I have just begun to read "The Song of Hellas", by Dr. Michael A. Soupios, a Professor of Political Philosophy at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. Simply put, the endeavor of his work is to resurrect an interest in Ancient Greek culture by pointing out the great debts we Westerners owe to them.
While displaying great acumen on this subject, and able to express himself very clearly with an impressively varied vocabulary, I have discovered a dissonance in his intellectual tune. He begins the text by treating the heroic tradition of the pagan Greeks as expressed in Homer's Iliad, and gives great latitude by considering Achilles, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Patroclus, Hector and the lot to be real, historical figures, and not creations of generations of poets. Yes, there is good evidence for the historical occurrence of this war, he says, and goes on to summarize the archaeological investigations made towards discovering old Troy. He even relies upon ancient sources for a favorable conclusion about the Trojan War's historicity.
However, when treating the Miletian philosophers Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, he suddenly develops a very critical attitude, especially when it comes to determining what they really meant. He automatically suspects the reflections which Aristotle, for example, made upon the thoughts of these three as somehow harmful to their original conclusions; that Aristotle had them address complex questions which they themselves would not have been in a position to even ask. However, he feels quite comfortable offering his own opinions, very clearly, I might add, from a "twentieth-century, I know better than the ancients" attitude.
Did not Aristotle live very soon after these three, relative to our author's own life span? Would not Aristotle have been in possession, possibly, of their original texts, and therefore have been in a much better position to comment upon the whole? By comparison, how do we know whether the version of the Iliad which we possess is true to the original which Homer recited? Why no criticism here?
I believe the answer lies in the fact that the Iliad has little or no effect upon our present-day culture, while the scientific implications arising from the Miletian philosophers very much do. Or, we might say that because Thales and company began to hint at empiricism as the ultimate proof of the validity of a scientific answer to a question, and because we ourselves have become slaves to empiricism - denying the status of science to theology and the various philosophies - we automatically demand such empirical proof about the writings of the Miletians themselves.
I believe Professor Soupios has fallen victim in this instance to this falsely dichotomous mode of thinking. On the one hand, he seems to freely accept various traditions about the historicity of the Trojan War and its players as told by ancient commentators, while on the other, he adopts a very critical attitude to the traditions about the Miletians as handed on by Aristotle and other later philosophers.
Food for thought (for those who care).
mercredi 19 mai 2010
dimanche 16 mai 2010
The Place of the Truism in a Proper Argument: A Subtle Reliance Upon the Obvious
"Well, that's just the way it is!"
How many times have we heard this line, or something similar, from our opposite in an argument, in an attempt to end the conversation?
How many times have we ourselves used it to do the same?
Such a statement is called a truism, or "a self evident, obvious truth," according to Random House Webster's College Dictionary.
Recently, I have begun to notice - at first rather leisurely, then purposefully - the casual appearance of this statement in a variety of forms in everyday speech. The occasion which drew my mind away from this leisurely acceptance to actively listening for its employment and challenging its use was a discussion with a colleague over the mores of different civilizations, and whether the Natural Law can be used as the overall judge of the objective morality of such mores.
As a test, I asked her to condemn the Third Reich's treatment of the Jews, which she tried to avoid by criticizing the German Government's economic inefficiency in devoting ten percent of its military resources to the extermination of a part of its population, whose loyalty it could have attempted to cultivate. Asking her point blank, she said, "Of course it was wrong." By we never got around to determining why...
Any discussion about morality will inevitably narrow down to a debate over the ultimate measuring stick: a person's subjective judgment or an objective standard, not subject to man's whims or judgments.
This discussion revolved more around the other widely-used phrase, "That's just your opinion!" However, our other one made its appearance under a variety of styles.
Every time I have come across this phrase, it has unsettled me as being used out of place, or simply as unsatisfactory. By simply repeating the status quo of a situation about which one is arguing does not pronounce an effective argument for the justness or unjustness of that situation. For example, I once heard someone say, in response to my criticisms of the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, "Well, that was their religion." And therefore, ... Such an statement is an unfinished response.
In the end, that person could not bring himself to condemn such a hideous rite because of the culture of tolerance we now endure, though he clearly wished to do so.
To be certain, Socrates [per vocem Platonis] would not have allowed any of his interlocutors to end an argument in such a manner!
I am convinced that the employment of the truism in this fashion in arguments today is a last-ditch attempt on the part of one party to avoid an objective judgment of the issue under consideration.
Let's be vigilant for the employment of this and similar phrases, and - with caritas - call out our opposites to explain its use!
NB - Linked with the truism is the epitaph on the grave of a French nobleman, Jacques II de Chabannes, Sieur de la Palisse (1470-1525). A famous soldier, he took part in the numerous Italian Wars which commenced with Charles VIII's invasion of that country in 1494. Rising to the post of Grand Maître de France (Grand Master of France, the head of the "Maison du Roi", the royal household), held from 1511 to 1515 under Louis XII, he was created Maréchal de France by Francois I the year the latter took the throne. While fighting for Francois, he was captured by German landsknechts at the Battle of Pavia (February 25, 1525) and executed shortly thereafter.
