Archive for ‘Pre-Renaissance (Part I)’

The definition of happiness by  

Epicurus: "Happiness is man's greatest aim in life. Tranquility and rationality are the cornerstones of happiness."

 Are we all looking to find happiness? We all like to be happy.  We like when others make us feel happy and I would like to assume that we too like to makes others happy.  Helen Keller describe happiness: "True happiness is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." Bette Davis  states: "You will never be happier than you expect. To change your happiness, change your expectation."  Musicians are by no means the "scholars" of modern time nor do the speak for everyone but I believe many if not all songs speak truth about life.  Happiness is a common reoccurring theme in all genres of music.  Sometimes the pursuit of happiness is seen as a bad thing that makes us do selfish things but others see it as the reason to do good. Some of the songs that first come to mind are:

Saves The Day- Obsolete
"Who says what happy really means?

Because in that state of mind there is no state of self"

The Weepies- Happiness

Last week in my Intro to Philosophy class my professor brought up a topic we have been discussing a lot as of late: Plato’s allegory of the cave. After a brief description of the allegory, he opened up the class for discussion/debate on our interpretations of what it meant and how the allegory applied to us. The first twenty minutes heard many detailed theories about God being the sun and the cave being sin — more or less everyone saying the exact same thing. After everyone had had their say, my professor told us to imagine for a second that our interpretation of the cave was completely wrong. He asked us to try and imagine that God, instead of being the sun outside of the cave, was actually nothing more than a shadow on the inside wall of the cave. At first, I was completely unable to comprehend what that would mean concerning my life. I had a silent panic attack as I quietly pondered the meaning of life without God. If my view of God was really just a shadow on the wall of the cave, what then would be considered the sun? This led into questions like, “Is life just an infinite cycle of caves that we are forever trying to escape?” or “Can we ever truly realize absolute truth?” etc. My professor later explained that was not his personal belief about the allegory, but only an exercise to challenge our beliefs about truth.

Anyways, it was by far the most mind-blowing class I have ever had and it definitely brought to question a lot of things that I had previously deemed as immutable. Although it was very uncomfortable to view reality from a completely different perspective, in the end, it made me realize a lot more about both myself and my faith.

<span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial”>Ever since my senior year of high school, I always thought I was
somewhat of a Hedonist, but last Wed. in class, a differentiation of Hedonism
and Epicureanism was made in passing. Epicureanism is not something I had ever
been informed about before and I always knew that there was something that
didn't quite fit within the description of Hedonism, so it was somewhat of a
revelation of identity to have that put forward. Epicureanism holds that joy in
moderation should be the ultimate goal of life, and I absolutely agree. God
created us and placed us here that we might live life to the fullest. It is an
innate property of humanity to seek out pleasurable experiences and eliminate
the unpleasant ones. The refined nature of Epicureanism in stating that it need
be in moderation however is the true selling point in my mind. Hedonism is more
of an uninhibited gluttony of pleasure, while Epicureanism is a calculated
indulgence where practical. This difference seems to be more of a safeguard
than an actual ideological shift. If the sole focus of an individual is the
attainment of pleasure, then that same individual is blind to the dangers and
requirements of life around him to continue simply to exist, let alone enjoy life.
Ultimately to me, Epicureanism would seem to be more of a canopy theory that is
behind all others, and is not particularly any profound revelation, just a very
adequate statement of what so many people believe and strive for on their own.

And isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are (Plato, Republic).  Our reality, or our truth, is what our environment, and the constituents therein, presents to us as reality and truth. As a fetus our reality and our truth is the uterus: the fluid filled bubble that is our home for some nine-months. Sounds are muffled, light is barely perceived, and the world is inches wide. When born the world becomes bigger and we are no longer encased and held captive in a bubble, but, eyes shut and crying, have we escaped the limited reality of our former home? I would argue that we have not escaped a limited reality and I think that Thomas Kuhn and Plato agree with me.

