Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Monday, 27 April 2009
phi201 - week 8 - lect 2
Phi 201 Wk 8 Lec 2 Boethius: "The deeper Questions"
From Boethius "Commentary on Porphyry". He seems to outline an Aristotelian picture. He explains that this is not exactly his own view. See quote 3, wk 7 handout.
Structure: begins with a devils advocate argument against the reality of species and genus. This devils advocate argument takes the form of a dilemma. He then presents an Aristotelian picture as a resolution of the dilemma and responds to objections.
Boethius' own picture is much more Platonistic and is described in his other works (including Theological Tractates)
Boethius describes the Aristotelian picture he presents as long the lines of "alexander":
Alexander of Aphrodisius, commentator on and reviver of Aristotle's work, Taught between 98-111 A.D
Devil's Advocate Dilemma
Suppose species and genera are real and not just concepts then each psecies or genera is either one thing or many things.
But either way is unsatisfactor if the species or genus in question, e.g cathood, is one thing, then it must be a universal, common to all cats. See quote 4. Here he says that if "what is common", i.e a species or genus, is one in number itself, it must be present in many items (e.g cats) as a whole and at the same time. That would make it a universal in the sense we describes last year, the modern sense. The argument he presents says that's impossible. Why? He says there are many ways in which a simple thing can be possessed in common by many. But none fit the way in which a species or genus would have to be possessed. See Quote 5. The argument says that there are entities possessed in common but not as a whole, possessed in common as a whole but not simultaneously, and possessed in common, as a whole, and simultaneously, but not so as to form part of the substance of the things it's common to. And he says, the substance requirement is one that we must impose on species and genera. So none of the ways in which a single thing can be possessed in common the way in which species would of have to be common.
It's hard to make entirely clear sense of what it is to constitute part of an individual substance, as opposed to merely being an essential quality. So modern theories tend not to mention the requirement that species must form the part of substance. Moderns' can rest easy because they don't assume that species and genera constitute substance if they did, they might have a problem.
Nonetheless, we can see what intuitively Boethius is trying to get at. Sure, a father can be possessed in common essentially as a whole, and simultaneously by two siblings, but he doesn't constitute their substance. Anything that is common to many so as to constitute it's substance, as Boethius says species and genera must, cannot be one, i.e must itself be many.
So why can't species be many? - second point of the dilemma
Quote 6: Not so much an argument as an assertion.
Recall Platinus
Also an argument. Suppose the species cathood is plurality. This means, presumably, that every cat has a different cathood. But if we invoke cathood to explain what cats have in common, we must know that cathoods all have something in common, cathoodissity. But that must itself be a plurality. Different cathoods have different cathoodissities .... infinite regress. So species and genera could be pluralities either.
That is our dilemma.
From Boethius "Commentary on Porphyry". He seems to outline an Aristotelian picture. He explains that this is not exactly his own view. See quote 3, wk 7 handout.
Structure: begins with a devils advocate argument against the reality of species and genus. This devils advocate argument takes the form of a dilemma. He then presents an Aristotelian picture as a resolution of the dilemma and responds to objections.
Boethius' own picture is much more Platonistic and is described in his other works (including Theological Tractates)
Boethius describes the Aristotelian picture he presents as long the lines of "alexander":
Alexander of Aphrodisius, commentator on and reviver of Aristotle's work, Taught between 98-111 A.D
Devil's Advocate Dilemma
Suppose species and genera are real and not just concepts then each psecies or genera is either one thing or many things.
But either way is unsatisfactor if the species or genus in question, e.g cathood, is one thing, then it must be a universal, common to all cats. See quote 4. Here he says that if "what is common", i.e a species or genus, is one in number itself, it must be present in many items (e.g cats) as a whole and at the same time. That would make it a universal in the sense we describes last year, the modern sense. The argument he presents says that's impossible. Why? He says there are many ways in which a simple thing can be possessed in common by many. But none fit the way in which a species or genus would have to be possessed. See Quote 5. The argument says that there are entities possessed in common but not as a whole, possessed in common as a whole but not simultaneously, and possessed in common, as a whole, and simultaneously, but not so as to form part of the substance of the things it's common to. And he says, the substance requirement is one that we must impose on species and genera. So none of the ways in which a single thing can be possessed in common the way in which species would of have to be common.
It's hard to make entirely clear sense of what it is to constitute part of an individual substance, as opposed to merely being an essential quality. So modern theories tend not to mention the requirement that species must form the part of substance. Moderns' can rest easy because they don't assume that species and genera constitute substance if they did, they might have a problem.
Nonetheless, we can see what intuitively Boethius is trying to get at. Sure, a father can be possessed in common essentially as a whole, and simultaneously by two siblings, but he doesn't constitute their substance. Anything that is common to many so as to constitute it's substance, as Boethius says species and genera must, cannot be one, i.e must itself be many.
So why can't species be many? - second point of the dilemma
Quote 6: Not so much an argument as an assertion.
Recall Platinus
Also an argument. Suppose the species cathood is plurality. This means, presumably, that every cat has a different cathood. But if we invoke cathood to explain what cats have in common, we must know that cathoods all have something in common, cathoodissity. But that must itself be a plurality. Different cathoods have different cathoodissities .... infinite regress. So species and genera could be pluralities either.
That is our dilemma.
his201 - week 8 - lect 2
in 1075 henry appoints bishops in italy, near Rome, that Gregory doesn't even know.
Henry and his bishops around him renounce Gregory (aka Hildebrand) and he is deposed. This is one of the first times a Pope has been deposed via a letter. reform movements, plans and encouragements to not go to the sacraments by married clergy. And Henry in his letter, "king by the grace of god" is theocracy which is opposite of the reformers ideas. Gregory then excommunicated Henry and deposed him and absolved all subjects of their allegiance to Henry. He also predicts Henry's imminent death which didn't happen as Gregory said he would. Gregory and Henry both thought they had the upper hand. Henry misjudged himself, and under estimated the Pope and the power of the pope. Henry is at a loss, he has no support, he desperately needs to gain papal support again. So the Pope decides to meet him again.
Henry returns to Germany and claims he has been given back his power, which is not true.
In 1085 Henry took Rome and declared himself emperor and looked up Gregory. The Normans came and saved Gregory and sacked Rome, making Gregory even more hated by the Romans and he died in a Norman town.
Henry and his bishops around him renounce Gregory (aka Hildebrand) and he is deposed. This is one of the first times a Pope has been deposed via a letter. reform movements, plans and encouragements to not go to the sacraments by married clergy. And Henry in his letter, "king by the grace of god" is theocracy which is opposite of the reformers ideas. Gregory then excommunicated Henry and deposed him and absolved all subjects of their allegiance to Henry. He also predicts Henry's imminent death which didn't happen as Gregory said he would. Gregory and Henry both thought they had the upper hand. Henry misjudged himself, and under estimated the Pope and the power of the pope. Henry is at a loss, he has no support, he desperately needs to gain papal support again. So the Pope decides to meet him again.
Henry returns to Germany and claims he has been given back his power, which is not true.
In 1085 Henry took Rome and declared himself emperor and looked up Gregory. The Normans came and saved Gregory and sacked Rome, making Gregory even more hated by the Romans and he died in a Norman town.
lit201 - week 8 - lect 2
page 36 - bottom of the page "it is an honest ghost, that let me tell you"
Page 37 - "swear upon my sword" he doesn't trust their words, he doesn't trust them.
Paul Cantor - says Horatio embodies a stoic world view by analogy.
Polonius is sending Reynaldo to Paris to spy on Laertes and to spread rumours to enhance his reputation. Make him look like a party-animal. He then wants Reynaldo to report back about his son. This little sub-plot seems unimportant but the line, "by indirections find directions out".
This meddling is what gets Polonius killed, in the end. The speed at which Hamlet kills Polonius, in the heat of the moment, contrasts with the sluggishness of his murder of the king.
"if i told you about purgatory your eyes would come out of your head"
and now hamlet "finds his way without his eyes" p.42
we don't know if we can rely on his appearance to indicate his state of mind.
p.47 "brevity is the soul of wit" ironic because he is so longwinded.
p.48 "doubt truth to be a liar..." the poem Hamlet sent Ophelia, he's saying I'm not a good poet (I am ill at these numbers) but I do love thee, he tells her to believe in his love - you can doubt the very make up of the cosmos and the idea that the sun moves, doubt truth to be a liar- in any case "doubt truth to be a liar before you doubt that I love you" it seems that there is some confusion between what is truth and what is a lie.
Page 37 - "swear upon my sword" he doesn't trust their words, he doesn't trust them.
Paul Cantor - says Horatio embodies a stoic world view by analogy.
Polonius is sending Reynaldo to Paris to spy on Laertes and to spread rumours to enhance his reputation. Make him look like a party-animal. He then wants Reynaldo to report back about his son. This little sub-plot seems unimportant but the line, "by indirections find directions out".
This meddling is what gets Polonius killed, in the end. The speed at which Hamlet kills Polonius, in the heat of the moment, contrasts with the sluggishness of his murder of the king.
"if i told you about purgatory your eyes would come out of your head"
and now hamlet "finds his way without his eyes" p.42
we don't know if we can rely on his appearance to indicate his state of mind.
p.47 "brevity is the soul of wit" ironic because he is so longwinded.
p.48 "doubt truth to be a liar..." the poem Hamlet sent Ophelia, he's saying I'm not a good poet (I am ill at these numbers) but I do love thee, he tells her to believe in his love - you can doubt the very make up of the cosmos and the idea that the sun moves, doubt truth to be a liar- in any case "doubt truth to be a liar before you doubt that I love you" it seems that there is some confusion between what is truth and what is a lie.
Lit201 - week 8 - lect 1
[PAUL CANTOR]
Hamlet's concern for the salvation of his soul makes him more thoughtful and hesitant than a classical hero.
Act 1 - Scene 4
His shape is questionable - which raises doubts about this ghost and thus doubts about what he is going to say. These doubts haunt Hamlet.
The line is ironic, the ghost suggests that he should avenge him, and the problem is that he may well be damning himself, the soul of the ghost itself is ambiguous itself, he doesn't know if it's in hell or heaven but he thinks it's in purgatory.
For Hamlet the fact that horizons open up into eternity, "what can it do to that, being a thing immortal as itself?" So the ghost can't kill me because I have an immortal soul. (p.30). The task that the ghost gives him raises a moral problem, because Hamlet wants moral certitude, because killing the kings has implications for his own eternal destiny. So the immortality of the soul is precisely the thing that sets the problem facing Hamlet apart from the classical heroes whom he is being contrasted with throughout the work.
Remember he says himself that he is not like Hercules.
The fact that it's a middle state in which the ghost finds himself (as we are told by the ghost) even though he explains it that he is allowed to come back and seek revenge, the fact that it's middle makes it ambiguous. Page 30, Ghost's speech, is basically saying that if he could tell us about purgatory he would, but it's horrible. And again this opens up the idea that the ghost can't tell Hamlet everything, thus, can he be trusted?
Thus things have become morally ambiguous and we question the ghost.
Hamlet's concern for the salvation of his soul makes him more thoughtful and hesitant than a classical hero.
Act 1 - Scene 4
His shape is questionable - which raises doubts about this ghost and thus doubts about what he is going to say. These doubts haunt Hamlet.
The line is ironic, the ghost suggests that he should avenge him, and the problem is that he may well be damning himself, the soul of the ghost itself is ambiguous itself, he doesn't know if it's in hell or heaven but he thinks it's in purgatory.
