Socrates: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.
– Plato, Euthyphro
In 1933, Mussolini met 93 mothers at the Palazzo Venezia who had produced over 1300 children – an average of 13 each.
The largest vein of gold ever discovered is in Antarctica, but international law prohibits mining on the continent.
It is held that Plato had five wives and a lifelong male companion.
Ants can survive in a microwave: they are small enough to dodge the rays.
The Italian town of Viganella gets no direct sunlight for about seven weeks each winter. In order to solve this problem, in 2006, a computer controlled mirror was installed which is approximately 25 feet by 15 feet. The mirror is controlled such that it reflects sunlight into the town’s main city square during the day time.
See other: Quite Interesting Facts
‘Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher?
I do not apprehend your meaning.
The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal.
What trait?
Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious?
The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognise the truth of your remark.
And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming; your dog is a true philosopher.
Why?
Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance?
Most assuredly.
And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?
They are the same, he replied.’
– Plato, The Republic (Book II)
‘In Greek political and philosophical thought, there seem to be two different ways to look at women. One is epitomized in Plato’s Republic. Plato proposes that the only difference between men and women is biological: “that females bear children while males beget them” and thus women are physically weaker (5.454d). Therefore, women are to participate in the state just as men are. But in emphasizing the similarity to men and their nearly identical roles in the kallipolis [the name Socrates uses for his utopia in Plato’s dialogue The Republic – Ed.], Plato neuters the women guardians. In the kallipolis, the family unit is destroyed because it divides the city. Women, except for “professional” wet nurses, no longer fill the maternal role. On the other hand, less utopian Greek visions of society focus on the differences between men and women. In Herodotus and Thucydides, women serve minor roles if they are present at all. In a few cases, groups of women are shown to be vital to the war effort: Thucydides offers us a picture of women up on the rooftops, pelting invaders with rocks. But they are a faceless mob; there are no strong female heroines. Even less complimentary is a more common role for women: wailing vainly about the doom of their city.
In contrast, in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, a Roman work written in Latin, this action is turned into a positive one: women wail, but their cries have a positive influence over the Roman men. Women are also more than just wailers: they are military heroes like Cloelia, ambassadors like Veturia, and priestesses like the Vestal Virgins. Livy sets out to show how “courage … filled the female sex with … patriotic ardor (2.13).” However, this patriotism manifests itself in a distinctly feminine way. His conception of feminine traits is nothing new. Women are still the emotional sex, the maternal caretakers of families and educators of their children, with a tendency to congregate in groups. However, unlike earlier Greek thinkers who saw these traits as limiting the glory women could achieve, Livy sees these traits working in women’s favor. Women play important roles in the Roman republic; like men, they are war heroes, ambassadors, and priests, or rather priestesses. At the same time, they bring a unique feminine grace to their role and thus are often more successful than the men in performing similar duties. In fact, this communalism is even contagious: in the stories of the Vestal Virgins, Lucretia, and Verginia, the women inspire the men to adopt and act on a typically feminine communal mindset.’
– Abels. K. (2005) Livy: Mothers, Daughters, Sisters, Citizens Yale.edu p. 2-3
Rereading consists of on-going and repeated encounters with a text, guided by a particular task so that segments of the text get revisited and rethought.
“I can’t imagine a man really enjoying a book and reading it only once.” – C.S. Lewis
In fact, rereading is the most effective type of reading, especially of foreign language texts, because it offers learners the opportunity to re-think messages and see features they have not noticed in initial reading. Having said that, there are good reasons for rereading any old text.
When learners read through the whole text two or three times, they will find that their own comprehension of the text improves, especially if their goal is to find how information is presented or arranged in that text—how it is sequenced and weighted. Such assessments help readers take a further analytic step. Readers start identifying ways a text’s structure or semantics can suggest a point of view (positive, negative, dismissive, laudatory, impartial, incomplete, etc.) or an approach typical or atypical for the text’s genre.
“It is a good rule after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between.” – C.S. Lewis
To further argue the case for rereading texts, let’s examine some the arguments involved.
1. It reminds you of the good ideas
Research shows that in just 24 hours people will forget most of what they have read. You might get a lot of good ideas from a book, but it is easy to forget most of them. Rereading a book helps you refresh those ideas in your mind.
2. It helps you notice the ideas you did not notice before
Just as it is easy to forget ideas, it is also easy to have some ideas skip your attention when you first read a book. Rereading the book helps you notice the things you may have missed first time around.
“You could not step twice into the same river.” – Heraclitus of Ephesus, (As quoted in Plato, Cratylus, 402a)
3. It gives you a new perspective
Rereading a book allows you to see everything with fresh eyes. The ideas that did not make sense before could now make sense; and the things that did not matter before could now be connected to your new experience.
4. It helps you apply the ideas
The primary value of reading is the application and not the reading itself. Mere reading could expand your knowledge but application could change your life. By rereading a book, you can see which parts of it you have applied and which parts have not. You can then focus your effort on the parts that need more work.
Socrates (469-399BC) may have had his head in the clouds, and was portrayed in Aristophanes’ comedy as entertaining ideas ranging from the scientifically absurd (“How do you measure a flea’s jump?”) to the socially subversive (“I can teach anyone to win any argument, even if they’re in the wrong”).
This picture is at odds with the main sources of biographical data on Socrates, the writings of his pupils Plato and Xenophon. Both the latter treat him with great respect as a moral questioner and guide, but they say almost nothing of Socrates’ earlier activities.