Kuhn is famous for the idea of paradigms or “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by members of a given community”(quoted on page 10 of our text). My understanding and definition of paradigms is a universal boxed in way of thinking that incases all individuals in a community and limits their reality and their ability to discover truth. Kuhn’s paradigms can be directly paralleled to my literature class in which we have been studying paradigms. In this class, I have learned that history is marked with different paradigms that box in the inhabitants of that time period. Without exception the paradigms of large communities deal, to some extent, with the mystical or the rational. For example, in the 14th century the paradigm was virtually all on the mystical side of the scale. If you were born blind it was because you sinned somehow: a mystical explanation for a biological malady. Paradigms are not incapable of change, however, or the box does not always remain the same shape. When a considerable amount of negative events occur the paradigm no longer works, the box no longer fits, so it changes. Continuing with the example of the 14th century, the 14th century was filled with negative events: two of the major ones being the 100 Years War between France and England and the Black Death. These events brought the mystical paradigm into question. For instance, it did not make sense that Priests, who were supposed to be holy, at most churches had to be replaced weekly because they were dying so rapidly from the Black Death. Beating after beating of the mystical paradigm box caused it to change shape and the paradigm became extremely rational in the 18th century. In modern time our paradigm is found somewhere in the middle of the mystical and rational. After hurricane Katrina or the earth quake in Haiti, for example, both paradigms explanations could be seen (see the attached links). The point is that, like it or not, we are incased in a paradigm box that we think and function inside.

Plato, similar to Kuhn’s belief that communities and scientists function within the paradigm of their time, illustrated his believe that we live in a limited reality through the allegory of the cave. A man is chained in a cave, he is incapable of moving his head, he experiences only the shadows on the wall, and he is captive to that reality. Then he is “…let loose, and suddenly compelled to stand up and turn his head and look…” (Plato, 380BC). Once the man is loosed and he “looks” his reality is drastically changed and, in effect, his paradigm changed or his way of seeing the world changed.
In light of Kuhn’s paradigms and Plato’s cave, I am worried that perhaps (unless we experience another Black Death) it is hopeless to see reality and truth. Indeed, it would be nice if we could all be “let loose” from the paradigm box, or cave, that is our home and venture to see reality and truth. As Christians, however, we profess confidently that we know the truth. Keeping with the allegory of the cave, however, we believe that we did not venture out of our cave to discover the truth. But the truth came into the cave and revealed itself to us in the form of Jesus Christ: who proclaims himself to be “the truth” (John 14:6). Therefore, we do know the truth if we know Jesus and we do know the reality that is His kingdom, but, knowing this, let us still be conscious of the fact that we live in the world which puts us in a box and it is only when we have left this world that “…[we] shall see fully…” and we will be free of the box (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Video: Mystical Paradigm Explanation of Haiti Earthquake

Video:Rational Paradigm Explanation of Haiti Earthquake

At first glance I didn’t realize how true Plato’s outlook on the cave philosophy really was and still is to this day. Plato makes a valid and very persuading point that society, as a whole, is very comfortable with where they are in their lives.

One thing that I started to think about was the different areas of life this cave metaphor could be used. People of today’s world are now being controlled by family, friends, movies, magazines, entertainment in general! We are too worried about what others think and have it crammed into our heads so much that we start to think those insane beliefs are our beliefs.

I believe we all have our own little caves we have been trapped in since we have been born. The Matrix is a perfect example of how controlling our world can be if we allow it. The idea of everyone being robots that are being controlled to make every move is a little over the top, but this idea of not having control of your own actions is not too far from the truth about how our society is run today.

Last year I was the only person in a Bible study in my dorm who was
not Church of Christ. I realized that a lot of the freshman were quick
to jump on the bandwagon and were like people in the cave. My views
were still Christian but a little different and when I challenge their
beliefs their were quick to say I was wrong. I felt their views were
distorted because they were only looking at the situation from their
side and not trying to understand what someone else may think. Some of the girls in the Bible study were really offended and tried to say that I obviously was not Christian just because I questioned how they were saying you should treat people who do not believe in Christ. They claimed to believe that the best way to teach people about Christianity is to go build churches and take them to them. I was trying to argue that the best way is to live the way the Bible teaches us and then people will be more interested in what you try to tell them. I have been to countries where Christianity is not the main religion, and people think that their religion is best. If we try to go tell them that they are wrong in their beliefs and that our views are right, then they are going to think that we are trying to be disrespectful to them. This is like when someone challenges a person in the cave and they refuse to believe what they have not seen.
Stephanie Bell