For Hamlet the fact that horizons open up into eternity, "what can it do to that, being a thing immortal as itself?" So the ghost can't kill me because I have an immortal soul. (p.30). The task that the ghost gives him raises a moral problem, because Hamlet wants moral certitude, because killing the kings has implications for his own eternal destiny. So the immortality of the soul is precisely the thing that sets the problem facing Hamlet apart from the classical heroes whom he is being contrasted with throughout the work.
Remember he says himself that he is not like Hercules.
The fact that it's a middle state in which the ghost finds himself (as we are told by the ghost) even though he explains it that he is allowed to come back and seek revenge, the fact that it's middle makes it ambiguous. Page 30, Ghost's speech, is basically saying that if he could tell us about purgatory he would, but it's horrible. And again this opens up the idea that the ghost can't tell Hamlet everything, thus, can he be trusted?
Thus things have become morally ambiguous and we question the ghost.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Phi201 - Porphyry and Boethius
Last time - species and genus
What distinguishes species-terms and genus-terms like "cat", "animal", "material being", "substance", from others is that at least partly,
(A) they are predicated essentially, as opposed to accidental quality-terms like "white"
(B) they describe the objects they predicated of in terms of what they are, as opposed to how they are. This distinguishes them from essential quality terms like rational" <-- as applied to human beings.
Roughly speaking, an essential quality-term is a difference-term
Differences <--- 3rd of Porphyry's 5 predicables
See quote 4 - wk 6 Handout
There are 3 senses of "difference" that Porphyry mentions.
-Difference in terms of accidental quality that is seperable, i.e easily lost.
-Difference in terms of accidental quality that is insemmible, i.e not easily lost.
-difference in terms of essential quality.
The former two makes things that differ in accordance with them merely 'otherwise', as I am otherwise from myself as a child in virtue of no longer having a full head of hair. The last makes thing that differ in accordance with it not just otherwise but 'other', as I am different from a horse in capacity for rationality which is a specific difference, I am other then it.
Being quality-terms rather then substance-terms all 3 sorts of difference-terms in themselves describe how rather than what. But specific-difference terms relate to what in a derivative way, i.e, in that adding a specific difference term like
"rational" to a substance-temr like "animal" can define a species-term like "human".
Property - Four senses of "property" are distinguished, all narrower than modern sense, because all Porphyry's senses require a 'property' to be accidental. (We moderns can speak of 'essential properties' but for Porphyry (i.e in Porphyry's senses of the term) that would be a contradiction in terms)
For Porphyry, the sense he's really interested in is the strictest sense, the fourth. In that sense a property is an accidental quality that applies to all and only members of one species, and to each member throughout its existence. So risibiility, the capacity for laughter, is in this strictest sense a 'property' of humans. Doing medicine fails the first require (all), being bipedal fails the second (only) and being grey-haired fails the last (at every time)
Accident = self-explanatory.
What distinguishes species-terms and genus-terms like "cat", "animal", "material being", "substance", from others is that at least partly,
(A) they are predicated essentially, as opposed to accidental quality-terms like "white"
(B) they describe the objects they predicated of in terms of what they are, as opposed to how they are. This distinguishes them from essential quality terms like rational" <-- as applied to human beings.
Roughly speaking, an essential quality-term is a difference-term
Differences <--- 3rd of Porphyry's 5 predicables
See quote 4 - wk 6 Handout
There are 3 senses of "difference" that Porphyry mentions.
-Difference in terms of accidental quality that is seperable, i.e easily lost.
-Difference in terms of accidental quality that is insemmible, i.e not easily lost.
-difference in terms of essential quality.
The former two makes things that differ in accordance with them merely 'otherwise', as I am otherwise from myself as a child in virtue of no longer having a full head of hair. The last makes thing that differ in accordance with it not just otherwise but 'other', as I am different from a horse in capacity for rationality which is a specific difference, I am other then it.
Being quality-terms rather then substance-terms all 3 sorts of difference-terms in themselves describe how rather than what. But specific-difference terms relate to what in a derivative way, i.e, in that adding a specific difference term like
"rational" to a substance-temr like "animal" can define a species-term like "human".
Property - Four senses of "property" are distinguished, all narrower than modern sense, because all Porphyry's senses require a 'property' to be accidental. (We moderns can speak of 'essential properties' but for Porphyry (i.e in Porphyry's senses of the term) that would be a contradiction in terms)
For Porphyry, the sense he's really interested in is the strictest sense, the fourth. In that sense a property is an accidental quality that applies to all and only members of one species, and to each member throughout its existence. So risibiility, the capacity for laughter, is in this strictest sense a 'property' of humans. Doing medicine fails the first require (all), being bipedal fails the second (only) and being grey-haired fails the last (at every time)
Accident = self-explanatory.
his201 - week 8 - Gregorian Reform
Modern scholars have moved away from the term Gregorian Reforms and now they use the term "the 11th and 12th century Church reform"
Louis the Pious succeeded Charlemagne and was confirmed as the head of the Frankish empire by the Pope. Continuing what Charlemagne had started, the relationship with the Pope. Pious divided his empire between his 3 sons, not a very intelligent thing to do, in hindsight. Louis the German took the eastern part, Charles the Bald took the west, and Lothair took the south and was crowned emperor. We see a period here where no emperors were crowned, Lothairs kingdom was far too small to even be taken seriously as an empire.
And so the power of the Roman empire moves her power to Germany - Otto annexed Lothair and was crowned empire by the Pope - however, unlike Charlemagne, Otto insisted imperial power over the Papacy - the empire picks the Pope and the Pope picks the emperor - here the Papacy changes quite a bit, it becomes essentially a hereditary title given to ancient Roman families, Tusculum, Cracenti. We see here a very strong decadence, they began to rule for their families not for Christendom. The local bishop has spiritual and temporal power and it was this temporal power which took over in this period.
In response to this, there was a large movement to the monasteries and ascetic lifestyle. "The Foundation of the Abbey of Cluny in 910" - Duke William of Aquitane claims no control or power over the monastery. The Abbey of Cluny served as a hinge for the reform of other monasteries.
Organisational structure
Prohibition on holding land by feudal service
it's execution of the liturgy as the main form of monastic work
Cluny created a large federated order, the Abbot of Cluny is the sole abbot of the order and many other houses of the period are under the direct control of the Abbot of Cluny so they are independent of their local temporal powers. And we see other monasteries either join Cluny or model themselves off it in some way.
The attitude of most rulers and churchmen is that God's authority rests in the Emperor, which is quite a byzantinian aspect.
These new reformers tried to take the power of the church away from these powerful Roman families - which reflects the Cluniac values.
Leo the 9th accomplished the first major reforms of the Church. Co-defying Canon law. Until the council of Trent it was still official that all bishops were elected by the Clergy of their diocese.
Three main issues:
Simony: Named after Simon Magus. To the reformers, Simony did not simply refer to the purchase of ordination, but any exchange of money or property involved with the gaining of the appointment, particularly of abbots or bishops.
Nicolaiatism: Clerical marriage/concubinage
Papal Authority: That the Popes were the rulers of the church and must be obeyed by all Christians. This was to expand as the reform movement continued.
To break simony one has to break clerical marriage - but that's not the sole point.
The organisation of the college of cardinals was changed. They were his advisers, administrators and electors. While this is happening we have the Norman invasions of Italy.
Because this era was bore the name of Gregory and not Leo testifies to the changes that Gregory made later on in his life.
Steven the 9th - after Victor - continued the anti-normal policies of Leo the 9th. After he died in a year Nicholas the 2nd was chosen to be Pope - under the strong advice of Hildebrand - the Papacy sanctioned the Normans. Because the imperial, military control needed to join up with another army. The council of Melphi, 1059, swore to be a vassal of the Church.
Louis the Pious succeeded Charlemagne and was confirmed as the head of the Frankish empire by the Pope. Continuing what Charlemagne had started, the relationship with the Pope. Pious divided his empire between his 3 sons, not a very intelligent thing to do, in hindsight. Louis the German took the eastern part, Charles the Bald took the west, and Lothair took the south and was crowned emperor. We see a period here where no emperors were crowned, Lothairs kingdom was far too small to even be taken seriously as an empire.
And so the power of the Roman empire moves her power to Germany - Otto annexed Lothair and was crowned empire by the Pope - however, unlike Charlemagne, Otto insisted imperial power over the Papacy - the empire picks the Pope and the Pope picks the emperor - here the Papacy changes quite a bit, it becomes essentially a hereditary title given to ancient Roman families, Tusculum, Cracenti. We see here a very strong decadence, they began to rule for their families not for Christendom. The local bishop has spiritual and temporal power and it was this temporal power which took over in this period.
In response to this, there was a large movement to the monasteries and ascetic lifestyle. "The Foundation of the Abbey of Cluny in 910" - Duke William of Aquitane claims no control or power over the monastery. The Abbey of Cluny served as a hinge for the reform of other monasteries.
Organisational structure
Prohibition on holding land by feudal service
it's execution of the liturgy as the main form of monastic work
Cluny created a large federated order, the Abbot of Cluny is the sole abbot of the order and many other houses of the period are under the direct control of the Abbot of Cluny so they are independent of their local temporal powers. And we see other monasteries either join Cluny or model themselves off it in some way.
The attitude of most rulers and churchmen is that God's authority rests in the Emperor, which is quite a byzantinian aspect.
These new reformers tried to take the power of the church away from these powerful Roman families - which reflects the Cluniac values.
Leo the 9th accomplished the first major reforms of the Church. Co-defying Canon law. Until the council of Trent it was still official that all bishops were elected by the Clergy of their diocese.
Three main issues:
Simony: Named after Simon Magus. To the reformers, Simony did not simply refer to the purchase of ordination, but any exchange of money or property involved with the gaining of the appointment, particularly of abbots or bishops.
Nicolaiatism: Clerical marriage/concubinage
Papal Authority: That the Popes were the rulers of the church and must be obeyed by all Christians. This was to expand as the reform movement continued.
To break simony one has to break clerical marriage - but that's not the sole point.
The organisation of the college of cardinals was changed. They were his advisers, administrators and electors. While this is happening we have the Norman invasions of Italy.
Because this era was bore the name of Gregory and not Leo testifies to the changes that Gregory made later on in his life.
Steven the 9th - after Victor - continued the anti-normal policies of Leo the 9th. After he died in a year Nicholas the 2nd was chosen to be Pope - under the strong advice of Hildebrand - the Papacy sanctioned the Normans. Because the imperial, military control needed to join up with another army. The council of Melphi, 1059, swore to be a vassal of the Church.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Theo201 - lect2 - week 7
Refer to lecture 12-13 handout.
St Paul had described the Church as the mystical body of Christ. In the Eucharist, according to St. Augustine, it is always the whole Christ that is contained, both the physical body of Jesus and the mystical body of Christ, that is the Church. The Eucharist exists so that one holy Church may be created. St. Augustine said, that endorsing that it is an ecclessial as well as a sacramental thing, he said, Christian, become what you receive.
The primary agent of the Church is its head, Jesus Christ.
chewing the host hurts Jesus - what about when it is broken?
St Paul had described the Church as the mystical body of Christ. In the Eucharist, according to St. Augustine, it is always the whole Christ that is contained, both the physical body of Jesus and the mystical body of Christ, that is the Church. The Eucharist exists so that one holy Church may be created. St. Augustine said, that endorsing that it is an ecclessial as well as a sacramental thing, he said, Christian, become what you receive.
The primary agent of the Church is its head, Jesus Christ.
chewing the host hurts Jesus - what about when it is broken?
