jvjv at posthaven

Link: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/sparta-a.html

According to Xenophon, Lycurgus ...

" ... thought that female slaves were competent to furnish clothes; and, considering that the PRODUCTION OF CHILDREN WAS THE NOBLEST DUTY OF THE FREE, he enacted ...that the female should practice bodily exercise no less than the male sex..." ".....He ordained that a man should think it shame to be seen going in to his wife, or coming out from her. When married people meet in this way, they must feel stronger desire for the company of one another...and produce more robust offspring....

* ."....He took from the men the liberty of marrying when each of them pleased, and appointed that they should contract marriages only when they were in full bodily vigor, deeming this injunction also conducive to producing excellent offspring..."

* "An old man should introduce to his wife whatever man in the prime of life he admired for his bodily and mental qualities, so that she might have children by him... "

* "He also assigned some of the grown-up boys as ‘whip-bearers’ so that they might inflict whatever punishment was necessary (on younger boys), so that the great dread of DISGRACE, and great willingness to obey, prevailed among them. Lycurgus, though he did not give the boys permisson to take what they wanted without trouble, DID GIVE them the liberty to steal certain things to relieve the cravings of nature; and he made it honorable to steal as many cheeses as possible... "

* "He taught the children from a desire to render them more dexterous in securing provisions, and better qualified for warfare."

* "...I must also say something of the boys as objects of affection, for this likewise has some reference to education.... Lycurgus thought proper, if any man (being himself such as he ought to be) admired the disposition of a youth, and made it his purpose to render him a faultless friend, and to enjoy his company, to bestow praise on the boy; and he regarded this as the most excellent kind of education..."

* "Lycurgus prohibited free citizens from having anything to do with business.... they should not desire wealth with a view to sensual gratification. At Sparta the citizens pay strictest obedience to the magistrates and the laws. Lycurgus did not attempt to establish such an ‘Excellent Order of Things’ (EUNOMIA) until he had brought the most powerful men in the state to be of the same opinion as he was with regard to the constitution... OBEDIENCE is of the greatest benefit, as well in a State as in an army anda family..."

* "An honorable death is preferable to a dishonorable life.... At Lacedaemon everyone would be ashamed to allow a coward into the same tent as himself,or allow him to be his opponent in a match at wrestling...."

* "Lycurgus also imposed on his countrymen an obligation, from which there is no exception, of practising every kind of political virtue; for he made the privileges of citizenship EQUALLY available to all those who observed what was commanded by the Laws, without taking any account either of bodily weakness or limited financial means; but if anyone was too lazy to do what the Laws demanded, Lycurgus commanded that he should no longer be counted among the number of ‘equally privileged citizens’ (the HOMOIOI)."

Ambrose Bierce, I think, said that “It ain’t what ya don’t know that gets ya into trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.” That is one way to look at epistemology. What do I know that ain’t so? Do my beliefs about the world or reality actually match it? Reality! The physis sought so ardently in Greece and Asia Minor by the Pre-Socratics exists. Things are. Reality Is. And my mind tries to grasp it. But does it succeed? Being human, I do not know reality as a god would know it. And yet, as a human, I have a mind that animals lack, and I can grasp something beyond the mere sensations of the body.

But if my beliefs about reality are false, is it possible to arrive at true beliefs about reality? Can I find the truth about things? Or, as the sophists claim, is there really nothing but opinion? If so, I should give up the philosophic search for truth and instead search for influence, as the sophists argue. I should learn how to use words to influence people. Learn from the sophists, for a steep fee, how to make “the weaker case seem the stronger and the stronger case seem the weaker.” Learn to manipulate the jury, the public, the democracy. Instead of the open search for truth through rational discussion and argument as Socrates taught it, I should learn to make arguments fit my personal preferences and interests. But I will not be dishonest if I am searching for reality, which, after all, may be knowable.

Then again, are intangibles like justice, wisdom, beauty and goodness also knowable? That is, besides knowing a good horse or a good chariot or a good anything else, can I come to know goodness itself? (This is the problem of the one and the many, the many a good thing versus goodness itself.)