The Allegory of the Cave is a hot topic right now and while I did not want to jump on the Plato bandwagon for this, I do want to talk about the importance of the many meanings of this tale, but more importantly to truth of how to rise to new truths. He teaches that once you see the truth, you cannot go back, this is a true concept in any situation. However, my focus is on what it takes to be the person to break away and what it will take to make it heard. The man was freed and saw the world for what it truly was, no longer accepting the overall truths and laws from inside the cave, and from that had his eyes, “opened,” to what his world really had to offer. However, when he brought it back to his comrades, they were very aggressive in their position on their world, all of the just knowing that they are right and that this one man is lying. On this topic,

we would have to reference Socrates in an interesting conversation he had with a top student of one of his friends and fellow teachers. I have been searching, but cannot find it (thanks Google, real help there), however if you ever get a chance to take philosophy with Randy Harris, you will most certainly talk about Socrates own thoughts and talk about what it means to know something. In it, he pointed out that everyone has his or her own perception of the world, so knowledge must pass through this perception. In a more direct statement he says that upon first perceiving something we make our own judgments that, to ourselves at that moment, are right. In basic view, we all have our own perceptions and our perceptions are personally right until shown otherwise. I think this is very relevant to understanding both sides of this argument, and to answer the question of, “Why didn’t they just turn around and at least try?”

Moving on, he tries so hard to push this topic, to show his friends that there is something more than shadows and shackles, and that all they need to do is look around them and see. This is still met with much resistance, and goes as far as ending with the statement that the others within the cave would have torn him limb from limb if they were not shackled.

This is a very powerful statement to me, in two ways: one, it shows what you face when you decide to seek higher, or more, knowledge then what society has to give and two, what you must do in order to share that with the world, and the trials. First, what you will face is isolation, at least at first, from the society. You will be kept at a distance and will be constantly bombarded with negative comments either to self or to your ideal. Sadly to me, this makes sense. Essentially, from the establishment of perception in knowledge given earlier, when you present a new idea or outlook on something, you are invading a person’s “world” of perception and trying to change what they see and what they’ve set as their personal truths and answers. The more drastic the idea, the more resistance will be, and proof will be needed to be, presented. Thinking back to different figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. whose ideals greatly rivaled to overall thinking and views of society, believing in equality, had him to receive much pain and discrimination, as far as being sent to prison for trying to have a voice in these times. By trying to change a world, he accepted many different negative actions towards him, even leading to his assassination. However, and also leading to my second point, he still did it and accepted everything in order to change a world. You MUST be willing to accept all pain and suffering in order to change a world, and it will in most cases be initially a lonely pain. However, in order to provoke any change of either action or thought you must be willing to fight through opposition and continue to show what you find or what you believe to be true in order for any different truth to be realized. This is shown in the story by the statement that if he were closer to them they would kill him. I know it said that if they were not shackled they would, but I feel it goes both ways; the enlightened man could not advance for fear of pain and maiming. However, it still leaves the lesson that in order to make someone see you must break them free of their restraints, which will be a dangerous task because people are not too accepting of those trying to change their world. It is necessary to be able to accept this fact, and to press onward regardless of what may happen in order to change views and lives.

I apologize for the long post, it was just a lot that needed to be said, and I am more than interested to hear what others think on this.

