Mencius

Cami

Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, and now Mencius are all concerned with what is good—no, what is best. How can we be the best people, the best society, the best leaders? But even then, they do not take for granted that everyone understands that there is a “best.” Is this discussion boring, irrelevant, and best left to philosophers and religious extremists? Some on the book discussion forums have told me so. But what is the worth of reading these dense and sometimes tedious ancients if we cannot take this one simple truth from them?

Mencius says, “I, too, wish to follow in the footsteps of the three sages in rectifying the hearts of men, laying heresies to rest, opposing extreme action, and banishing excessive views. I am not fond of disputation. I have no alternative,” and “If a thing has no source, it is like the rain water that collects after a downpour in the seventh and eighth months. It may fill all the gutters, but we can stand and wait for it to dry up.”

We need to be reading those things that have a source—a source in truth, in beauty, in good. Those fluffy reads may be fun, but any good that comes from them may evaporate in minutes. If there is something bad in them, once the fun is gone, all we have left is the sludge at the bottom that sticks around for ages. It is not worth it. I’ll stand up for reading good things, regardless of my unpopularity. I have no alternative.


Janice

I think ancient Chinese philosophy has its mostly good, but some bad points and also some inconsistencies. There is a lot of pride and even though they talk about humility, they seem to be proud of that, too. It was a lot like Plato and Aristotle in that he is trying to show what a perfect government should be like. I also think they are very idealistic. Mencius insists man is fundamentally good, and all he has to do is be his true self. It’s true that man has a potential toward godliness, but as Christians we believe he must change his heart and become a new creature. M. tries to explain man’s tending toward wickedness by saying it’s only because he gets on the wrong path, but then he says over and over that man must be taught to be good or continually “rectify” himself. That’s the main inconsistency. I like how he puts such great responsibility on rulers to be benevolent. Some of it was too deep to try to decipher. There were some great parts that totally applied to our society today, what with all the nonsense about “gay rights.” People should read Mencius.

If only the secular progressives today would read "the ancients! The ancients!" The last line of the book rings tragically true today. "In these circumstances, is there no one to transmit his doctrines? Yes, is there no one to do so?"


Julia

I always like to go back to the writer himself after I read the work. I usually forget the background as I get lost in the writings. Mencius was in the direct line from Confucius, at least philosophically. Teacher and pupil were as important a relationship as father and son. He said his teachings were solely concerned with benevolence and righteousness.

The most interesting and important reason we are studying Mencius is because he is a distant ancestor of our own Revolution. [John Major says that the resemblances between our founding political documents and the collected sayings of an ancient Chinese philosopher are not accidental.] It seems that throughout the history of the world, great thinkers have been touched by the Spirit as they reason and write about innate ethical questions. This desire to philosophize and teach, to decifer life's purpose and the best way to live in society must surely have been inspired by God.

Aristotle

Cami (Politics)

It is interesting to read this during such an influential election. It seems now more than ever a relative morality is pervasive in our country. Proposition 8, abortion laws, socialized medicine and schooling--these kinds of things are all addressed here in Aristotle. And more than that, he warns us against exactly what is happening now. . .

The standard of morality is of most importance because "man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is worst of all." And Aristotle's idea of law and justice is quite refined. . . One of my favorite quotes about money, but which can be applied to politics and everything else, is this: "Of everything which we possess there are two uses. Both belong tothe thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is the proper, and the other the improper or secondary use of it." Again he appeals to the higher good. Sure, you can use anything any way you want, but there is a standard for what is should be used for.

In conclusion, I will allude to the reason Aristotle considered politics to be so important. He talks about the many classes, or different roles played, in every society, and how each of them are important in their own way. We depend on each other and rely on each other and connot survive without each other. Each of these classes are a part of the body of a state. But the government, Aristotle considers to be the soul. It goes to reason that if the soul is corrupted, by not aiming for the greatest good, then the body is soon to follow.


Janice (Ethics)

It's true that he is more difficult to slog through than Plato. I had to skim a lot. But it was worthwhile. He had many of the same concerns as Plato--you can see the influence--but goes into much more detail about relationships and virtues and motives. A lot is repetitive. My instro says these are his notes for various lectures, hence, the rambliness.