His link with the truism stems from a misreading of his epitaph. It properly reads:
"Si il' n'était pas mort, il ferait encore envie." [If he wasn't dead, he would still be envied.]
However, it was misread as:
"Si il' n'était pas mort, il serait encore en vie." [If he wasn't dead, he would still be alive.]
From this misreading, the French today use for word truism lapalissade, based upon the marshal's birthplace!
How many times have we heard this line, or something similar, from our opposite in an argument, in an attempt to end the conversation?
How many times have we ourselves used it to do the same?
Such a statement is called a truism, or "a self evident, obvious truth," according to Random House Webster's College Dictionary.
Recently, I have begun to notice - at first rather leisurely, then purposefully - the casual appearance of this statement in a variety of forms in everyday speech. The occasion which drew my mind away from this leisurely acceptance to actively listening for its employment and challenging its use was a discussion with a colleague over the mores of different civilizations, and whether the Natural Law can be used as the overall judge of the objective morality of such mores.
As a test, I asked her to condemn the Third Reich's treatment of the Jews, which she tried to avoid by criticizing the German Government's economic inefficiency in devoting ten percent of its military resources to the extermination of a part of its population, whose loyalty it could have attempted to cultivate. Asking her point blank, she said, "Of course it was wrong." By we never got around to determining why...
Any discussion about morality will inevitably narrow down to a debate over the ultimate measuring stick: a person's subjective judgment or an objective standard, not subject to man's whims or judgments.
This discussion revolved more around the other widely-used phrase, "That's just your opinion!" However, our other one made its appearance under a variety of styles.
Every time I have come across this phrase, it has unsettled me as being used out of place, or simply as unsatisfactory. By simply repeating the status quo of a situation about which one is arguing does not pronounce an effective argument for the justness or unjustness of that situation. For example, I once heard someone say, in response to my criticisms of the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, "Well, that was their religion." And therefore, ... Such an statement is an unfinished response.
In the end, that person could not bring himself to condemn such a hideous rite because of the culture of tolerance we now endure, though he clearly wished to do so.
To be certain, Socrates [per vocem Platonis] would not have allowed any of his interlocutors to end an argument in such a manner!
I am convinced that the employment of the truism in this fashion in arguments today is a last-ditch attempt on the part of one party to avoid an objective judgment of the issue under consideration.
Let's be vigilant for the employment of this and similar phrases, and - with caritas - call out our opposites to explain its use!
NB - Linked with the truism is the epitaph on the grave of a French nobleman, Jacques II de Chabannes, Sieur de la Palisse (1470-1525). A famous soldier, he took part in the numerous Italian Wars which commenced with Charles VIII's invasion of that country in 1494. Rising to the post of Grand Maître de France (Grand Master of France, the head of the "Maison du Roi", the royal household), held from 1511 to 1515 under Louis XII, he was created Maréchal de France by Francois I the year the latter took the throne. While fighting for Francois, he was captured by German landsknechts at the Battle of Pavia (February 25, 1525) and executed shortly thereafter.
His link with the truism stems from a misreading of his epitaph. It properly reads:
"Si il' n'était pas mort, il ferait encore envie." [If he wasn't dead, he would still be envied.]
However, it was misread as:
"Si il' n'était pas mort, il serait encore en vie." [If he wasn't dead, he would still be alive.]
From this misreading, the French today use for word truism lapalissade, based upon the marshal's birthplace!
dimanche 2 mai 2010
The LIRR and Etiquette
For those of you from out of town, the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) - one of the oldest in the country, by the way - provides rail service between Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens and Long Island. With a long (by American standards) and glorious (according to railroad standards) history, the LIRR has heavily influenced the growth of Long Island's communities and economies.
However valuable may be the (pricey) service which our local railroad provides - and thank the unions for the pricey part - there are certain areas which do not pertain to the operation of a railroad.
Those who live on the Island and use the LIRR are most certainly familiar with the quite frequent etiquette messages, delivered via loudspeaker on platforms, on trains and in stations. Because of the collective lapse in manners in our society, folks are becoming increasingly rude in their behavior. While I laud the railroad folks for addressing this problem, the "Clean Train Campaign" - ongoing for several years now - is assuredly not the solution, and is having no visible effects.
Here's why...
The ill-mannered folks who did not learn from or listen to their parents, teachers, and other authority figures during their formative years will certainly not listen to such instruction as adults - especially as spoken by celebrities like Alec Baldwin and Al Roker.
Further, the folks who have good manners get annoyed at being reminded to behave as they already do. They've been through school and got the message, and each reminder makes them feel like children.
In a similar vein, gun control laws are usually not effective because criminals by definition do not obey laws, leaving good citizens hamstrung - or at least incommoded in their quest for a self-defensive weapon.
The point is, since there is no real target group for these messages, JUST DEEP SIX 'EM!
However valuable may be the (pricey) service which our local railroad provides - and thank the unions for the pricey part - there are certain areas which do not pertain to the operation of a railroad.