Monday, 20 April 2009
phi201- lect2- week7
Phi201 Med. Phil.
Reminder of our earlier discussion of universals.
Consider a true sentence: "Tibbles is feline"
^ ^
subject term predicate phrase
"is feline"
Subject-term clearly picks out or denotes something real in the world, a particular cat, Tibbles. That's a different thing that is called up in my mind, the concept. There are no cats in my mind, there are concepts of cats in my mind.
We can distinguish the term itself, the concept in the mind, and the cat.
This thing being denoted is clearly a different thing from the concept that the term triggers in my mind. The concept in my mind is my idea of a cat. Different from the cat itself.
The concept is mental whereas the cat itself is non-mental.
The predicate term "is feline" also triggers a concept in my mind [the concept of cathood]. But, does it pick out something real in the world, cathood itself? Or is there nothing but the term and the mental concept? (One caveat is that we can all agree that there is definitely something real and non-mental picked out by "is feline", namely the set and collection of all cats (as opposed to the one cat Tibbles). But is there something else, the property of cathood, out by the phrase?
Some say no. They say we have no need to posit the existence of any property or quality of cathood over and above the word, the concept and set. Those are non-realists. Realists say yes. They believe that there is such a thing as Tibbles' property of being a cat and above word, concept, set. So if you are a realist you say yes to that question.
If that property, "cathood", exists in the word, is it a universal or not? To say yes, means that Tibbles' property of being a cat is the same as Garfield's property of being a cat. Another possibility is to say that Tibbles' property as a cat is qualitatively indistinguishable from Garfields' quality of being a cat, but they are in fact two different entities.
In other words, is Tibbles' property of being a cat numerically the same entity as Garfield's property of being a cat? Are they one and the same entity? Is there just one cathood, simultaneously present in all the cats? Or, is it different but perhaps qualitatively indistinguishable properties of cathood that are possessed by Tibbles and Garfield?
This latter theory is the view that properties are not genuine universals but tropes, abstract entities that can only be present in one individual at a time. Are there, then as many indistinguishable cathoods as there are cats? Or is there only one cathood present in all cats? Are properties universals, or tropes?
And then, if properties are universals, can they exist uninstantiated? I.e are they transcendent? If they can only exist to the extent they are instantiated, they are imminent.
/\
realism nominalism
/ \ / \
universals tropes conceptualist nominalist
/ \
imminent transcendent
The Medieval discussion approaches the issues using slightly different terminology. The jumping off point for this discussion is Porphry's 2sayme. An intro to Aristotle's Categories. It explains Aristotle's terminologies. He describes the nature and reality of universals [the "deeper questions"] as outside the scope of his introduction.
See Quote 1. Porphry explains the following terminology:
Aristotelian/Porphlatic terminology: "Genus", "species", "difference, "property" and "accident". These are the "Five Predicables" the five things that can be predicated.
So called because they are sorts of things that can be applied to or "predicated of" or "said of" individuals. A genus, a species, a difference, a property, an accident, are all things that can be predicated of individuals, they are all predicables. See quote 2.
N.B In modern usage a predicable or predicate is by definition a linguistic entity. We distinguish a linguistic entity's being predicated of an individual ("is a cat" being predicated of Tibbles) from a property's being instantiated by an individual (cathood being instantiated by Tibbles). The older usage describes both these relations as "predication" and both the phrase and the property of "predicates" C.CS Kant "existence is not a predication".
separated = transcendent
insensibles = imminent
Reminder of our earlier discussion of universals.
Consider a true sentence: "Tibbles is feline"
^ ^
subject term predicate phrase
"is feline"
Subject-term clearly picks out or denotes something real in the world, a particular cat, Tibbles. That's a different thing that is called up in my mind, the concept. There are no cats in my mind, there are concepts of cats in my mind.
We can distinguish the term itself, the concept in the mind, and the cat.
This thing being denoted is clearly a different thing from the concept that the term triggers in my mind. The concept in my mind is my idea of a cat. Different from the cat itself.
The concept is mental whereas the cat itself is non-mental.
The predicate term "is feline" also triggers a concept in my mind [the concept of cathood]. But, does it pick out something real in the world, cathood itself? Or is there nothing but the term and the mental concept? (One caveat is that we can all agree that there is definitely something real and non-mental picked out by "is feline", namely the set and collection of all cats (as opposed to the one cat Tibbles). But is there something else, the property of cathood, out by the phrase?
Some say no. They say we have no need to posit the existence of any property or quality of cathood over and above the word, the concept and set. Those are non-realists. Realists say yes. They believe that there is such a thing as Tibbles' property of being a cat and above word, concept, set. So if you are a realist you say yes to that question.
If that property, "cathood", exists in the word, is it a universal or not? To say yes, means that Tibbles' property of being a cat is the same as Garfield's property of being a cat. Another possibility is to say that Tibbles' property as a cat is qualitatively indistinguishable from Garfields' quality of being a cat, but they are in fact two different entities.
In other words, is Tibbles' property of being a cat numerically the same entity as Garfield's property of being a cat? Are they one and the same entity? Is there just one cathood, simultaneously present in all the cats? Or, is it different but perhaps qualitatively indistinguishable properties of cathood that are possessed by Tibbles and Garfield?
This latter theory is the view that properties are not genuine universals but tropes, abstract entities that can only be present in one individual at a time. Are there, then as many indistinguishable cathoods as there are cats? Or is there only one cathood present in all cats? Are properties universals, or tropes?
And then, if properties are universals, can they exist uninstantiated? I.e are they transcendent? If they can only exist to the extent they are instantiated, they are imminent.
/\
realism nominalism
/ \ / \
universals tropes conceptualist nominalist
/ \
imminent transcendent
The Medieval discussion approaches the issues using slightly different terminology. The jumping off point for this discussion is Porphry's 2sayme. An intro to Aristotle's Categories. It explains Aristotle's terminologies. He describes the nature and reality of universals [the "deeper questions"] as outside the scope of his introduction.
See Quote 1. Porphry explains the following terminology:
Aristotelian/Porphlatic terminology: "Genus", "species", "difference, "property" and "accident". These are the "Five Predicables" the five things that can be predicated.
So called because they are sorts of things that can be applied to or "predicated of" or "said of" individuals. A genus, a species, a difference, a property, an accident, are all things that can be predicated of individuals, they are all predicables. See quote 2.
N.B In modern usage a predicable or predicate is by definition a linguistic entity. We distinguish a linguistic entity's being predicated of an individual ("is a cat" being predicated of Tibbles) from a property's being instantiated by an individual (cathood being instantiated by Tibbles). The older usage describes both these relations as "predication" and both the phrase and the property of "predicates" C.CS Kant "existence is not a predication".
separated = transcendent
insensibles = imminent
his201 - lect 2 - week 7
Lecture 13
Pirenne Thesis II:
Mohammed and Charlemagne
What was the impact of the Islamic Empire on Western Europe?
Economic and cultural rupture or continuity?
CAUSE EFFECT
Crisis of the Third Century
After the so called "good emperors" Rome went into serious decline. That decline was the result of long term policies to the Germans, centralised administration, lax attitudes to corrupt officials, battles for the throne and a rotting economy.
The reasons for the rot that set in are not entirely clear, but inflation became a big problem towards the end of the 3rd century. Ramifications of a crisis such as this are large. Trade did not collapse in the 3rd century, but it did slow down. More people began to rely on rural life rather than the big city markets. We know from references within sources of the ancient Roman historians after the 3rd century A.D and also archeological evidence of trading, how many ships were running in the mediterranean in the 3rd century compared to the 2nd and 4th.
Dioclesian is regarded as one of the saviours of the empire. He capped prices, lifted taxes on merchants and buried cheap coinage.
Dismantling Pirenne's Thesis
Third-century crisis
Fifth-century fractured state of Europe
Why would Muslims not trade with the West?
Ports from Italy, Southern France, continued trading with the east. Maybe this is another stumble in Pirenne's Thesis, he certainly doesn't offer any solution to this obstacle. And maybe there isn't a simple answer. While Pirenne's Thesis faces some potentially crippling hurdles, the fundamentals of the theory does still offer a bases from which to understand this period. The question is why did it happen? Was it as dramatic as he suggests?
Muslims did not want to trade with the West - because they had much better options open for trading closer to home. Baghdad - a new centre, in mesopotamia. The traditional base for lucrative trade. The East had trading routes to the far East which they inherited from the Persians. If the Muslims weren't interested with trading with Western Europe, these are the reasons why.
Baghdad was emerging as the cultural capital of the empire. There is a cultural continuity. There are a few waves of the transfer of Western culture to the East. From Greco-Roman culture to Arabic. The first wave comes with Alexander. The second wave came with the Nestorians, during the 5th and 6th centuries there were Nestorian Christians migrating East. They began to run missionaries in Persia to escape persecution. These missionaries set up a school of theology near the future site of Baghdad. They also taught anatomy, as some of the students became physicians. During the whole diffusion of knowledge in the East the Arabs became quite prolific in the translation of ancient texts they found. In fact they were so prolific in their translations they had translated almost everything they got their hands on by 1000ad.
Arabs practised natural philosophy only because of what they can do with their knowledge. Practical knowledge was key for the Arabs.
Astrolabe
Anatomy and physiology interested the Arabs.
There was continuity of the culture characteristics of the Greco-Roman world. Secondly, at least in the scholarly world there was still dialogue between the West and the East.
There was never a clear and abrupt rupture of Western Europe as Pirenne's Thesis suggests. There is a need to always exercise caution when understanding a theory of rupture and such a simple theory of cause and effect.
Pirenne Thesis II:
Mohammed and Charlemagne
What was the impact of the Islamic Empire on Western Europe?
Economic and cultural rupture or continuity?
CAUSE EFFECT
Crisis of the Third Century
After the so called "good emperors" Rome went into serious decline. That decline was the result of long term policies to the Germans, centralised administration, lax attitudes to corrupt officials, battles for the throne and a rotting economy.
The reasons for the rot that set in are not entirely clear, but inflation became a big problem towards the end of the 3rd century. Ramifications of a crisis such as this are large. Trade did not collapse in the 3rd century, but it did slow down. More people began to rely on rural life rather than the big city markets. We know from references within sources of the ancient Roman historians after the 3rd century A.D and also archeological evidence of trading, how many ships were running in the mediterranean in the 3rd century compared to the 2nd and 4th.
Dioclesian is regarded as one of the saviours of the empire. He capped prices, lifted taxes on merchants and buried cheap coinage.
Dismantling Pirenne's Thesis
Third-century crisis
Fifth-century fractured state of Europe
Why would Muslims not trade with the West?
Ports from Italy, Southern France, continued trading with the east. Maybe this is another stumble in Pirenne's Thesis, he certainly doesn't offer any solution to this obstacle. And maybe there isn't a simple answer. While Pirenne's Thesis faces some potentially crippling hurdles, the fundamentals of the theory does still offer a bases from which to understand this period. The question is why did it happen? Was it as dramatic as he suggests?
Muslims did not want to trade with the West - because they had much better options open for trading closer to home. Baghdad - a new centre, in mesopotamia. The traditional base for lucrative trade. The East had trading routes to the far East which they inherited from the Persians. If the Muslims weren't interested with trading with Western Europe, these are the reasons why.