In this study of human nature we are exhorted to rise above any base and selfish inclinations. "Our task is to become good men, or achieve the highest human good. That good is happiness . .. It's all quite secular and worldly, but intensely moral. He has some very good arguments supporting his thesis that virtues must be acquired, just as vices are acquired. "So it is a matter of no little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age--it makes a vast difference, or rather all the difference in the world." (92) Another thing he drills into us is how we must arrive at the "mean" of every virtue, for instance, too much patience can be bad, just as not enough patience can be bad. He calls it excess and deficiency in actions and feelings. Everything must be in its proper intensity. "For men are bad in countless ways, and good in only one." (101) But not every feeling or action has a mean, because some are simply depraved, evil in themselves, such as malice, shamelessness and envy, and adultery, theft and murder. These are simply wrong, no matter what.

It's an amazing accumulation of wisdom and understanding. Everyone should know what Aristotle was really about.


Julia (Poetics)

"Contemplation is the highest form of activity." --Aristotle

Poetics is an analysis of Greek tragedy and has enormous influence on literary criticism. His whole approach to life is more earthbound than Plato's, less utopian and more geared to the actual nature and abilities of the ordinary man.

Examining the nature of tragedy, he takes as its prime example Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus. He believed that tragedy deeply affects the spectator by arousing the emotions of fear and pity, and then purifying and cleansing him of these emotions. Aristotle called this process catharsis. When I saw the movie, The Changling recently I had these same kinds of emotions, so now, according to Aristotle, I have experienced catharsis and should be a more whole and better adjusted person.

I don't necessarily agree with Fadiman when he says "Aristotle tells us that education is accompanied by pain. And education in Aristotle himself involves, if not pain, at least difficulty. Unlike his master, Plato, he is charmless."

Plato

Cami

I really, really liked the first ones we read—Apology and Crito. It helped to know from Aristophanes that lawyers were big in the land. It all makes sense—lawyers, politicians, philosophers, sophists—they are all about who can use words the best. And who can trick the public or their opponent into believing (or at least saying) what they believe. But Socrates seemed so different in these first two. I loved when he defended himself against sophistry by stating that the truth needs not embellishment. There IS a true correct opinion. He was a simple speaker, in some sense, and seemed to want to get to the bare truth of the matter at hand. I also loved how he seemed deeply religious, stating that he would obey God rather than man, although he followed the laws of the land (as we see by allowing himself to be killed rather than rescued—if we refuse the laws of the land, all is lost). I wrote at the end of Apology: He sounds like a prophet sentenced to death for preaching repentance. Truth will prevail. Death is not punishment. The Spirit cannot be denied.

Janice

How amazing that Plato (428-348 B.C.) started a school, the Academy, which continued for many centuries. And we still read and teach his ideas. As far as I could make out, I think Plato and his colleagues were trying to figure out things like what truth, virtue, wisdom, common sense, and goodness are, what civilized society should allow, what children should be taught, how to ensure a safe and good society. (Funny how our society doesn't seem to be so concerned with a lot of these things anymore.) They believed in God and gods, in other word, in a higher intelligence than mortal man which was responsible for and interested in their existence, and who they were somewhat accountable to. They also believed in the immortal soul being more valuable than the body, and in an afterlife. I have found it interesting to see what people thought before Christ came and answered a lot of their questions. And it's interesting that a lot of it sounds similar to some scriptures. These were the times, places, and people that were ripe for Christianity.

(addendum--after reading Republic) Let's just say they were "excellent people as far as their lights extend" 334. They really cared about making society a decent place where people could be free and safe to learn and grow. They understood a lot about human nature. They knew how tyrants are produed and what they are made of. They were seeking for truth. They faced reality. They sought to know what made a truly good man, inside and out. They were not "dazzled by the foolish applause of the world" 317. Like I always say, everyone should read it.


