenting on his materials.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "By "earlier", did you mean that Antigone was "published" before Histories? I thought it was the other way around."We don't have an exact date for Antigone, but it was before 409 and..."
For what it's worth, it seems more likely to me that Sophocles would read something striking in Herodotus and give it to a character in one of his plays, than that Herodotus would hear something striking in a play and use it to invent a story to insert into his History.
Everyman wrote: "My point was that he didn't invent ideas, so if you find a concept in Herodotus it wasn't original with him, ..."But are there ideas that originated with Sophocles? If so, could you give me some examples?
To me, Herodotus created a work of art, just as a sculptor creates a statue. He not only organized raw materials, but also transformed them into one organic whole, with it's own structure and beauty that's above and beyond a mere collection of the individual components.
Roger wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "By "earlier", did you mean that Antigone was "published" before Histories? I thought it was the other way around."We don't have an exact date for Antigone, but it ..."
I agree. It is more likely that art would imitate life, than life would imitate art.
Thomas wrote: "Roger wrote: "Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and that Christ suf..."Philosophy says "suffering from a misguided belief"; we say "suffering from a delusion." Psychiatry sees delusional thinking as a mental illness. Maybe it's not such a new science after all.
Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: I can agree with this, but I am also mindful of Aristotle's precept "nothing in excess." Is too much living in the mind and not in the surrounding world a failure of ..."This makes me think of William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience--and ties back to Paradise Lost. Can we know good if we haven't experienced evil? Can we know happiness if we haven't experienced suffering? Could we understand grace without the fall. After all, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--not just the knowledge of evil. Apparently, you can't know one without the other.
I think Philosophy is defining happiness as peace or contentment--a state of understanding the intrinsic or eternal value of our state rather than the material o temporal value.
Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "I think one of the reasons why I have enjoyed Book 2 so much and why the idea Philosophy proposes has so much appeal to me is because I have been reading it at a very apt time in my ..."I don't think that Philosophy is saying we shouldn't enjoy good fortune at all. I think she is just warning us not to be happy because of our good fortune. The best thing we can do is to enjoy each moment we are given to best of our abilities aside from any material circumstance. Realize we are borrowing our good fortune for a time, be happy for that opportunity and make the most of it, but not be so reliant on the object as to loose our happiness with our fortune.
I see it sort of like viewing a sunset, or eating a good steak. I thoroughly enjoy them both, but I don't expect them to last for more than 15 minutes maybe 30 at most. So I don't fall into despair when they are done. In fact, it is just the opposite, I appreciate them even more because I don't always have them to fall back on.
Patrice wrote: "Did this line bother anyone? Prose 2
"What else is tragedy but the sad story of happy men who are overthrown by the blows of fortune?"
While sometimes tragedy is just a matter of luck, isn't ..."
I think Boethius is thinking of the Aristotelian theory of dramatic tragedy. Take King Lear for instance--His tragedy is caused by a character flaw,and when the wheel of fortune turns he is unable to ride out the storm (Sorry for all the mixed metaphors),but Edgar and Kent both remain stable in their inmost character and tho' they suffer great loss, they rise again as fortune continues her spin.
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "It essentially rejects the basic belief system of modern Western thought...."What do you consider that to be? With what are you comparing?"
The model of modern Wes..."
This is definitely "modern" Western thought as it only works in a modern democratic society that allows for class mobility. Unfortunately, now days, the opportunity + effort= prosperity model for achieving the American Dream has been replace with a bent toward entitlement. Today we see happiness as a right and forget that we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness.
Silver wrote: "...And though to a certain degree we can manage our emotions after the initial reaction, I do not think we can always consciously control what we feel about certain things or what are first initial emotional response to them are. ..."What I have seen/heard of brain studies would agree that emotions may indeed precede conscious control. However, very interesting also are the studies and experiences that demonstrate that any group of people often individually have emotionally widely differing responses to the same stimuli, even where conditions such as threat or danger or ... may be similar, implying the triggering factors are internal at least as much as external.
Nemo wrote: "...The question is whether the brain can, at the command of our will, generate the feeling of happiness from within, contrary to (or in the absence of) external stimuli."Yes, that does seem to me to be one of the "strong" questions. Given human imaginative powers, it certainly seems conceivable, but I don't know what the research says.
I have wondered several times if there are "popularized" versions of the training given soldiers who might face prisoner-of-war conditions that are available. (I suspect there are; is anyone here familiar with any?) I would presume that part of that training is how to retain equanimity in the face of torture.
Lily wrote: "Given human imaginative powers, it certainly seems conceivable, but I don't know what the research says...."I have to admit I have no imaginative powers whatsoever, so I can't imagine how it is possible to generate happiness by imagination. :) I suppose a starving man could imagine himself enjoying a feast and derive pleasure therein, but I wouldn't call it "happiness from within", because, firstly, the origin of the pleasure of food is external, secondly, imagined things don't exist, but happiness, if it is true, has to be a true state of being, not based on imagination only.