I’m going to post on the most popular discussions on the blog for this unit: Plato and his allegory of the Cave. This allegory resonates deeply with me because of what I believe in. Even though I agree with living in the world we have and acting the way we act, I feel that Christianity is based on the idea of Truth beyond the physical world. I love C.S. Lewis, and even though I brought him up in class I want to quote him again. In The Last Battle, after the destruction Narnia as they knew it, the main characters are standing around talking about the new place they are seeing. One of them, a professor, brings in Plato almost exactly, saying that the Narnia they had come from “ was not the real Narnia. That had a beginning and an end. It was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia which has always been here and always will be here: just as our own world, England and all is only a shadow or copy of something in Aslan’s real world.” Later the narrator says “the new one was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more.” This idea can be seen in the Great Divorce as well. The narrator talks about getting to Heaven and realizing that the people he came with are transparent and less real than the world there. And to him the whole world is more real and solid than anything he’s ever seen before. But it’s not just Lewis. This idea can be seen in Paul’s writings, too. He talks about putting on the armor of God because of fighting “the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6.12). The heavenly realms are not part of this physical world in which we live, they are something deeper than that. Lastly Paul says in Romans that people “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised” (Romans 1.15). It seems to me that Christianity is founded on the idea of Truth beyond the obvious. The question becomes, how do we find a balance between looking for the Truth and living in the world we have?

If I may, I shall immerse myself within discourse on Plato’s cave allegory as so many others before me. Simply put, Plato wishes for us to reach within ourselves to find the strength to ascend from the fragmented shadows of a hollow reality. In so doing, when we muster the strength to unchain the shackles and choose to explore enlightenment, Plato warns of no return—not physically, but of consciousness. To descend back within the cave would be burdensome on the enlightened mind, and to share this new knowledge with others would risk retribution of a potentially fatal degree.

I hope that brief summary shall suffice; now I will affect ingress into my opinions. Firstly, I desire so much to claim that the enlightenment of which Plato speaks is nigh unattainable to all but a few men. Most of us, in my opinion, may chance upon the strength to be freed of our chains, but fear the final ascent to true enlightenment, satiated by more defined shadows and dull rocks lying close to escape: If I may be so bold as to draw upon scripture, in Mark 10 Jesus encounters a young rich guy, and politely informs the man to abandon all his riches then return to follow Jesus as a disciple in order to achieve treasures in heaven. The man leaves, devastated. He did not want to relinquish his accumulated wealth. The wealth and possessions were a shade of the treasures of heaven, of which Jesus was trying to help the guy acquire. In the cave, the prisoners sit, enthralled with the shades upon the wall. Their disillusionment remains a reality until they muster the strength to be free. Where does this strength arise from?  Within Christianity, Jesus explains in Matthew 7:7 that we may ask and receive, seek and find, etc. I interpret this, in terms of The Cave, to be an invitation to cry out to a divinity for the strength to be free. Plato, though, would argue that the strength is inborn. At first it appears there may be some contention between the two camps of thought, but allow me to build some bridges. In scripture, the early scripture (Genesis), God created man in his image. Now, I reject this to mean a physical image, but rather one of progressive thought. What this means to me, is that God imparted humanity with the ability for creative thought. For Christians, the “body is a temple for the Holy Spirit,” the trinity spirit of God that aids his followers (1 Corinthians 6:19). So, if we are made in God’s image and filled with His Spirit, then we need only look within ourselves to have the strength ascend, right? Thus we have the discipline of solitude.

Now that relation has been drawn between The Cave and Christianity, at least in my own mind, I will, in conclusion, throw Romans 3:23 (“all have sinned and fallen short…”) out to justify the inability of man to attain the true enlightenment of which Plato writes. Then again, the scripture may be referring to an event rather than a condition. A conversation for another time perhaps.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such thing there is no law. Ephesians 5:22-23

When we were discussing Aristotle’s Golden Mean in class my mind immediately wandered to the Fruit of the Spirit. We touched on how early Christians incorporated Greek philosophers thoughts into religion and I think this is an example of where they may have seen a fit. There is such a correlation between what Ephesians says about a Spirit filled life and what Aristotle says a life is lived by the principle of the Golden Mean.

‘Chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility’ versus ‘love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.’

The Greeks put great emphasis on self-control. Aristotle believed that character was revealed by what prevailed- a person’s reason or his appetite to be in excess. This, to me, seems like a Christian struggling to live a Spirit led life while resisting the temptations of Satan (maybe like an “appetite”.) When one becomes prideful they are in excess of the virtue, humility, and thus sinning. The person has let their appetite control them.

I just found this to be an interesting connection worth sharing.