Baghdad was emerging as the cultural capital of the empire. There is a cultural continuity. There are a few waves of the transfer of Western culture to the East. From Greco-Roman culture to Arabic. The first wave comes with Alexander. The second wave came with the Nestorians, during the 5th and 6th centuries there were Nestorian Christians migrating East. They began to run missionaries in Persia to escape persecution. These missionaries set up a school of theology near the future site of Baghdad. They also taught anatomy, as some of the students became physicians. During the whole diffusion of knowledge in the East the Arabs became quite prolific in the translation of ancient texts they found. In fact they were so prolific in their translations they had translated almost everything they got their hands on by 1000ad.
Arabs practised natural philosophy only because of what they can do with their knowledge. Practical knowledge was key for the Arabs.
Astrolabe
Anatomy and physiology interested the Arabs.
There was continuity of the culture characteristics of the Greco-Roman world. Secondly, at least in the scholarly world there was still dialogue between the West and the East.
There was never a clear and abrupt rupture of Western Europe as Pirenne's Thesis suggests. There is a need to always exercise caution when understanding a theory of rupture and such a simple theory of cause and effect.
lit201 - week 7 - HAMLET
Did the ghost come from purgatory or hell?
Is the ghost his father?
These questions haunt the play.
One of the great tensions of this play is the Christian world view and yet the context of the play is Protestant. So there's a problem between the Christian world view, which itself is complicated, and the Classical World View. And that hinges upon Hamlets uncertainty, the Classical hero just goes and kills whoever deserves to die.
What Hamlet contemplates, to damn Claudius to hell, is far more awful than what the classical hero does - simply taking the temporal life.
Ghosts just don't start walking around without something being wrong in the state.
In this case the evidence seems to suggest that appearance is similar with reality.
page 8 - line 77, people are working throughout the whole week and the night. Why? What makes this haste? King Hamlet and Fortinbas are preparing to do battle? The fathers provide a counterpoint to their sons, one of the things that we see is that young fortinbras is like his father more so than Hamlet is like his.
A parallel is being established between young Fortinbras and Hamlet. Is Prince Hamlet going to show the same, kind of, resolve as young Fortinbras does? It also means that this subplot, this war between Norway and Denmark, shows how it is linked to the main plot. These men are watching for incursions from the Norwegians but what they get is an incursion from another world. The Ghost has come just like Athena goes down to Athenicus to steel him to a braver pitch - the ghost has come to stir up Hamlet to rouse him to a level where he can secure the future of the Danes. You will notice that young Fortinbras has guts. It's not just words.
page 10 - line 128 - STAY ILLUSION
Horatio - rationalist - sceptic - voice of reason
The important thing to note is that the objective presence of the Ghost is established. They see the ghost therefore it's something outside Hamlet - it's not just a product of his imagination, they all see the ghost together. But later, when Hamlet is with Gertrude and the ghost visits, only Hamlet sees the ghost. And the difference between the two events suggests the possibility that the subsequent apparition is part of Hamlet's imagination.
"my sometime sister, now my queen" "my cousin Hamlet, now my son"
"i am too much in the sun" too much in your presence, too much the son of you. Page 14 - line 65
page 15, line 73, appearance "if it be..."
page 16, stresses duty and formality, ironic because of what Claudius has done.
Page 17, hamlet's speech - this angst comes from his incomprehensibility as to of his mother's actions.
Is the ghost his father?
These questions haunt the play.
One of the great tensions of this play is the Christian world view and yet the context of the play is Protestant. So there's a problem between the Christian world view, which itself is complicated, and the Classical World View. And that hinges upon Hamlets uncertainty, the Classical hero just goes and kills whoever deserves to die.
What Hamlet contemplates, to damn Claudius to hell, is far more awful than what the classical hero does - simply taking the temporal life.
Ghosts just don't start walking around without something being wrong in the state.
In this case the evidence seems to suggest that appearance is similar with reality.
page 8 - line 77, people are working throughout the whole week and the night. Why? What makes this haste? King Hamlet and Fortinbas are preparing to do battle? The fathers provide a counterpoint to their sons, one of the things that we see is that young fortinbras is like his father more so than Hamlet is like his.
A parallel is being established between young Fortinbras and Hamlet. Is Prince Hamlet going to show the same, kind of, resolve as young Fortinbras does? It also means that this subplot, this war between Norway and Denmark, shows how it is linked to the main plot. These men are watching for incursions from the Norwegians but what they get is an incursion from another world. The Ghost has come just like Athena goes down to Athenicus to steel him to a braver pitch - the ghost has come to stir up Hamlet to rouse him to a level where he can secure the future of the Danes. You will notice that young Fortinbras has guts. It's not just words.
page 10 - line 128 - STAY ILLUSION
Horatio - rationalist - sceptic - voice of reason
The important thing to note is that the objective presence of the Ghost is established. They see the ghost therefore it's something outside Hamlet - it's not just a product of his imagination, they all see the ghost together. But later, when Hamlet is with Gertrude and the ghost visits, only Hamlet sees the ghost. And the difference between the two events suggests the possibility that the subsequent apparition is part of Hamlet's imagination.
"my sometime sister, now my queen" "my cousin Hamlet, now my son"
"i am too much in the sun" too much in your presence, too much the son of you. Page 14 - line 65
page 15, line 73, appearance "if it be..."
page 16, stresses duty and formality, ironic because of what Claudius has done.
Page 17, hamlet's speech - this angst comes from his incomprehensibility as to of his mother's actions.
lit201 - lect 1 - week 7 - HAMLET
(get intro from pip)
God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another - Hamlet says of overly made up Women. Condemning what he views as feminine deceitfulness but what he says applies equally to language that is used to decieve, act 3, sc 1, the playright has the king refer to thy most painted word. The painted word is a deed that seeks to cover up, as the harlets make up seeks to cover up her visage, that seeks to cover up the kings ugly deed. Hamlet says "this is most brave, that I, the son of a dear father murdered, prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, must like a whore un-pack my heart with words" (sarcasm) what he means just as he speaks of his love of his dead father, so a prostitute speaks words of love to her client, so he is questioning if he is like her.
Hamlet's seemingly inability to do the act, the deed, is haunted by his own word. The word that he gives to the ghost. In the heat of the moment, stunned by the revelation of the ghost, he says "now to my word" giving the word that he will avenge his father's memory, it is precisely this word that he fails to act upon immediately. The imitation on the efficacy of language, what does it mean to give a word? The kings words are painted, hiding his motive. And so Hamlet's are seen to be like a prostitute, insincere, when she is whispering words of love. This meditation on the relationship between our thoughts and our words, our thoughts and our words and our deeds is ultimately metaphysical in its significance. Why do we fail in life to fulfil our promises?
What do our words mean?
We live in someway between the surface, apparent meaning of a word, and the reality of our deeds and this is true of all human life. We see the sort of paradox in the sacraments, in confession, the sacrament is repeated repeated repeated. Originally it was only done once, but over time it became repeated, and because of this it tells us that we will offend God again and yet we vow not to.
The difference between appearance and reality, the difference between our thoughts and our words, our words and our deeds, permeates this play and opens up the space where the tragedy takes place and unfolds. The space between hamlets vow is filled with bodies due to Hamlets inability to act.
The speech by kind Claudius - after polonius has been killed by Hamlet - Claudius urges Laertes to avenge his father's death - and he warns him that our nature can make lies of us - Laertes is urged to avenge polonius' death to kill hamlet just as hamlet must kill Claudius.
Shakespeare is telling us that a deed is something more than words, that it exceeds language. And yet while the affect of Claudius' statement is to suggest the opposition between mere words and actual action, it is rather the repeated seperation from words and intentions, such that words do something other than reflect the truth of our souls. Words and deeds should correspond, just as words and thoughts should correspond. Claudius perfectly summarises this dimension of the drama, ruthlessly noting the disparation between the disposition of his soul and his words. Racked with guilt, he has recoursed a prayer. ACT 3
He kneels down before a crucifix, he ponders the choice presented to him, to acknowledge his sin before God and man, to confess it and accept the consequences of it. He sees this as an option. But he draws away from it. And he says, with poignancy, "my words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts, never to heaven, go." Again it's the discrepancy between thoughts and words. And thus he knows that his prayer has no efficacy, his words are empty.
Ophelia, is pretending to pray when Hamlet discovers her. Thereby using the appearance of prayer, to deceive. It seems innocent, but raises profound questions. A similar discrepancy exists between Hamlets word to avenge his Father, and his thought. After Hamlet kills polonius, he concurs that his deed is indeed bloody, "a bloody deed". "Almost as bad good mother, as kill a king, and marry his brother" - "As kill a king?" Gertrude asks him - "Aye lady, it was my word." He has vowed to kill Claudius and has consistently failed to carry it out - it was my word - but is it still his word?
What are your reading Lord Hamlet? Asks polonius
Hamlet responds "words, words, words" Echoes Claudius "tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow"
Hamlets response is sarcastic, he plays with language, polonius asks him the title, and he responds "words words words" And then Polonius asks him what is the matter? And Hamlet responds "nothing is the matter"
Thus words can be untrustworthy. Like the untrustworthy oath of Hamlet's mother to her first husband. His inability to trust his mother expands to a distrust of women, to words and finally to life itself. Discussion of words often leads to, in the play, a discussion of truth and falsehood.
Ophelia suggests that his words made more rich his gifts - Hamlet tells her that she should not have believed him. "I do know, when the blood burns how prodigal the soul lends the tongue vows. These blazes daughter, giving more light than heat...you must not take for fire (it's not the fire of eternal love)" Polonius is telling his daughter - if hamlet tells you he loves you, he can't live without you, he desires you, he must have you know - if he does this, don't believe him. In other words, the passion makes the man say things that are untrue.
Hamlet's failure to keep his word to Ophelia parallels his failure to keep his word to his father. Just as a youthful passionate man will say things to consummate his passion. And just as that is true, so when Hamlet is in the heat of anger, his soul lends his tongue a vow.
Polonius says "Give thy thoughts no tongue nor act upon any thought that is ill considered" Don't say something that you don't truly mean, don't act on the heat of the moment.
Hamlet will tear his mother apart, but his soul will never agree to that. There is a discrepancy between words and thoughts, between truth and reality. His tongue and soul are hypocrites in their relation to one another, and this doubles back on his inability to carry out his vow for his father and his words of love for Ophelia.
"soft now, to my mother" we can't trust him. This makes us mistrust him. Because earlier, he said to the ghost, "now to my word". We see that he doesn't act in the past, and now it makes us distrust him - he will probably not act now.
Gertrude's deed makes marriage vows empty. Gertrude's actions make her a liar and reduce her faith to a rhapsody of words, just as they are for her husband, who's words fly up but thoughts lie below. So we see that the troubling discrepancy between thoughts and words and words and deeds has metaphysical implications. If we cannot trust others to keep their vows, and if we cannot trust ourselves, what is there undergerding the universe holding it together? We can trust the benevolence of God. This is a profound question that informs Hamlet's near despair.
Tragedy is the change of fortune of a noble figure. - Aristotle
Shakespearean tragedy also involves the change in fortune of a great figure - but Shakespearean tragedies are a tragedy of character rather than fate - so the tragedy in a tragedy in character seem to flow from the individual choices of the protagonist.
God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another - Hamlet says of overly made up Women. Condemning what he views as feminine deceitfulness but what he says applies equally to language that is used to decieve, act 3, sc 1, the playright has the king refer to thy most painted word. The painted word is a deed that seeks to cover up, as the harlets make up seeks to cover up her visage, that seeks to cover up the kings ugly deed. Hamlet says "this is most brave, that I, the son of a dear father murdered, prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, must like a whore un-pack my heart with words" (sarcasm) what he means just as he speaks of his love of his dead father, so a prostitute speaks words of love to her client, so he is questioning if he is like her.