Julia

Socrates' goal was to teach young men to think clearly and act reasonably. he was accused of introducing new gods and currupting the youth. He is known for his adherence to his convictions and his fearlessness of consequences. The philosophy of his dialogues has remained for over 2000 years one of the greatest intellectual influences of the western world--amirable for literature as well as philosophy. He was more than 70 years old when he appeared in court. "I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places I am always fastening on you, arousing and persuading and re-provoking you." He said that the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten him into doing wrong (when he was a senator) "but I went quietly home." Was he referring to going to his Final Home? He said that he would never cease teaching philosophy about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul.

Finishing Aristotle

Ok, so we've decided to split up Aristotle so as to get it done.

Julia will be reading Poetics.

Janice will be reading Ethics.

Cami will be reading Politics.

We are setting a deadline. Be done by the end of October. That is all.

Aristophanes

Cami

Well, well. I have just finished Aristophanes. Man, I thought the FIRST one (The Clouds) was full of all sorts of crude and surprising humor! Little did I know what would be in store for me by Lysistrata!

Speaking of translation in general. The notes in my edition were very informative. For example, when characters spoke with country bumpkin accents, the notes informed me that this was their modern way of explaining how the Athenians felt about the Spartans—that they were indeed country bumpkins. And some of the puns and jokes were a little too tidy, until the notes explained that they completely changed the lines in order to get the gist of the joke, rather than the literal translation. Because they so thoroughly modernized, it seemed almost TOO much. We were not Greek-ized in return, so we don’t exactly know how to take it.

And so I am done with Aristophanes, and who knows if I am better for it. I definitely learned some things.

Jan

I have just finished our three comedies by Aristophanes. Whew! That last one, "Lysistrata," was racy! I began to wonder if it was pornographic. But I decided it wasn’t because it wasn’t meant to incite lust (although I suppose it could and might have). But I think its main purpose was for fun, even given the licentious time period. It was just an acceptance of life and a funny exaggeration. Those men were sure silly. Hurray for the women. They were funny, too.

My favorite of the three was "Clouds." Hilarious. I loved how Aristophanes made fun of the sophists. It’s interesting that the first thing required for anyone to be taught at the "Think-shop" was to renounce the gods – another great example of how there is nothing new under the sun. People have always employed cunning words to slant and corrupt things, and to evade the consequences of debt and evildoing. O’J.’s lawyers must have studied this same "science of subtle speech . . . with its measures, words and rhythms!"

As for "Birds" . . . I got what it was about, but whoa, the Moby Dick of bird plays. Imagine the costumes! I guess it was pretty artistic and imaginative, supposedly his masterpiece. I think it showed how it doesn’t really matter what we worship if we don’t worship God. It ends up being a false idol.

Julia

Maybe it's because I am no longer a Saturday Night Live fan or a devotee of Letterman or Leno or even Mad Magazine. I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to crass satire and the plethora of double meanings and puns that were so constantly evident in Lysistrata. All the double meanings were boringly predictable. When it comes to R-rated stand-up comedy and these plays, nothing much has really changed, has it? Perhaps the 3 plays we read were the precursors to bawdiness and the theatre of the absurd.

I guess I am taking the plays too literally, forgetting that they were created to make fun of the sophists. The Clouds is a caricature of Socrates and The Birds, a portrayal of a flawed utopia called Cloudcuckooland. These plays may have been hilarious in there day, but I didn't really get it. Call me humorless.

Sun Tzu: The Art of War

Cami

The Art of War was actually quite refreshing for me—not just because of the length, but because it was pretty easy to understand, or to ignore if I knew it would never really apply to me unless playing a serious game of laser tag. I actually found many insights into parenting, leading a group or a business team, and other basic social situations. How like war life really is.

[My husband, Jake, likes to play a war-based video game called Call of Duty.] As I would read along, I would find a strategy that Jake was consistently ignoring, resulting in his imminent death (they revive immediately in the gaming world). As I watched and read, I started to give him pointers, and told him he really ought to read this book if he was ever going to make it in this game. How very silly, and yet, fitting.

Anyway, my analysis is that this book was much more relatable and even “fun” to read than I expected it to be. I was expecting my pen to stay firmly planted behind my ear, and yet it was out constantly, underlining, making notes in margins. Who knew?

