It matters that the homeric society was different from the athenian and to our society; it seems perhaps that this is even representative of the difference between our own past familial structures and our current break up of such a strict system.
I feel like this frame between grid and group makes it so that all societies are either hierarchic and good or not, and bad. It feels like an objection to the ”individualistic” system we have today.
Homeless people are a real example of the Mary Douglas’ Isolated case.
The cult of demeter has a ritual about dying and then finding life again. The notion of being personally intitated into a society here is important, cults and secrets and shit.
Dionysios culture was against the patriarchal order. (Nietzsche shit)
Colleges could accumulate a lot of property throughout history because there was never any inheritance of them, and so they would grow a lot, much like Leuven, until it was ended during the French revolution.
In the homeric tradition, life is passing and ephemeral. In the platonic tradition, we are eternal as long as we think away the ephemeralness of the homeric society hard enough.
To deal with ethics, we have to use ethics.
In the Phaedo, there is the concept that ideas are infinite, and if these are concentrated on enough, Socrates will be able to survive, as he will go to idea heaven. A later problem, is that these ideas are so many, and depend on each other, and are not just on their own, they are depending and therefore in a certain way not self-sufficient. So there must be something that is more pure than the ideas. Something that is on their own, that these ideas have emanated from. This is the problem of the neoplatonists.
What defines personal identity? What defines the meaning of a concept?
The picture that Dante was given of heaven was of the emanation to the One.
What defines one’s own personal identity is something that is entirely independent of itself. The One.
As philosophers we need to understand how the original ideas were.
God is that which is without anything else, and is pure and everlasting. It keeps its identity by itself.
Tautotes, identity in Greek. ”To be itself”. This is a common element in God.
Our identity is shifting and we get lost, God remains in its identity pure. However this God lacks mercy and so on. Very sad. Play despacito.
The One emanates to the intellect and then to the world soul and then to matter and individual souls.
If we want to know what is right or wrong, by finding the idea that is everlasting, I can find in myself, by my connection with a supreme being, what is true. It comes from the soul.
This supports a very strong kind of individualism wherein society is entirely unnecessary. Bad. Or good, sometimes.
Neoplatonism then inspired christianity deeply.
What’s different in this kind of approach to modern philosophy.
What is our identity now? What kind of meaning does a concept bear?
It’s all about networks and frames now a days lol.
We are very vulnerable, we have nothing stable to hang out at.
We are based on negating all that isn’t us.
Aristotle: Ideas or forms correspond with the essences that function in all what exists in this world. All the ideas are purely at work within this world itself. Everything is guided by a principle, which is its form.
Human beings are inspired by their essence, and form.
The notion of substance, the idea that there is something that mirrors what you see.
An essence is on its own, and it is indestructible, and it guides a thing in the way of what it needs to become.
If we follow nature, we do the right thing.
So the Aristotelian approach too is comforting. There is some godly principle in us that makes us who we are, a soul. We have features too of course, but they are accidental, additional.
Nichomachean ethics: not just ethics in the way we perceive it now.
What we need to do is what is of our essence. We are human because we use our rational capacities, and the purest form of thinking, is the purest answer, because we are what we are, inspired by our essence. So contemplation is the utmost expression of what we need to do as human beings. In such an approach, the philosopher sees himself as the most ideal person.
Following nature and God’s laws is a source of ethics.
What is strange about the nichomachean ethics, is that there is a strong awareness of how ethics functions in daily life, in regards to the polis’ praxis.
So the notion of virtue is an interesting approach, the virtues need to be developed in a specific context. The ethical system of virtues don’t matter for Aristotle.
The theology courses in the beginning of 1425, were still the texts they were using in 1797 when the university was closed for a while.
Aristotle thinks that ethics is not for young people.
Ethics is not the supreme end science, it is part of the political science. Where it all ends, is at the well-being of the polis.
If people are busy with specific topics, all these are necessary for the well-being of society, but the well-being of society differs in its common goodness.
If we think about ethics, what kind of society do we want to have?
Can we arrange things in such a way among each other that we can reach a society we all want to live in? By this kind of maxim, we can find our duties, in reaching that kind of goal, by dividing them up among us. Ethics cannot be about which of each action is right and wrong. Ethics is inhernetly tied to the constituting of the polis, not of what I do or do not. I as a person don’t really matter to the whole.
We need to find our happiness in using our intellectual capacities. We need to find our destination, and through this we will feel happy.
For Aristotle nature has already inherent in itself the ability to heal and stimulate itself towards a certain kind of direction, much like natural healing of the world must heal it of capitalism.
Aristotle also believes then that a slave is a slave because it has the essence of a slave. Not all human beings have the same essence, rather certain human beings are cobblers, some are slaves, some are kings.
This shows immediately how tricky and dangerous nature is. You can easily use nature for a lot of horrible conclusions, then.
A virtue is different from a value. A value is something we choose, and which we want to develop. We choose our values and live up to a certain set of principles in that regard.
Whilst a virtue is more related to how we train ourselves. How our character is made in a certain way, how our self-evident behaviour appears in a certain way. It is not just a matter of choosing a value, but we need to train ourselves, by dealing with the body and its desires in a particular way. It is about how you shape your personality in relation with your desires. You need to find the right way to deal with these desires, which cannot be purely done by decision.
So we can train ourselves to be more virtuous by ourselves, without the cognitive element.
A value is on the level of discourse, but the virtue is purely on the level of praxis.
But there can be a sublimation of how we deal with our values in a more responsible or actionable way.
Finding the right middle of a virtue is usually the kind of thing we in that regard want to reach. It is not about putting away all desires however, rather desires are real, and we can handle them and aim them in such a fashion that they become more ethically relevant, but it is not about subjection between the intellect and the desire. It is a kind of cultivation of your desires, so that they are gentle and pleasureable to deal with in themselves. This is good for anyone who is thinking about ethics, no matter the culture.
The influence of this kind of approach has influenced on the entire western tradition.
Eg. the Aristoi: being a gentlemanley person.
Being a virtuous person who develops a certain kind of features in this aristotelian way.
Essentialism is important in the synthesis of Thomas Aquinas.
After Aristotle, there is less an interest in how we need to live together. Rather there is an interest in how one lives on one’s own, without bordering the social, for example in the cynics. How do I need to live?
The cynics followed nature in a very appalling kind of way which related itself purely do them. They didn’t want to bother with the community at all. They just wanted to be wise.
The same is true for the stoic tradition. It is all about finding a way to live for one-self. One is not interested in life outside of one’s own body. They were not interested in living together. But wanted to live according to another kind of nature.
The same is true for the epicureans. They wanted to cultivate one’s own garden, which is happy, but at the same time quite happy, as they cultivate a fine way of dealing with life. It is certainly slightly more, given that one was supposed to share one’s garden, but it is inherently closed. A person who feels happy with their private garden can be a good citizen of course, but if we only want to care for our garden this is problematic.