It gets so abstract, so quickly. But the basic point is Bierce’s. There are people who know what God wants and how the world should and will be organized. The know what sort of killing is permitted. They know that they will win. And if you ask them how they can be so sure, they will tell you that they read it in a holy book that does not lie. If they were students of epistemology, if they listened carefully to Descartes and Hume and Locke and that strange bird Bishop George Berkeley they might not be so sure that what they know is actually so. At least, that is the main practical value I see in the study of epistemology.

I wasn’t really kidding when I wrote in an email today that the more I teach this course, the less I know...

Last week I had dinner with old friends. My friends, who send their teenager to a private Catholic school at great cost even though they are not religious, tell me that they would support a law forcing all parents to send their kids to public schools. That way, they reason, there would be more support for public schools, so the schools would improve, so deprived kids would get a better start in life, so the country would become "more equal." It did not phase them when I suggested that the only way to get equality was for God to enforce it or to have a Tyrant do it. So what? As one of them put it, "We liberals are for equality of opportunity; it's the Republicans who are for freedom."

BTW, I do not accuse these folks of hypocrisy. Their position is collectivist, so until all are forced out of private schools and homeschooling they are free to do what they think best for their son. They argue for a new system while navigating the one they find themselves in.

I oppose their position on practical and principled grounds. I do not believe that creating a monolithic monopoly is the way to get creativity, innovation, and excellence.

But even if this scheme could work, and granting the importance of finding a solution to the dropout, failure, and illiteracy problem of so many of our young people, I would oppose the plan on principle. For the State to tell parents that the raising and educating of the young is no longer their responsibility but rather that of the State itself, seems far more totalitarian than liberal to me. A liberalism that goes this far has lost a claim to its own name!

Aristotle did think that the family cannot do the complete job of educating the young and that the polis must help. After all, "Man is a social animal" so experience outside the family is necessary for the good life. We need public schools. But we also need alternative schools, too, if the right to the pursuit of happiness is to have any meaning.

After nominating Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court last year, President Obama has followed up by nominating Elena Kagan, former Dean of the Harvard Law School and a former Soliciter General of the United States. Unlike Sotomayer, who was a career jurist, Kagan has worked mostly in academia and as an administrative lawyer. The press is pointing out that she has a limited judicial "paper trail" of published decisions by which to judge her political views. But it is a safe bet that she is a woman of the Left and not of the Center or Right.

A personal irony is that she served as counsel for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Anita Hill's explosive testimony nearly derailed his nomination many years ago. If Kagan goes to the High Court, Justice Thomas will be welcoming as a colleague a former adversary. He has written eloquently about the collegiality of the Supreme Court, so he will no doubt strive mightily to rise to the occasion.

It may not be difficult. Carol Platt Liebeau, a conservative talk show host, reports that Elena Kagan is highly regarded by conservatives as well as by the liberals who dominate in her milieu. In fact, Dean Kagan is credited with making sure that the Harvard Law Faculty included some distinguished conservative scholars, to the dismay of some of the more partisan liberal faculty there. And she is credited with approaching problems in an open-minded and non-ideological way.

President Obama was no doubt looking for a reliably liberal vote on the Court. He has probably gotten that, but he has also given us a person of apparent decency and integrity whose friends and admirers include those who do not necessarily agree with her on all issues.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnanimity

Does Aristotle's concept of magnanimity apply to nations as well as to persons? How can you tell when someone displays this virtue? Can you think of any cases where you saw this virtue? What would happen at either extreme of this virtue? That is, can you think of someone with too little? Or too much?

To a foreign policy hawk, President Obama might appear pusillanimous in bowing to foreign heads of state (American presidents do not bow to other humans.) Or in refusing to condemn Iran's brutal suppression of protests over rigged elections. To such a hawk, the President is magnanimous to a fault.

Thoughts on Chapter One if Nils Ch. Rauhut's Ultimate Questions.

This is a chapter about human faculties (reason, observation, imagination) and human institutions (mythologies, religions, science, and philosophy). So it is pretty abstract and conceptual.

Professor Rauhut, in order to explain what philosophy is, must make a clear definition, or boundary marker, around mythology, religion, science, and philosophy. His schema seems to be:

Myths are just fantasy.
Religion is myths with revelation claims.
Science is reasoning about empirical data.
Philosophy is reasoning about non empirical matters.

But I am not sure it can be done precisely. For example, both mythology and religion must involve the use of reason. I think what Rauhut means by reason is reason as applied to data from the senses, not that mythology and religion are devoid of reason.