Lily wrote: "group of people often individually have emotionally widely differing responses to the same stimuli, even where conditions such as threat or danger or..."It sounds reasonable. People have different physical and mental constitutions, so accordingly they respond to external stimuli differently. One man's torture could be another's pleasure.
It's possible to have conscious control over our response so that it's different from the initial "knee jerk reaction". Viktor Frankl wrote about it in his book "Man's Search for Meaning", and how he survived the concentration camps partly by holding on to the love between him and his wife, not realizing at the time that his wife had already died.
Nemo wrote: "...happiness, if it is true, has to be a true state of being, not based on imagination only...."Aren't you positing that imagination is not a true state of being? Yet, isn't imagination part and parcel of the creative genius of homo sapiens?
P.S. Your next post partly responds:
...how he [Frankl] survived the concentration camps partly by holding on to the love between him and his wife, not realizing at the time that his wife had already died.
(I don't know if I would go so far as to say, at least generally: "One man's torture could be another's pleasure.", but I have certainly seen fear and laughter and sadness and anger all as responses to the same assumed conditions in group exercises in which I have participated. It was quite amazing and insightful for me at the time.)
Lily wrote: "Aren't you positing that imagination is not a true state of being? Yet, isn't imagination part and parcel of the creative genius of homo sapiens?..."As I said earlier, I know nothing about imaginative powers, so you'd have to explain to me how it actually works. :) As I see it, the capacity for imagination belongs to homo sapiens; the object of imagination, otoh, is not part and parcel of reality, until it is realized.
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Aren't you positing that imagination is not a true state of being? Yet, isn't imagination part and parcel of the creative genius of homo sapiens?..."As I said earlier, I know nothing..."
As I said earlier, I know nothing about imaginative powers, so you'd have to explain to me how it actually works.
That's beyond my recall knowledge -- I could only suggest current brain research journals -- it is an area that is evolving so rapidly right now. But you might also have a discussion with an artist, a writer, a scientist, a ....
"...otoh, is not part and parcel of reality, until it is realized."
I'll quote Scripture in response here: "In the beginning was the Word." One interpretation is that the idea precedes the objective implementation. Does that make the idea "not real", regardless of whether it is implementable or no?
Lily wrote: ""In the beginning was the Word." One interpretation is that the idea precedes the objective implementation. ..."The Word is not the same as imagination. The Word IS reality, long before the world as we know it existed.
Imagination is the ability of the human mind to form mental images independent of the input of the senses. Those mental images may be based on the Word, or the Platonic Ideal Form, in which case they would be real, otherwise, they are no different from hallucinations.
Nemo wrote: "...otherwise, they are no different from hallucinations...."Are you telling us hallucinations are not real?
Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "...otherwise, they are no different from hallucinations...."Are you telling us hallucinations are not real?"
They are not real by definition.
Nemo wrote: "Imagination is the ability of the human mind to form mental images independent of the input of the senses. Those mental images may be based on the Word, or the Platonic Ideal Form, in which case they would be real, otherwise, they are no different from hallucinations. Nemo, I need you to clarify your pronoun use in that final sentence. I assume "they" is referring to the "mental images." This means that are mental images can be real even though they are not concrete, but only if based on the Word or Platonic Ideal Form. Is this what you are saying?
Gayle wrote: "mental images can be real even though they are not concrete, but only if based on the Word or Platonic Ideal Form. Is this what you are saying? ..."Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :)
Patrice wrote: "Didn't Einstein say that imagination was the most important thing? ..."Einstein used imagination, namely, thought experiments to develop his theories. Thought experiments are based on known principles and require a meticulous mind and sound abstract reasoning. In other words, they are grounded in reality.
Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Didn't Einstein say that imagination was the most important thing? ..."Einstein used imagination, namely, thought experiments to develop his theories. Thought experiments are base..."
His imagination was grounded in mathematics, but so was Newton's. Sound abstract reasoning, over time, is sometimes proven inaccurate because the context of that reasoning develops into something new and different. Einstein saw the math in entirely different way than Newton did because he wasn't tied down to the "idea" that space and time are absolute. I think this is what he meant by saying "imagination is more important than knowledge."
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "...otherwise, they are no different from hallucinations...."Are you telling us hallucinations are not real?"
They are not real by definition."
Tell that to a physician/psychiatrist treating someone suffering from them.
Thomas wrote: "Einstein saw the math in entirely different way than Newton did because he wasn't tied down to the "idea" that space and time are absolute. ..."The idea caused conflict with experimental data, that's why he had to re-examine the idea and the underlying assumptions. His "imagination" was not groundless.
Lily wrote: "Are you telling us hallucinations are not real?"They are not real by definition."
Tell that to a physician/psychiatrist treating someone suffering from them. ..."
Hallucination as a disorder of the brain is a real disease and the sufferings resulting from the disease are real, but the objects of hallucinations are not real. I think the physician/psychiatrist would say the same thing to the patients.
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Are you telling us hallucinations are not real?"They are not real by definition."
Tell that to a physician/psychiatrist treating someone suffering from them. ..."
Hallucination as ..."