Janice

I read my Art of War edition in a day. I can see how war can be handled best, better, and not well at all, and how a knowledge of human nature is indispensable. I found myself thinking of the Iliad, Confucious, Herodotus, Thucydides, and war movies I’ve seen.

I like the emphasis on avoiding war altogether being the very best way. But if you have no other choice, it must be fought, with the least danger to life and limb, and with respect to the enemy.

Nothing done out of revenge, vanity, greed, or in a rush. Much of the wisdom can be applied to every day life. Loyalty to ideals above all! My favorite quote has to be:

If you are quiet and inconspicuous, others will not be able to figure you out. If you are accurate and orderly, others will not be able to disturb you.

Julia

The areas that I crossed over to from the subject of war were parenting, sports, tennis strategy, politics, living a life in general and business.

The use of numbers was interesting -- 5 thises, 9 thats. Now all the self-help authors use this method . . .

As pertaining to tennis, I underlined lots. One of my favorites, "Increase your enemy's fear of your ability. Prevent his forces from getting together and organizing."

A good note to sign off on would be, "People need an intelligent leader and a worthy commander." Let us hope we get one in this next election, by the grace of God.

May you continue to be brilliant generals.

Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War

Cami

. . . My fellow warriors, it has been found that our small troops are no match for the Thucydian force, despite our allies in Logan and Pleasant Grove. Though our hearts are strong, and our minds willing, we are unable to defeat our enemies . . . . I know when it is time to retreat and make peace with our oppressors. Would it not be more wise, friends, to create a truce, leaving two books of the seven read, and the rest to be read later—perhaps when other allies in the more manageable lands of Sun Tzu and Plato have been formed? I then propose that we send emissaries to Utah to tell our allies to make peace when they can, that we may move on from these tumultuous waters and protect the alliances we have already made. I fear our abilities to conquer future foes depends on our not giving up, but being wise and retreating while retreat is possible. . . .

Hee hee. This is my clever way of giving up while still showing how much I’ve learned from the portions of Thucydides I actually read. Did it work? Let’s hope so. But reading Thucydides was akin to reading Isaiah chapters in the scriptures to me—in one ear, out the other with the occasional feeling of “whoa” attached to the content.

So I am letting myself finish off just two books and hope I got the general feeling of what Thucydides had to offer. The main thing, I’d say, is the difference between Herodotus and Thucydides. It has been helpful during the election debates, Mom’s return to school where they believe in “selective” history, and the general debate about our current war, to see that things have not changed much since the time Thucydides was doing his best to present the truth.

Janice

Greetings, Atheninans. The recent missive from Camillides persuaded me that we MUST move on. As Pericles said in his famous speech so responsibly and aptly recorded by Thucydides, "What I fear is not the amount we have to read, but our own sluggishness." (Actually, he said, "What I fear is not the enemy’s strategy, but our own mistakes." But the format of the statement seemed to fit.) Like the ancient historian’s, our self-assigned inquiry into the past is a great and important one. But we must not get bogged down in details. Because of the immenseness of our lifetime reading plan, we must do as Thucydides, that is, force ourselves to move from the particular to the universal, from each concrete and specific book to underlying patterns and generalities. And I agree with the Camillian proposal, that perhaps we have reaped what rewards we can from the present siege. Even the first two chapters contain wealth enough. From them we can glean important truths, that human nature is predictably flawed, that history repeats itself, and that humankind could learn from history if it only would. Everyone should read at least some Thucydides!

Julia

My book has been lost in one of the many battles of what seems like a bloody siege of at least 28 years. Anyway I only got through Book 2 and this without memory of victories or defeats, places or names which after a while all became a blur. I found I really didn't care much about the players and it was enough to know in the last analysis that Sparta was victorious over Athens, right? Looking at the map and finding the oft named places, I saw that all these skirmishes happened within a rather small section of the world. I guess it is to Thu's credit that he put all the data down in print, but I'm really not sure how it affects us.

So thank you, great Camillides, for waving the white flag of surrender during our labors in the Pelop. wars so that we might draw our inner-troops together to fight more current and personal wars.