Hamlet's seemingly inability to do the act, the deed, is haunted by his own word. The word that he gives to the ghost. In the heat of the moment, stunned by the revelation of the ghost, he says "now to my word" giving the word that he will avenge his father's memory, it is precisely this word that he fails to act upon immediately. The imitation on the efficacy of language, what does it mean to give a word? The kings words are painted, hiding his motive. And so Hamlet's are seen to be like a prostitute, insincere, when she is whispering words of love. This meditation on the relationship between our thoughts and our words, our thoughts and our words and our deeds is ultimately metaphysical in its significance. Why do we fail in life to fulfil our promises?
What do our words mean?
We live in someway between the surface, apparent meaning of a word, and the reality of our deeds and this is true of all human life. We see the sort of paradox in the sacraments, in confession, the sacrament is repeated repeated repeated. Originally it was only done once, but over time it became repeated, and because of this it tells us that we will offend God again and yet we vow not to.
The difference between appearance and reality, the difference between our thoughts and our words, our words and our deeds, permeates this play and opens up the space where the tragedy takes place and unfolds. The space between hamlets vow is filled with bodies due to Hamlets inability to act.
The speech by kind Claudius - after polonius has been killed by Hamlet - Claudius urges Laertes to avenge his father's death - and he warns him that our nature can make lies of us - Laertes is urged to avenge polonius' death to kill hamlet just as hamlet must kill Claudius.
Shakespeare is telling us that a deed is something more than words, that it exceeds language. And yet while the affect of Claudius' statement is to suggest the opposition between mere words and actual action, it is rather the repeated seperation from words and intentions, such that words do something other than reflect the truth of our souls. Words and deeds should correspond, just as words and thoughts should correspond. Claudius perfectly summarises this dimension of the drama, ruthlessly noting the disparation between the disposition of his soul and his words. Racked with guilt, he has recoursed a prayer. ACT 3
He kneels down before a crucifix, he ponders the choice presented to him, to acknowledge his sin before God and man, to confess it and accept the consequences of it. He sees this as an option. But he draws away from it. And he says, with poignancy, "my words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts, never to heaven, go." Again it's the discrepancy between thoughts and words. And thus he knows that his prayer has no efficacy, his words are empty.
Ophelia, is pretending to pray when Hamlet discovers her. Thereby using the appearance of prayer, to deceive. It seems innocent, but raises profound questions. A similar discrepancy exists between Hamlets word to avenge his Father, and his thought. After Hamlet kills polonius, he concurs that his deed is indeed bloody, "a bloody deed". "Almost as bad good mother, as kill a king, and marry his brother" - "As kill a king?" Gertrude asks him - "Aye lady, it was my word." He has vowed to kill Claudius and has consistently failed to carry it out - it was my word - but is it still his word?
What are your reading Lord Hamlet? Asks polonius
Hamlet responds "words, words, words" Echoes Claudius "tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow"
Hamlets response is sarcastic, he plays with language, polonius asks him the title, and he responds "words words words" And then Polonius asks him what is the matter? And Hamlet responds "nothing is the matter"
Thus words can be untrustworthy. Like the untrustworthy oath of Hamlet's mother to her first husband. His inability to trust his mother expands to a distrust of women, to words and finally to life itself. Discussion of words often leads to, in the play, a discussion of truth and falsehood.
Ophelia suggests that his words made more rich his gifts - Hamlet tells her that she should not have believed him. "I do know, when the blood burns how prodigal the soul lends the tongue vows. These blazes daughter, giving more light than heat...you must not take for fire (it's not the fire of eternal love)" Polonius is telling his daughter - if hamlet tells you he loves you, he can't live without you, he desires you, he must have you know - if he does this, don't believe him. In other words, the passion makes the man say things that are untrue.
Hamlet's failure to keep his word to Ophelia parallels his failure to keep his word to his father. Just as a youthful passionate man will say things to consummate his passion. And just as that is true, so when Hamlet is in the heat of anger, his soul lends his tongue a vow.
Polonius says "Give thy thoughts no tongue nor act upon any thought that is ill considered" Don't say something that you don't truly mean, don't act on the heat of the moment.
Hamlet will tear his mother apart, but his soul will never agree to that. There is a discrepancy between words and thoughts, between truth and reality. His tongue and soul are hypocrites in their relation to one another, and this doubles back on his inability to carry out his vow for his father and his words of love for Ophelia.
"soft now, to my mother" we can't trust him. This makes us mistrust him. Because earlier, he said to the ghost, "now to my word". We see that he doesn't act in the past, and now it makes us distrust him - he will probably not act now.
Gertrude's deed makes marriage vows empty. Gertrude's actions make her a liar and reduce her faith to a rhapsody of words, just as they are for her husband, who's words fly up but thoughts lie below. So we see that the troubling discrepancy between thoughts and words and words and deeds has metaphysical implications. If we cannot trust others to keep their vows, and if we cannot trust ourselves, what is there undergerding the universe holding it together? We can trust the benevolence of God. This is a profound question that informs Hamlet's near despair.
Tragedy is the change of fortune of a noble figure. - Aristotle
Shakespearean tragedy also involves the change in fortune of a great figure - but Shakespearean tragedies are a tragedy of character rather than fate - so the tragedy in a tragedy in character seem to flow from the individual choices of the protagonist.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
phi201 - lect 1 - wk7
Boethius points out in effect that if a human knows infallibly that you will do x tomorrow, e.g, be the prime minister or not, e.g that you will eat nachos well then it is at least restrictedly necessary that you will do x. So at least you will do x in every world that has our physical laws and where the state of the universe is as it actually is today. Such necessity would preclude freedom. If I know now based on physical law and on the current state of the universe, that you will eat nachos tomorrow, then it is plausible, putting compatibilism to one side, that you wont eat the nachos freely.
'wk6' readings, Porphry "the pfive pr[something]
Boethius "the deeper question"
'wk6' readings, Porphry "the pfive pr[something]
Boethius "the deeper question"
his201 - lect 1 - (lecture 12 of the semester)
To understand the rise of Islam you have to know something about the Byzantine emperors of the 6th century. Justinian was concerned with lavish, costly building projects, through this exertion of byzantine resources into the West, the byzantine empire began to wane towards the end of Justinian's reign. Maurice reigned for 20 years and brought stability.
What we have is some periods of stability intermingled with tumultuous times, facing the persian threat whilst trying to become stronger economically. Phocas reigned for 30 years and suffered massive losses - the sacking of Constantinople by the Persians seemed imminent. The Persian threat seemed to have been quelled by Heraclius and some sense of stability seemed to return, however, this was a false sense, because of this long, protracted battle between the Byzantines and the Persians had taken its toll.
What we need to understand is the instability of the empire after Justinian. There was a lack of direction, and an emphasis on just survival. (Justinian wanted to restore their link to the heartland Rome and thus he took his men over the Mediterranean sea) This direction, was lost, a loss of identity, that Roman identity which held them together in the fifth and early sixth centuries.
So heading into the 7th century under Heraclius' reign lost its direction and was beginning to look just like any other kingdom. It was not as powerful as it had been and it was losing its authority. Between the 570's and the 620's the Persians and the Romans were in serious conflict, the 2 super powers were slowly tearing at each other. It was no coincidence that by the 620's and 630's both empires were ripe for invasion.
Pre-muhummedian arabic history is difficult to pin down.
Aristotelian and platonic texts were brought to the arabic empire by missionary Christians. The Arabic empire had a greater sense of identity with the East rather then the Mediterranean sea. culturally, economically.
Mohammed born in mecca at 570ad. Believed to be a descendent of Abraham, religiously important family, and thus he followed that religion. So Mohammed, and the people around the Mecca region, seem to be vaguely hebrew, vaguely judaic. He managed a camel caravan that moved through Medina, Yemen and Mecca, that carried spice, like many young men of this region. When he was 40 he received a message from arch angel Gabriel, and this is essentially the first of many religious revelations (moments-messages) over 20 years.
abassid carliffs took to the sea taking over the island of cyprus in 649. This is a huge move. Now in a period of less than 20 years after Mohammeds death the Byzantines have lost that control of the sea. It's a very quick descent, seemingly, for the Byzantines. So Constantinople was under constant siege by the Arabs - essentially this went on for years, with the Byzantines repelling the attack. In the mean time the islamic forces were making headway in Africa. By 698 the Arabs had conquered Carthage, the last remaining bastion of Byzantine ports in the Mediterranean sea. by 698 Constantinople is the last remaining post of the Roman empire.
now we have three clear major powers, byzantine, frankish and arabic, although the byzantine is severely depleted, and the arabs took a strong hold over the trading routes in the mediterranean sea. So you can see why Pirrene thinks that this is the beginning of the middle ages, if trade and economics is the key to civilisation, then the empire collapsed.
So continuity ended in the 7th century, and we have another story of rupture, the consequence of the Arab empire, trade ended for western europe, and Arab dominance began.
What we have is some periods of stability intermingled with tumultuous times, facing the persian threat whilst trying to become stronger economically. Phocas reigned for 30 years and suffered massive losses - the sacking of Constantinople by the Persians seemed imminent. The Persian threat seemed to have been quelled by Heraclius and some sense of stability seemed to return, however, this was a false sense, because of this long, protracted battle between the Byzantines and the Persians had taken its toll.
What we need to understand is the instability of the empire after Justinian. There was a lack of direction, and an emphasis on just survival. (Justinian wanted to restore their link to the heartland Rome and thus he took his men over the Mediterranean sea) This direction, was lost, a loss of identity, that Roman identity which held them together in the fifth and early sixth centuries.
So heading into the 7th century under Heraclius' reign lost its direction and was beginning to look just like any other kingdom. It was not as powerful as it had been and it was losing its authority. Between the 570's and the 620's the Persians and the Romans were in serious conflict, the 2 super powers were slowly tearing at each other. It was no coincidence that by the 620's and 630's both empires were ripe for invasion.
Pre-muhummedian arabic history is difficult to pin down.
Aristotelian and platonic texts were brought to the arabic empire by missionary Christians. The Arabic empire had a greater sense of identity with the East rather then the Mediterranean sea. culturally, economically.
Mohammed born in mecca at 570ad. Believed to be a descendent of Abraham, religiously important family, and thus he followed that religion. So Mohammed, and the people around the Mecca region, seem to be vaguely hebrew, vaguely judaic. He managed a camel caravan that moved through Medina, Yemen and Mecca, that carried spice, like many young men of this region. When he was 40 he received a message from arch angel Gabriel, and this is essentially the first of many religious revelations (moments-messages) over 20 years.
abassid carliffs took to the sea taking over the island of cyprus in 649. This is a huge move. Now in a period of less than 20 years after Mohammeds death the Byzantines have lost that control of the sea. It's a very quick descent, seemingly, for the Byzantines. So Constantinople was under constant siege by the Arabs - essentially this went on for years, with the Byzantines repelling the attack. In the mean time the islamic forces were making headway in Africa. By 698 the Arabs had conquered Carthage, the last remaining bastion of Byzantine ports in the Mediterranean sea. by 698 Constantinople is the last remaining post of the Roman empire.
now we have three clear major powers, byzantine, frankish and arabic, although the byzantine is severely depleted, and the arabs took a strong hold over the trading routes in the mediterranean sea. So you can see why Pirrene thinks that this is the beginning of the middle ages, if trade and economics is the key to civilisation, then the empire collapsed.