Those who live on the Island and use the LIRR are most certainly familiar with the quite frequent etiquette messages, delivered via loudspeaker on platforms, on trains and in stations. Because of the collective lapse in manners in our society, folks are becoming increasingly rude in their behavior. While I laud the railroad folks for addressing this problem, the "Clean Train Campaign" - ongoing for several years now - is assuredly not the solution, and is having no visible effects.
Here's why...
The ill-mannered folks who did not learn from or listen to their parents, teachers, and other authority figures during their formative years will certainly not listen to such instruction as adults - especially as spoken by celebrities like Alec Baldwin and Al Roker.
Further, the folks who have good manners get annoyed at being reminded to behave as they already do. They've been through school and got the message, and each reminder makes them feel like children.
In a similar vein, gun control laws are usually not effective because criminals by definition do not obey laws, leaving good citizens hamstrung - or at least incommoded in their quest for a self-defensive weapon.
The point is, since there is no real target group for these messages, JUST DEEP SIX 'EM!
Protestants and Holy Scripture
I have thought recently about the preeminence Protestants give to the Bible in their various confessions. However good their intentions might be, their view is fundamentally injured by the absence among them of a governing magisterium and an ultimate human authority - both of which the Catholic Church possesses.
Lacking a supreme human element causes them to exalt Holy Scripture beyond a reasonable degree, beyond the degree to which Our Savior intended it - namely, to the status almost of a rule-book, having it count for themselves what the Pentateuch counted for the Hebrews. But the Hebrews had a priestly class who interpreted this Law of Moses when disputes arose.
As to the physical form which Holy Scripture takes, in essence, they almost commit idolatry, idolizing the physical form of the book in which it appears, because there is no Blessed Sacrament to worship, and no priest in whom to reverence the Person of Jesus Christ. Or, because they have no physical thing upon which to focus their attention and devotion, of necessity the Holy Bible, the most precious thing to them, takes this role.
The Word of God is only alive through the Church.
Hence, we Catholics say "The Church says...", whereas Protestants say, "The Bible says..."
Lacking a supreme human element causes them to exalt Holy Scripture beyond a reasonable degree, beyond the degree to which Our Savior intended it - namely, to the status almost of a rule-book, having it count for themselves what the Pentateuch counted for the Hebrews. But the Hebrews had a priestly class who interpreted this Law of Moses when disputes arose.
As to the physical form which Holy Scripture takes, in essence, they almost commit idolatry, idolizing the physical form of the book in which it appears, because there is no Blessed Sacrament to worship, and no priest in whom to reverence the Person of Jesus Christ. Or, because they have no physical thing upon which to focus their attention and devotion, of necessity the Holy Bible, the most precious thing to them, takes this role.
The Word of God is only alive through the Church.
Hence, we Catholics say "The Church says...", whereas Protestants say, "The Bible says..."
jeudi 15 avril 2010
Liberals and the Life Issue
What amazes me the most is not the denial of the life of an embryo by those of a liberal persuasion, but rather their inconsistency when it comes to life at other stages.
Those same folks who scream and shout for a woman's "right" to kill her unborn infant are also the most vocal in demanding individual rights for those same people who have been "allowed" to live, often at the expense of the common good.
Then there's the whole "right to die/die with dignity" movement.
Cheapness of life at beginning and end, but absurdly stretched personal rights in between at the expense of the rest of society?
We are witnessing the absurdness of the cult of the individual.
DMN
Those same folks who scream and shout for a woman's "right" to kill her unborn infant are also the most vocal in demanding individual rights for those same people who have been "allowed" to live, often at the expense of the common good.
Then there's the whole "right to die/die with dignity" movement.
Cheapness of life at beginning and end, but absurdly stretched personal rights in between at the expense of the rest of society?
We are witnessing the absurdness of the cult of the individual.
DMN
Yet more changes...
Hi folks.
Here is a matter upon which I have been thinking for some time.
I have noticed, recently, that certain sisters have begun to abbreviate their religious titles as "S.", as opposed to the usual "Sr.". "Why the change?", you might ask.
We can just file this away as yet another small, but particularly obnoxious change in the ongoing Revolution within the Church.
DMN
Here is a matter upon which I have been thinking for some time.
I have noticed, recently, that certain sisters have begun to abbreviate their religious titles as "S.", as opposed to the usual "Sr.". "Why the change?", you might ask.
We can just file this away as yet another small, but particularly obnoxious change in the ongoing Revolution within the Church.
DMN
lundi 5 avril 2010
This just in...
Good evening, ladies and gents!
Yes, I have taken the steps (lasting ten seconds) to create my very own blog, and probably among the last of my generation to do so.
The title, "Quid faciendum", is a Latin interrogative meaning, "What should be done?" This is a very general question, to say the least, though I wish it to be a forum open enough for a variety of subjects.
More later.
Happy Easter to one and all!
Yes, I have taken the steps (lasting ten seconds) to create my very own blog, and probably among the last of my generation to do so.
The title, "Quid faciendum", is a Latin interrogative meaning, "What should be done?" This is a very general question, to say the least, though I wish it to be a forum open enough for a variety of subjects.
More later.
Happy Easter to one and all!
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)