In fact our first description of Socrates, dating to his thirties, show him as a man of action. He served in a military campaign in northern Greece in 432BC, and during a brutal battle he saved the life of his beloved young friend Alcibiades. Subsequently he never left Athens, and spent his time trying to get his fellow Athenians to examine their own lives and thoughts.
We might speculate that Socrates had toyed with science and politics in his youth, until a life-and-death experience in battle turned him to devoting the remainder of his life to the search for wisdom and truth.
As he wrote nothing himself, our strongest image of Socrates as a philosopher comes from the dialogues of his devoted pupil Plato, whose own pupil Aristotle was tutor of Alexander, prince of Macedon.
See other: Which Greek Legends Were Really True?
This proof, formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), originates from the degrees discovered in things. There is discovered greater and lesser degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, and others – this is no ground-braking statement.
Aquinas argues, there exists something ‘truest’, which, in consequence, is the greatest ‘being’. He then argues, based on the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, that these superlatives – the things that are most true, beautiful, et cetera – are the greatest truths and therefore the greatest beings, as is stated in Metaphysics Book II.
Furthermore, that which is the greatest in its way, is, in another way, the cause of all things belonging to it. Therefore, there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and every perfection whatever. Aquinas calls this ‘God’.
Over 700 years later, there is little credibility left of Aquinas’ proof.
The most prevalent criticism of this argument considers that we do not have to believe in an object of a greater degree in order to believe in an object of a lesser degree. Richard Dawkins, the most (in)famous Atheist thinker of our time, argues that just because we come across a “smelly object”, does not require that we believe in a “preeminently peerless stinker”.
“Something does not necessarily prove something else, let alone something less or more.”
For instance, a fire does not necessitate another hotter fire, nor a cooler one. The hottest fire does not necessitate any other cooler fire (for it could be the only fire in existence and therefore both the hottest and coolest fire, or all fires in existence could have the same temperature). But above all else, if the hottest fire of all fires would indeed exist, it does not necessarily have to be the cause of all smaller fires.
See other: Arguments Concerning God
What did the world’s foremost western philosophers think about art?
Plato (428-348) Beauty as an ideal
What matters is a higher, perfect beauty; a harmony which we do not immediately appear to see. If you want to see a copy of reality, you might as well buy a mirror. We should strive to look for something of a higher nature instead of repeating the things we see.
Aristotle (384-322) Art as an organic unity
Works of art are an organic unity. The work is whole. It is, beginning, middle and ending, in itself complete. Works of art are artistic; that is to say, they express a perceivable harmony. Its elements are organised, and none of its parts can be replaced or removed without it losing its value.
Kant (1724-1804) Pointless purpose
It is important that art conveys a sense of order and harmony. Everything seems to be finely tuned. The internal coherence of the work of art is immensely close nit and complex, as if it was designed to serve a certain purpose. Like the parts of an organism are dependent upon the organism’s will to further exist. The work of art, however, possesses this strong coherence without any purpose whatsoever.
When the work of art has been created, we can see that it is good, but we could not have thought of any parameters or rules of design beforehand. The relations within the composition are only purposeful within itself and create a formal unity of universal beauty in which everything is carefully coordinated.
Hegel (1770-1831) Development of the self by means of estrangement of the self
Art is an absolute necessity. We learn about ourselves by means of the work of art. The artist is irrelevant; however, we can learn from the image which he provides. In doing so, that is, by expressing ourselves through a certain material, we learn more about ourselves. Consequently, the world becomes less and less peculiar.
Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Art as a haven in this heartless world
The work of art is a harmonious and selfless entity, and is heavily contrasted with the reality of human life. Happiness is unthinkable. The work of art is an escape from the chaos of everyday life. The acceptance of this is an ideal and the form it takes is art. In aesthetic bliss we can experience how joyful life should be; because when we behold and enjoy beauty, our soul is calmed and comforted. The work of art releases us from the world in which we live – art stops the wheels of time, she always achieves her purpose.
Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Art as an escape from life
Art reconciles us with life; however, this reconciliation is not perfect. When one gazes at art, one does not gaze at reality. We are allowed to have a haven, but we are not allowed to shy away from living. When one purposefully elevates one’s life, life becomes a work of art. And when life is beautiful, ethics and aesthetics become one. The work of art pleases us in a moment of elation – it makes life seem shorter.
Nietzsche (1844-1900) Life as work of art
Art is for art’s sake, that is, art justifies itself and has the quality of dispensing with a purpose – moral or rational – since only through the aesthetic production can the world be justified.
Art may well be said to be the bridge between Man and the superhuman, the übermensch, the bridge to perfection and eternity. Through art, Man transcends the confines of his own ego and secures oneness with the universe. Clearly, it is established: the role of art as means of self-transcendence.
Wittgenstein (1889-1951) The unsayable and the image
Art is intransitive. Aesthetics cannot be enunciated in a clear linguistic form. The work of art does not tell us anything and requires no further explanation; however, it shows the unsayable, and provides the right perspective.
Heidegger (1889-1976) The disclosure of the concealedness
Art has its place within the idea of the world and reality. Art concerns itself with truth and we should look for what it can show us. This disclosure in the face of concealedness is not a state but an event, it is something that happens. Disclosure also means that focus shifts. And since reality is not a total presence, reality is always more, the work of art shows us concealedness as concealedness.
“How does a body, a nonmental object, come to ‘embody’ or ‘express,’ for our aesthetic imagination, values which it does not literally contain? Why should colours and shapes and patterns, sounds and harmonies and rhythms, come to mean so very much more that they are?”
– Louis Arnauld Reid
Knowledge Guild 