So continuity ended in the 7th century, and we have another story of rupture, the consequence of the Arab empire, trade ended for western europe, and Arab dominance began.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Phi102 - Lect 2 - week 6
What example B illustrates is.. [written on the handout]
A sentence of the form "if P then necessarily Q" can be interpreted either as:
[] (P->Q) or as P-> [] Q
Even if the former is true, the latter may be false.
That doesn't mean if the former is true the latter is always false.
See example c: "if John is an elephant then necessarily he is a mammal"
Here both readings give true claims. Both C1 and C2 are true.
Another example like B, where [](P->R) is true but P->[]R is false.
Let Belle be my belief that Kevin Rudd is PM. (example D)
Then D1 is true. Any world where taht belief is true will be a world where Rudd is PM. So the claim "if Belle is true than Rudd is PM" is true at every world. So, it is necessary that if belle is true than Rudd is PM. But D2 is false. D2 means that is Belle is true at this world then Rudd is PM at every word.
Relevance to foreknowledge?
Premise 1 of the argument against the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and freedom says:
1. If God knows that I'll do X then necessarily I'll do X
This can be read in two ways:
1a: Necessarily (if God knows that I'll do X then I'll do X)
[](P->Q)
clearly true. By definition of what knowledge is. Doesn't need to be God's knowledge. You can only know what's true. But this can't be used with premises 2-7 to get 4.
1b: If God knows that I'll do X then necessarily (I'll do X)
P->[]Q
Not obviously true. If it is true, it will 'stick together' with 2 and 3 to yield 4. But is it? What seems obvious is that even if God knows you'll eat nachos tomorrow in this world, that doesn't mean that you'll do it in every world.
But no sot fast! Sometimes we speka of necessty but don't mean that the claim is true in absolutely every possible world. E.g we say "it is impossible for me to fly to the moon b flappin my arms' but don't mean that I fly to the moon in that way at no world where the laws of nature are as they are in the actualy world. Yet this restricted sense of 'necessity' and 'impossible
has the consequence that if it s impossible for me to do something then I am not free to do it. Could P->[]Q as in premise 1 be true for some restricted reading of "[]"?
A sentence of the form "if P then necessarily Q" can be interpreted either as:
[] (P->Q) or as P-> [] Q
Even if the former is true, the latter may be false.
That doesn't mean if the former is true the latter is always false.
See example c: "if John is an elephant then necessarily he is a mammal"
Here both readings give true claims. Both C1 and C2 are true.
Another example like B, where [](P->R) is true but P->[]R is false.
Let Belle be my belief that Kevin Rudd is PM. (example D)
Then D1 is true. Any world where taht belief is true will be a world where Rudd is PM. So the claim "if Belle is true than Rudd is PM" is true at every world. So, it is necessary that if belle is true than Rudd is PM. But D2 is false. D2 means that is Belle is true at this world then Rudd is PM at every word.
Relevance to foreknowledge?
Premise 1 of the argument against the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and freedom says:
1. If God knows that I'll do X then necessarily I'll do X
This can be read in two ways:
1a: Necessarily (if God knows that I'll do X then I'll do X)
[](P->Q)
clearly true. By definition of what knowledge is. Doesn't need to be God's knowledge. You can only know what's true. But this can't be used with premises 2-7 to get 4.
1b: If God knows that I'll do X then necessarily (I'll do X)
P->[]Q
Not obviously true. If it is true, it will 'stick together' with 2 and 3 to yield 4. But is it? What seems obvious is that even if God knows you'll eat nachos tomorrow in this world, that doesn't mean that you'll do it in every world.
But no sot fast! Sometimes we speka of necessty but don't mean that the claim is true in absolutely every possible world. E.g we say "it is impossible for me to fly to the moon b flappin my arms' but don't mean that I fly to the moon in that way at no world where the laws of nature are as they are in the actualy world. Yet this restricted sense of 'necessity' and 'impossible
has the consequence that if it s impossible for me to do something then I am not free to do it. Could P->[]Q as in premise 1 be true for some restricted reading of "[]"?
his201 - lect 2 - week 6
Pirenne Thesis; The Mediterranean Sea and the Origins of Europe
Traditional historiography:
1. Einhard and Notker biographies - flattering
Einhard follows the hagriographical style of writing. This was an important time in historical biographies. A period of revival of historical writing. Brought on during a period of some stability, prosperity and some level of uniformity in Europe. These biographies are very praising of their subjects. These histories and their rhetorical styles generally depict the Carolingian Kings as saviours of Western Culture and as a continuation the Roman power. This is the first reason why the Charlemagne historiography is fraught with danger. We rely heavily on these sources, whatever biases and beliefs they carry we as a result carry them into our studies, because we rely on them so much.
2. Charlemagne's educational reforms
(Norman Cantor, The Civilisation of the Middle Ages, revised e., 194, p. 185)
It's even hard for Cantor to break away from this historiography - this Whiggish history.
Cantor talks about the ushering in of a new Western Europe. What has aided this type of historiography is that Charlemagne has sometimes taken on mythical aspects.
3. Charlemagne's myth (Song of Roland)
Henri Pirenne (1862-1935)
wrote during a period when it was trendy to write histories.
Pirenne's Thesis
Continuity of economics and trade after the fall of Rome
Mediterranean Sea still used for trade until the end of seventh century
Arab presence in the MEditerranean Sea
Trade and Feudalism
Less evidence of trade of gold,spices, papyrus and other materials.
Feudal society (Feud: one who holds lands of an overlord in exchange for service)
De-population of cities and the emergence of a strong rural life. The development of feudalism is the symptom of the Islamic dominance in the Mediterranean sea and consequently the isolation of Western Europe from ancient trading routes.
Traditional historiography:
1. Einhard and Notker biographies - flattering
Einhard follows the hagriographical style of writing. This was an important time in historical biographies. A period of revival of historical writing. Brought on during a period of some stability, prosperity and some level of uniformity in Europe. These biographies are very praising of their subjects. These histories and their rhetorical styles generally depict the Carolingian Kings as saviours of Western Culture and as a continuation the Roman power. This is the first reason why the Charlemagne historiography is fraught with danger. We rely heavily on these sources, whatever biases and beliefs they carry we as a result carry them into our studies, because we rely on them so much.
2. Charlemagne's educational reforms
(Norman Cantor, The Civilisation of the Middle Ages, revised e., 194, p. 185)
It's even hard for Cantor to break away from this historiography - this Whiggish history.
Cantor talks about the ushering in of a new Western Europe. What has aided this type of historiography is that Charlemagne has sometimes taken on mythical aspects.
3. Charlemagne's myth (Song of Roland)
Henri Pirenne (1862-1935)
wrote during a period when it was trendy to write histories.
Pirenne's Thesis
Continuity of economics and trade after the fall of Rome
Mediterranean Sea still used for trade until the end of seventh century
Arab presence in the MEditerranean Sea
Trade and Feudalism
Less evidence of trade of gold,spices, papyrus and other materials.
Feudal society (Feud: one who holds lands of an overlord in exchange for service)
De-population of cities and the emergence of a strong rural life. The development of feudalism is the symptom of the Islamic dominance in the Mediterranean sea and consequently the isolation of Western Europe from ancient trading routes.
lit 201 - Utopia - lect 2- week 6
Thomas Moore is a public man. With a public sense of duty. This contrasts starkly with what we later learn of Hythladay. Who, has withdrawn from worldly affairs, has no family, and has arranged his life in such a way that he has no commitments, for philosophy and so that he will never have to compromise his principles. Having describes his own obligations in his letter to Jiles, Moore now casts doubt upon a fact, a minor detail - the length of a bridge. Moore casts doubt on a point of fact.
The second thing we learn in this minor detail is that Hythladay may not be entirely reliable in the details he puts forward. Moore then raises the question of the value of publication - you know if I am going to do all this work is it even worth it to publish it - or is it better to lead a peaceful life and to ignore the vexing problems of publication. Moore says that most readers are hopeless unintelligent ingrates. In other words, what's the point in doing all this? And this is a foreshadowing of the conflict between public obligations on the one hand and the merry peaceful life on the other - which divides, essentially, Moore from Hythladay. Moore by engaging in this work - by agreeing to write it - is engaging the audience and doing exactly what Hythladay would not do. Hythladay refuses to lend his talent and expertise to the public good, all because he says he doesn't want to compromise his values.
If Moore has already inspired the alert reader to question the reliability and integrity of the figure of Hythladay and he does this if he does it at all ironically with excessive praise yet manages not to sound insincere. He has already prior to that raised doubts about Hythladay, Rafael Hythladay. Rafael means messenger of God. Hythladay however, comes from a Latin compound, which means, 'well learned in nonsense'. Now, Moore has said of himself, I am still of two minds. But this apparent conflict in Moore's own personality (it's very minor, it's just a phrase) this pales into insignificance in comparison with Hythladay who is single minded, but it seems duplicitous. He's single minded in the sense that he is driven as an idealist but he is rather deceitful as we'll see. And his name tells us that he is divided, messenger of God yet well learned in nonsense, a contradiction in his name reveals his contradiction in temperament. This idea is advanced early in Book One. When Peter Jiles says that Hythladay is a traveller of the world. Peter Jiles says that he is sought of like Ulysses (Odysseus) or Plato (in the sense of travelling). Odysseus is the man of twists and turns, the artful dodger and manipulator, he is a great liar.
Hythladay comes back and describes Utopia - which is off the map - just like Ulysses did. Hythladay's integrity is probed even further by Moore the author. For Hythladay claims in fact to have travelled on Vespuci's fourth voyage (florentine explorer to the Americas, norton anthology page 525 in the note) Now Moore's readers would have recognised that is was impossible that Hythladay sailed and travelled on Vespuci's fourth voyage - the reason because is that there was no fourth voyage - it was a publishers lie to sell more books - so Moore's readers realise that this is another moment where Hythladay is exposed as being unreliable. At the very least we must acknowledge a discrepancy of the views of Hythladay and those of Moore, both the author and the character. The Socratic or platonic dialogue makes sense only whe the reader understands the nature of each interlocutor.
So these seemingly minor details that reveal nonetheless extraordinary things about these characters must be paid attention to.
Moore's work is the first utopian text in the Western Canon since The Republic. So it converses with this work usually indirectly. Plato engages with a series of issues in The Republic. The dialogue form that Plato uses is not simply an exchanging of ideas with no form or motive. They are trying to arrive at the truth - in the case of The Republic - they are trying to come to a definition of justice. Plato asks questions so as to bring his interlocutor to the truth and this is the role that Moore plays in the Utopia.
Augustine's work - City of God - influenced Moore. Augustine cautions against a belief of perfectability in this life and therefore the possibility of arriving at a heaven on Earth, a Utopia. There is a fruitful tension then because man should work towards a just society based on the fruits of the Gospel. So on one hand we must acknowledge that man cannot build a perfect society, but on the other hand man must always strive and work for a more just and equitable society.
But nonetheless there is a tension there. We need to recognise what all totalitarian regimes fail to recognise - that mankind can not be hammered or made to fit into a mould at the expense of his freedom - and in fact the great irony, the tragic irony, exemplified in the 20th century by these states, who believed that they could create heaven on earth, actually created hell on earth.
In Book One Moore immediately grounds the work in a contemporary time. Hythladay targets Moore in saying that the philosopher should not be involved in public affairs. Hythladay describes two situations: Poverty, and being spoiled.
He explains that if he advised a King, the King would not listen. If he gave advice that was not easy to take, he would be hated. Hythladay concludes that there is no place for philosophy in the council of kings.
Moore responds: Yes there is, but not for this school philosophy that supposes that every topic is suitable for every situation. He is saying that you have to choose the right moment, the appropriate time and place, to make your point. You don't just walk in and start lecturing the king. You have to do your job subtly, you have to use diplomacy to advance your ideas.