I can go along with that clarification for a layman's discussion such as we are having here, e.g., I see little point in trying to clarify the meaning assigned to "objects" here.
Lily wrote: "I can go along with that clarification for a layman's discussion such as we are having here, e.g., I see little point in trying to clarify the meaning assigned to "objects" here. ..."I'd be happy to go along with expert analysis if someone is willing and able to provide one. :) By objects of hallucinations, I mean those that include voices and images of people that only exist in the brain.
A book to consider for fun if you haven't read it already: Alan Lightman's
Einstein's Dreams
. Don't know that it is directly relevant to the discussions here, except in the sense of touching on creativity, but it is just a delightful read. Theoretical physics often involves a back and forth between the mathematics and empirical data -- sometimes the one initiates a search, sometimes the other.
Lily wrote: "Alan Lightman's Einstein's Dreams. Don't know that it is directly relevant to the discussions here, except in the sense of touching on creativity, but it is just a delightful read. " What does it say about creativity that rings true to you?
Nemo wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Einstein saw the math in entirely different way than Newton did because he wasn't tied down to the "idea" that space and time are absolute. ..."The idea caused conflict with exper..."
I didn't say it wasn't groundless; obviously he wasn't detailing a fictional universe. I said it was grounded in the math. The math describes something empirical, but its interpretation requires imagination, just as language describes thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, which also must be interpreted.
Lily wrote: "Theoretical physics often involves a back and forth between the mathematics and empirical data -- sometimes the one initiates a search, sometimes the other."
Yes, and the search is what calls for creativity and imagination. How many theories of the natural world have been accepted and discredited over time? Almost all of them; and the ones we hold today will eventually be replaced by better ones as well. But the search we engage in today is the same as it has been for centuries. The pursuit of the perfect (insert idea here) will never end because we will never know it perfectly.
Patrice wrote: "Everything we see, we see upside down. It's the way our eyes work.It's our brains that turn things right side up again so that we can navigate in the real world. ..."
I know exactly where you're going :)
Plato compared the learning process to leaving an imprint on wax. Depending on the quality and internal structure of the wax, the imprint (knowledge) we gain may be faulty or inaccurate. I think this is an apt analogy of how the brain functions as well.
An interesting book I'v read on the subject is The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, which details some of the mental disorders and symptoms that are caused by damages to the brain. There are cases in which people lose sense and control of their own body (proprioception), or fail to recognize objects, people and even themselves in the mirror.
It seems to me that the brain not only receives auditory and visual signals, processes and stores them in real time, but also replays, and even edits the signals sometimes like editing a movie, all with or without our volition. ”Swiftly the head mass becomes an enchanted loom where millions of flashing shuttles weave a dissolving pattern, always a meaningful pattern though never an abiding one; a shifting harmony of subpatterns” ["Man on His Nature" by Sir Charles Sherrington"]
Thomas wrote: "The math describes something empirical, but its interpretation requires imagination, just as language describes thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, which also must be interpreted. ..."Math does not deal with the empirical directly. Unlike Physics, it doesn't seek validation from empirical data, but follow its own rules of proving and disproving its theorems. What Einstein did was searching for the "pre-establisehd harmony" between mathematics and empirical data. When the empirical data contradicted Newton's theory based on the Euclidean geometry, he found alternative mathematical model, Riemannian geometry, which subsumes the Euclidean geometry and agrees with the empirical data.
I'm not sure what you mean by "[math]'s interpretation require imagination". Imagination is the ability of the human mind to form mental images independent of the input of the senses. What does it have to do with interpreting math? I don't follow you.
I believe Charlie Rose had a guest within the past year or two who had specialized on brain research. Does anyone know if that series is archived and retrievable somewhere?
Lily wrote: "I believe Charlie Rose had a guest within the past year or two who had specialized on brain research. Does anyone know if that series is archived and retrievable somewhere?"Have you tried www.charlierose.com? Let me know if you find it.
Patrice wrote: "I've lost track but someone here questioned whether or not Boethius was implying that there would be justice in the afterlife. I found this quote, what do you think? Am I reading it correctly? I..."The passage you quoted doesn't suggest afterlife to me, instead it's suggesting that wicked people are miserable in this life and death would be a relief for them.
Patrice wrote: "But if I remember correctly, the Theory of Relativity was not actually proven until fairly recently."The usual way to look at it is that theories are never proven, only disproven. As more and more attempts to disprove them by testing their predictions fail, they become accepted.
Eistein's General Theory of Relativity became widely accepted a few years after he proposed it around 1915 because he predicted that the light from stars seen next to the Sun during a total eclipse would be bent by the Sun's gravitation, and this was verified when an eclipse occurred. But every now and you hear about someone testing the theory under new conditions and providing yet another reason not to reject it.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (other topics)Phenomenology of Perception (other topics)
In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind (other topics)
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales (other topics)
Einstein's Dreams (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edwin A. Abbott (other topics)Alan Lightman (other topics)
Bart D. Ehrman (other topics)
I will have to re-read that part, becasue my impression when reading, was that Philosphy was speaking in favor of his familial love.