The boundary between philosophy and religion is easy to state: philosophy eschews revelation. Philosophy is skeptical and demands reasons based on empirical data. In this way it is like science and not like religion. So how to separate science and philosophy?

Philosophy, in his telling, deals with fundamental questions that cannot be resolved by empirical means. Philosophy turns out to be high level conceptual analysis. Philosophers help us think about things by making us answer questions about the terms or concepts we are using in our thinking.

Philosophy in this sense is a far cray from a settled "philosophy of life." It is a questioning, approach that goes back to Socrates, as we know. He was executed for it. Philosophy can be dangerous, too, in unsettling our unexamined assumptions about life and truth.

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) (he of our pastoral bliss poem) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709: gave excellent advice to those who would climb Mt. Parnassus to drink the inspiring waters:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

Recently, some Massasoit students encountered a West Point tradition and tried to make sense of it. Here is what they had to go on:

An interesting feature of the folk version of Wisdom is that it is often surprising and even paradoxical. I think this is an example.

Last year I was invited to attend the graduation of a friend's son from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It was an impressive experience.

During the ceremony, the names are called and the cadets go up to get their diplomas. At one point, a name was called and the rest of the graduating officers broke into loud cheering and applauding. A great fuss was made over this person. Who was it? The "Class Goat," the student graduating with the poorest academic record.

I was assured by all who are familiar with The Point that the cheering is in no way ironic or sarcastic. This is not a "nya, nya..." but a heartfelt cheer for an esteemed fellow officer.

The cadets are expressing some of their tribal wisdom. Why do they cheer the student with the lowest grades?

Here are some responses. As you will see, they all show intelligence and tolerance.

1. I think they cheer for the student with the lowest GPA because they want to show support. Even though the student didnt do as well as the others that doesnt mean he or she didnt try. Its better to build up than to tear down cause you never know when you will be the one with the loweest GPA.

2. I think that they cheer for the classmate with the lowest GPA because you are only as strong as your weakest link. As a unit they cheer for "the goat" to show their support and encouragement for this person to continue what they are doing and to become better and more successful. A school like this is more about success as a group not really success for each individual.

3. I agree with Melissa about only being as strong as your weakest link. I also feel that it simply comes down to hazing, which is sometimes a serious problems in certain military institutes (my brother mentioned this when he was in military school). It was probably just a gentle way of poking fun of their weakest link.

4. This is just a guess but maybe they aren't cheering for the class goat but for everyone else. It may be a sarcastic celebration of not being last in the class.

These responses seem fully consonant with the values of our new "inclusive" institutional world-view. It is interesting to compare them with the "official" reason, the one given by the cadets themselves, who after all should know their own motives. The West Pointers claim that they cheer this student for his or her achievements and accomplishments. They cheer not for the trendy "who they are" but for the eternal "what they did." According to their classmates, getting through West Point (basically, an engineering college) is hard enough when you are good at academics. When you have to struggle, it requires perseverance, a virtue much valued by the military as "character" or "guts." It is this heroic quality shown by the class goat that they cheer. (I sometimes wonder if slower learners and students who struggle realize how much the faculty and other students may admire them precisely for their perseverance.)

Of course, since Freud et. al. we instinctively assume baser motives lurking in the unconscious. Maybe projection or reaction-formation is at work and what seems like a cheer is deep down a jeer. We cannot dismiss such possibilities as mere cynicism, but an application of Occam's Razor suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should take the cadets at their word.

"God is dead. We have killed him." Nietzsche said that in 1885.

But folks still argue the matter. Here is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Mark. D. Roberts from Hugh Hewitt radio show.

(The mp3 files were download when these podcasts were made freely available to the public. They take a while to download, but are worth the wait.)

This is a good example of civil discussion of a controversy. Hitchens, is bold in asserting as a matter of FACT that "there is no such person" as God. I suspect he knows that he cannot know that, but wants to make his point forcefully. He believes that religion has done more harm than good and that we would be better of without it. Roberts, a theologian, must answer the charge that God, if he exists, is a monster and not deserving of our love. And he must show that it is reasonable to believe the Bible.

Lively stuff.

Hitchens v Roberts, Part 3

Part 2 of the Hitchens-Roberts debate.