Hythloday responds that the position Moore holds is a justification for telling lies.
Rudaf's approach is essentially psychological: Hythladay is only interested in his peace and quiet. He tries to give us a credible excuse to live a life without duties. What he actually fails to realise, or more likely, actually wishes for, is a calypsoic oblivion. An oblivion to the responsibilities that people face in society.
A Utopia is a state of absolute uniformity.
The second thing we learn in this minor detail is that Hythladay may not be entirely reliable in the details he puts forward. Moore then raises the question of the value of publication - you know if I am going to do all this work is it even worth it to publish it - or is it better to lead a peaceful life and to ignore the vexing problems of publication. Moore says that most readers are hopeless unintelligent ingrates. In other words, what's the point in doing all this? And this is a foreshadowing of the conflict between public obligations on the one hand and the merry peaceful life on the other - which divides, essentially, Moore from Hythladay. Moore by engaging in this work - by agreeing to write it - is engaging the audience and doing exactly what Hythladay would not do. Hythladay refuses to lend his talent and expertise to the public good, all because he says he doesn't want to compromise his values.
If Moore has already inspired the alert reader to question the reliability and integrity of the figure of Hythladay and he does this if he does it at all ironically with excessive praise yet manages not to sound insincere. He has already prior to that raised doubts about Hythladay, Rafael Hythladay. Rafael means messenger of God. Hythladay however, comes from a Latin compound, which means, 'well learned in nonsense'. Now, Moore has said of himself, I am still of two minds. But this apparent conflict in Moore's own personality (it's very minor, it's just a phrase) this pales into insignificance in comparison with Hythladay who is single minded, but it seems duplicitous. He's single minded in the sense that he is driven as an idealist but he is rather deceitful as we'll see. And his name tells us that he is divided, messenger of God yet well learned in nonsense, a contradiction in his name reveals his contradiction in temperament. This idea is advanced early in Book One. When Peter Jiles says that Hythladay is a traveller of the world. Peter Jiles says that he is sought of like Ulysses (Odysseus) or Plato (in the sense of travelling). Odysseus is the man of twists and turns, the artful dodger and manipulator, he is a great liar.
Hythladay comes back and describes Utopia - which is off the map - just like Ulysses did. Hythladay's integrity is probed even further by Moore the author. For Hythladay claims in fact to have travelled on Vespuci's fourth voyage (florentine explorer to the Americas, norton anthology page 525 in the note) Now Moore's readers would have recognised that is was impossible that Hythladay sailed and travelled on Vespuci's fourth voyage - the reason because is that there was no fourth voyage - it was a publishers lie to sell more books - so Moore's readers realise that this is another moment where Hythladay is exposed as being unreliable. At the very least we must acknowledge a discrepancy of the views of Hythladay and those of Moore, both the author and the character. The Socratic or platonic dialogue makes sense only whe the reader understands the nature of each interlocutor.
So these seemingly minor details that reveal nonetheless extraordinary things about these characters must be paid attention to.
Moore's work is the first utopian text in the Western Canon since The Republic. So it converses with this work usually indirectly. Plato engages with a series of issues in The Republic. The dialogue form that Plato uses is not simply an exchanging of ideas with no form or motive. They are trying to arrive at the truth - in the case of The Republic - they are trying to come to a definition of justice. Plato asks questions so as to bring his interlocutor to the truth and this is the role that Moore plays in the Utopia.
Augustine's work - City of God - influenced Moore. Augustine cautions against a belief of perfectability in this life and therefore the possibility of arriving at a heaven on Earth, a Utopia. There is a fruitful tension then because man should work towards a just society based on the fruits of the Gospel. So on one hand we must acknowledge that man cannot build a perfect society, but on the other hand man must always strive and work for a more just and equitable society.
But nonetheless there is a tension there. We need to recognise what all totalitarian regimes fail to recognise - that mankind can not be hammered or made to fit into a mould at the expense of his freedom - and in fact the great irony, the tragic irony, exemplified in the 20th century by these states, who believed that they could create heaven on earth, actually created hell on earth.
In Book One Moore immediately grounds the work in a contemporary time. Hythladay targets Moore in saying that the philosopher should not be involved in public affairs. Hythladay describes two situations: Poverty, and being spoiled.
He explains that if he advised a King, the King would not listen. If he gave advice that was not easy to take, he would be hated. Hythladay concludes that there is no place for philosophy in the council of kings.
Moore responds: Yes there is, but not for this school philosophy that supposes that every topic is suitable for every situation. He is saying that you have to choose the right moment, the appropriate time and place, to make your point. You don't just walk in and start lecturing the king. You have to do your job subtly, you have to use diplomacy to advance your ideas.
Hythloday responds that the position Moore holds is a justification for telling lies.
Rudaf's approach is essentially psychological: Hythladay is only interested in his peace and quiet. He tries to give us a credible excuse to live a life without duties. What he actually fails to realise, or more likely, actually wishes for, is a calypsoic oblivion. An oblivion to the responsibilities that people face in society.
A Utopia is a state of absolute uniformity.
lit201 - st thomas moore - utopia
Lit201 - Lect1 - Week 6
St Thomas Moore - steely resolve, family man, a devoted husband, who had lived for four years as a labourer in a Carthusian charter house (a strict monastic boarding house).
He was a scathing critic of corruption - he was none the less a zealous defender of the rights of monarchies and of the Church. Beneath the splendour of his garments, as lord chancellor, he wore a hair shirt. A zealous defender of the Catholic faith, he condemned people to death for publicly opposing and undermining the faith. The old uncompromising faith and the new humanism, this presented cross roads.
His life and his death are well known to Catholics at least, although the play 'a man for all seasons' went some of the way to passing the story into popular imagination. Moore was, and is, a figure of difficulty. I once heard a story from someone I knew who went to the Tower of London, and taking one of the tours in the tower, he was appalled to hear the tour guide as a religious nutter and extremist who died for some bizarre and minor principle, and this view has equal currency for certain none Catholics as the opposite view does for Catholics. For many people in the modern world the idea of dying for a principle when the alternative is the life of comfort, prosperity and favour must seem strange. The idea that people are willing to give their lives over theological, seemingly, minor details, is something that the western world has chosen not to understand. And now, ignores the threat of radical Islam through it's physical and moral ruin. It is easier to dismiss such extreme examples rather than to see that they relate to our own destinies temporal and physical in a most interesting way. Moore was in most respects a renaissance man, an enlightened man. The idea goes is that the 'enlightened' man doesn't die for theological truths, because every 'enlightened' has his own truths, and if one is happy than there is no problem.
The reformation, the fatigue that would eventually follow it, these things ushered in the modern age. And Moore stands, and his example stands, as both a foreshadowing of that modern age and a example of the very conflict that helped usher it in.
Utopia not only reflects this it goes beyond it in its eerily prophetic and subtle description of the utopia, or ideal state, which comes at the considerable cost of human freedom. The key interlocutor, Hithladay, with his propensity to absolutism, extremisn and misanthropy, could well be an accurate sketch of modern man dislocated from his community, who when pushed to extremes responds extremely.
We must understand the text's form as a dialogue. (It is like the republic, being the seminal work of its kind, the original work of the genre) We need to understand that not only the dialogue form, but the use of character to advance complexities of meaning and motivation, we need to understand its function as a social commentary of Moore's times, we need to understand it as a psychological critique of the dangers of the mindset that is opposed to the realist mindset. And we need to explore the use of satire, irony, wordplay and humour to explore the completing claims of personal and social responsibility and the philosophical withdrawal or the political action. What is the role of the philosopher? What should be the limits of the state as an individual? These are some of the questions that Moore asks us. A critique states that Moore's Utopia stands along side Shakespeare's Hamlet as a piece that caused so many people to come to expert conclusions and to oppose one another. We should not divide the man for all seasons into several men for all seasons, in other word we need to come to some conclusions, is it straight forward or ironic, literal or satirical, and we need to include this conclusion with the tradition of learning he assumes his learning contemporaries were conversent with (for example he wrote in Latin), and we must understand the literary devices, etc etc.
We need to bear in mind that Moore is assuming that his readers are intelligent enough to understand the depth of his work.
Solving the riddle - Rafael Hithladay - Is Moore himself, proposing through his character Hithladay, a state such as the one described in his work, or whether he is satirising his character, Hithladay or rather the mindset that is characterised in Hithladay, the mindset that generates such schemes.
There is no census on Moore himself, regarded by some as a Saint, by others as a lunatic. Just as there is no consensus on Moore himself there is no sense on his work as well. Whether all or part of his work should be taken seriously.
A monument of Moore is erected in Soviet Russia and soon after the Euthanasia society of America elects him as the main proponent of their cause.
"An attempt to resolve the contradictions of his own divided impulses."
One of the first approaches to this text involves the idea that Moore himself does not hold a particular position, but rather he simply presents the opposing views without giving any indication of his own views. He puts forward competing positions.
Rafael Hythladay is simple straightforward interlocutor and we should just take what he says at face value.
"The fiction Moore creates of himself arises from Moore's sense of alienation, his haunting ambivalence and his perpetual self estrangement all of which have their roots in shame and guilt. It seems to be an example of 16th century Nihilism."
Moore himself was emotionally divided and these divisions make an impact on the work.
1. Moore holds no opinion. Simply expresses opposing views.
2. Hythladay is just a straight forward character.
3. The work expresses the contradictions and anxieties in the author's own nature.
4. What we see in Utopia are two ways of life dramatised and in conflict with each other. And these two ways are represented by Hythladay and Moore. Moore the character is making a case for the civic minded approach to public life and that he is deeply suspicious of Hythladay and his utopia.
Hythladay puts forward this Utopia as an ideal state - Moore is critical of aspects of the utopia and the mindset that generates it.
3 main characters in the work - Moore - Peter Jiles and Rafael Hythladay - Hythladay dominates the work in keeping with his temperament, his personality. It is Hythladay who proposes the Utopia, the ideal state.
Book One describes how Moore, on a business trip to Antwerp, met Peter Jiles, a humanist scholar, who in turn introduced him to Rafael Hythladay. Now, when we read this it has all the air of historical realism or being an accurate account of events that really took place and the readers of the work would have inclined to this understanding because Moore the character did what Moore the author did, represented the King on business. A discussion ensues in which Hythladay and the other characters, principally Moore, debate the state of the world and the benefits or the importance to serve in politics and public life, or should someone withdraw from the world. This is the nature of the debate and reflects the current social and political climate. By the end of this discussion it is clear that Moore and Hythladay a philosophically poles apart, Hythladay refers to a race of people who are called the Utopians.
It's significant that the introduction of the Utopians comes about at the point of the conversation where Hythladay and Moore disagree completely about the role of the intellectual in public life. It is at this point that Hythladay introduces the Utopia. This seems very simple, in book Two, that Hythladay describes the ideal state, its law its customs, how marriage is conducted, how war is conducted how society is organised. It all seems, the way it proceeds, is very straightfoward (in the tradition of Plato's republic) just as there are many meanings in Plato's republic it is the same here.
Book Two focuses on the Utopians, founded by Utopis.
one clue for us in interpreting whether Moore is serious of sarcastic in his work - is the title -
R.S Sylvester has said that the work concerns the best state of a common wealth and the island called Utopia - one is not necessarily the same as the other - Utopia is not necessarily the best state of a commonwealth. In other words Utopia, the place in the book, need not be seen as synonymous as the best state of a commonwealth.
St Thomas Moore - steely resolve, family man, a devoted husband, who had lived for four years as a labourer in a Carthusian charter house (a strict monastic boarding house).
He was a scathing critic of corruption - he was none the less a zealous defender of the rights of monarchies and of the Church. Beneath the splendour of his garments, as lord chancellor, he wore a hair shirt. A zealous defender of the Catholic faith, he condemned people to death for publicly opposing and undermining the faith. The old uncompromising faith and the new humanism, this presented cross roads.
His life and his death are well known to Catholics at least, although the play 'a man for all seasons' went some of the way to passing the story into popular imagination. Moore was, and is, a figure of difficulty. I once heard a story from someone I knew who went to the Tower of London, and taking one of the tours in the tower, he was appalled to hear the tour guide as a religious nutter and extremist who died for some bizarre and minor principle, and this view has equal currency for certain none Catholics as the opposite view does for Catholics. For many people in the modern world the idea of dying for a principle when the alternative is the life of comfort, prosperity and favour must seem strange. The idea that people are willing to give their lives over theological, seemingly, minor details, is something that the western world has chosen not to understand. And now, ignores the threat of radical Islam through it's physical and moral ruin. It is easier to dismiss such extreme examples rather than to see that they relate to our own destinies temporal and physical in a most interesting way. Moore was in most respects a renaissance man, an enlightened man. The idea goes is that the 'enlightened' man doesn't die for theological truths, because every 'enlightened' has his own truths, and if one is happy than there is no problem.
The reformation, the fatigue that would eventually follow it, these things ushered in the modern age. And Moore stands, and his example stands, as both a foreshadowing of that modern age and a example of the very conflict that helped usher it in.
Utopia not only reflects this it goes beyond it in its eerily prophetic and subtle description of the utopia, or ideal state, which comes at the considerable cost of human freedom. The key interlocutor, Hithladay, with his propensity to absolutism, extremisn and misanthropy, could well be an accurate sketch of modern man dislocated from his community, who when pushed to extremes responds extremely.
We must understand the text's form as a dialogue. (It is like the republic, being the seminal work of its kind, the original work of the genre) We need to understand that not only the dialogue form, but the use of character to advance complexities of meaning and motivation, we need to understand its function as a social commentary of Moore's times, we need to understand it as a psychological critique of the dangers of the mindset that is opposed to the realist mindset. And we need to explore the use of satire, irony, wordplay and humour to explore the completing claims of personal and social responsibility and the philosophical withdrawal or the political action. What is the role of the philosopher? What should be the limits of the state as an individual? These are some of the questions that Moore asks us. A critique states that Moore's Utopia stands along side Shakespeare's Hamlet as a piece that caused so many people to come to expert conclusions and to oppose one another. We should not divide the man for all seasons into several men for all seasons, in other word we need to come to some conclusions, is it straight forward or ironic, literal or satirical, and we need to include this conclusion with the tradition of learning he assumes his learning contemporaries were conversent with (for example he wrote in Latin), and we must understand the literary devices, etc etc.
We need to bear in mind that Moore is assuming that his readers are intelligent enough to understand the depth of his work.
Solving the riddle - Rafael Hithladay - Is Moore himself, proposing through his character Hithladay, a state such as the one described in his work, or whether he is satirising his character, Hithladay or rather the mindset that is characterised in Hithladay, the mindset that generates such schemes.
There is no census on Moore himself, regarded by some as a Saint, by others as a lunatic. Just as there is no consensus on Moore himself there is no sense on his work as well. Whether all or part of his work should be taken seriously.
A monument of Moore is erected in Soviet Russia and soon after the Euthanasia society of America elects him as the main proponent of their cause.
"An attempt to resolve the contradictions of his own divided impulses."
One of the first approaches to this text involves the idea that Moore himself does not hold a particular position, but rather he simply presents the opposing views without giving any indication of his own views. He puts forward competing positions.
Rafael Hythladay is simple straightforward interlocutor and we should just take what he says at face value.
"The fiction Moore creates of himself arises from Moore's sense of alienation, his haunting ambivalence and his perpetual self estrangement all of which have their roots in shame and guilt. It seems to be an example of 16th century Nihilism."
Moore himself was emotionally divided and these divisions make an impact on the work.
1. Moore holds no opinion. Simply expresses opposing views.
2. Hythladay is just a straight forward character.
3. The work expresses the contradictions and anxieties in the author's own nature.
4. What we see in Utopia are two ways of life dramatised and in conflict with each other. And these two ways are represented by Hythladay and Moore. Moore the character is making a case for the civic minded approach to public life and that he is deeply suspicious of Hythladay and his utopia.
Hythladay puts forward this Utopia as an ideal state - Moore is critical of aspects of the utopia and the mindset that generates it.
3 main characters in the work - Moore - Peter Jiles and Rafael Hythladay - Hythladay dominates the work in keeping with his temperament, his personality. It is Hythladay who proposes the Utopia, the ideal state.
Book One describes how Moore, on a business trip to Antwerp, met Peter Jiles, a humanist scholar, who in turn introduced him to Rafael Hythladay. Now, when we read this it has all the air of historical realism or being an accurate account of events that really took place and the readers of the work would have inclined to this understanding because Moore the character did what Moore the author did, represented the King on business. A discussion ensues in which Hythladay and the other characters, principally Moore, debate the state of the world and the benefits or the importance to serve in politics and public life, or should someone withdraw from the world. This is the nature of the debate and reflects the current social and political climate. By the end of this discussion it is clear that Moore and Hythladay a philosophically poles apart, Hythladay refers to a race of people who are called the Utopians.
It's significant that the introduction of the Utopians comes about at the point of the conversation where Hythladay and Moore disagree completely about the role of the intellectual in public life. It is at this point that Hythladay introduces the Utopia. This seems very simple, in book Two, that Hythladay describes the ideal state, its law its customs, how marriage is conducted, how war is conducted how society is organised. It all seems, the way it proceeds, is very straightfoward (in the tradition of Plato's republic) just as there are many meanings in Plato's republic it is the same here.
Book Two focuses on the Utopians, founded by Utopis.
one clue for us in interpreting whether Moore is serious of sarcastic in his work - is the title -
R.S Sylvester has said that the work concerns the best state of a common wealth and the island called Utopia - one is not necessarily the same as the other - Utopia is not necessarily the best state of a commonwealth. In other words Utopia, the place in the book, need not be seen as synonymous as the best state of a commonwealth.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
the201 - baptism -
Jesus' baptism was significant - he is truly man - however it was not necessary.
Anybody can baptise in cases of necessary event those who are not baptised.
Didache, 7:1-4
"Baptize in running water, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head, three times." (Early 2nd Century)
Anybody can baptise in cases of necessary event those who are not baptised.
Didache, 7:1-4
"Baptize in running water, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head, three times." (Early 2nd Century)
phi201 - lect 1 - week 6 - Foreknowledge and Freedom
wk 4 is being cut up - week 5 is pertinent to now - scotus and aquinas are not that important - boethius is very important.
Look at Boetihus' Consolation of Philosophy - Book II (adelaide ebooks)
after that if you like, look at Aquinas and Scotus readings under "Wk5" on syllabus.
1. IF God knows I'll do x
then it is [necessarily the case that I will do x]
2. If it is necessarily the case that I will do x
then it is impossible for me not to do x
then it is impossible for me to not do x
3. if [it is impossible for me not to do x] then
[my doing x will not be free]
St. Augustine sees this sort of argument as illegitimately assuming that God's present foreknowledge of your future acts causes these acts, forces them to occur be causal influence. If God's foreknowledge were causing you to choose nachos tomorrow, then that act would not be free. But, says St. Augustine, that isn't what's happening. Your future act causes God's present foreknowledge, so there is no problem. Not so fast, says Boethius. This argument says nothing about your act's being caused by God's foreknowledge. All it says if that God does foreknow than your act is fixed. God's foreknowledge could, for all the argument says, be a sign of your future acts being fixed. All the argument talks about is necessity not causation. Isn't there some sense in which premise 1 is true? In order to discuss this questions we need to look at a logical distinction that Boethius makes. It is now a standard distinction, but he was one of the first to make it.
Conditional and Simple NEcessity
One response to the intuitive truth of premise is to point out that it is ambiguous. There is one sense in which it is clearly true, but can't be used as the basis for the rest of the argument. So that is an irrelevant sense. IT is common to say that the other sense if clearly one with respect to which premise 1 is false. Boethius agrees with that, but thinks its falsity is not as obvious as some others would hav eit.
What is the distinction?
Consider example A. Two ways of taking it: A1 and A2.
They don't mean the same.
A1 - conditional necessity - necessity of the consequence
This says that in every world, the statement "if john is walking then he is walking" is true.
A2 - involves simple necessity (necessity of the consequent) - clearly false
This says that if John is walking in actual world, then in every world (actual or not) he is walking.
Example A is of the form "if P then necessarily P" This can be read as [] (p -> P) conditional necessity
p_.[]P Simple necessity
"[]" means "it is necessarily the case that...
Here we have the same statement twice, as antecedent and as consequent of the conditional. p>P
The distinction also applies when we have different statements in those roles.
e.g Example B. of the form if P then necessarily Q"
same distinction applies:
b1 [](p->q) correct
b2 p->[]Q false
Look at Boetihus' Consolation of Philosophy - Book II (adelaide ebooks)
after that if you like, look at Aquinas and Scotus readings under "Wk5" on syllabus.
1. IF God knows I'll do x
then it is [necessarily the case that I will do x]
2. If it is necessarily the case that I will do x
then it is impossible for me not to do x
then it is impossible for me to not do x
3. if [it is impossible for me not to do x] then
[my doing x will not be free]
St. Augustine sees this sort of argument as illegitimately assuming that God's present foreknowledge of your future acts causes these acts, forces them to occur be causal influence. If God's foreknowledge were causing you to choose nachos tomorrow, then that act would not be free. But, says St. Augustine, that isn't what's happening. Your future act causes God's present foreknowledge, so there is no problem. Not so fast, says Boethius. This argument says nothing about your act's being caused by God's foreknowledge. All it says if that God does foreknow than your act is fixed. God's foreknowledge could, for all the argument says, be a sign of your future acts being fixed. All the argument talks about is necessity not causation. Isn't there some sense in which premise 1 is true? In order to discuss this questions we need to look at a logical distinction that Boethius makes. It is now a standard distinction, but he was one of the first to make it.
Conditional and Simple NEcessity
One response to the intuitive truth of premise is to point out that it is ambiguous. There is one sense in which it is clearly true, but can't be used as the basis for the rest of the argument. So that is an irrelevant sense. IT is common to say that the other sense if clearly one with respect to which premise 1 is false. Boethius agrees with that, but thinks its falsity is not as obvious as some others would hav eit.
What is the distinction?
Consider example A. Two ways of taking it: A1 and A2.
They don't mean the same.
A1 - conditional necessity - necessity of the consequence
This says that in every world, the statement "if john is walking then he is walking" is true.
A2 - involves simple necessity (necessity of the consequent) - clearly false
This says that if John is walking in actual world, then in every world (actual or not) he is walking.
Example A is of the form "if P then necessarily P" This can be read as [] (p -> P) conditional necessity
p_.[]P Simple necessity
"[]" means "it is necessarily the case that...
Here we have the same statement twice, as antecedent and as consequent of the conditional. p>P
The distinction also applies when we have different statements in those roles.
e.g Example B. of the form if P then necessarily Q"
same distinction applies:
b1 [](p->q) correct
b2 p->[]Q false
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
