Two Plays of Sophocles

I just came across these super short summaries I wrote for Oedipus the King and Antigone. I might as well post them. Hopefully they will be useful the next time I/we read them:

Oedipus The King

Through investigation Oedipus is able to come to the realization that he himself is the cause of the plague that is afflicting Thebes.

Antigone

Creon is forced to come to grips with his own pride.

Aristotle's Ethics

It has been quite a while since I have posted to this blog. This was due to the fact that our group had not been meeting. Thankfully, we have recommenced.

On April 29th we discussed the first chapter of Aristotle's Ethics. Because of the length and complexity of the selection we used W.D. Ross's table of contents from his translation. This greatly aided our discussion .

The first book sets out to establish what the good for man is. Aristotle identifies this good with happiness and ultimately defines happiness either as 'life of the rational element' (1098^a 5). Life lived in line with a rational principle means that all one's actions are governed by this rational principle. The name for such a governing principle is virtue and so Aristotle says (1098^a 17):

...human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.

Because happiness rests on the virtues most of the other books of the Ethics are a discussion of those virtues.

Answer to Second and Third Question

A continuation of this and this post.

2) Why not just start with Glaucon and Adeimantus's question?

The first book of The Republic is mostly a debate: Cephalus's "argument" is quickly dismissed, Polemarchus' "theory" is demolished, and Thrasymachus is debated at length (with little result). In the second book the debate is over - Glaucon and Adeimantus do not wish to engage in debate, rather, they seek the truth. In order to begin the search they try to make the best case possible for living an unjust life. Their goal is not to win an argument, but, to honestly investigate the question of whether living a just life is preferable to living an unjust life. However, as good as their method is it is only good for someone who believes their question is worth investigating. If you believe you already know what justice is you will not be interested in their question or at least you will not recognize the need for their question. This is why The Republic could not start with the question(s) of Glaucon and Adeimantus.

3) What is the significance of starting with Cephalus?

Cephalus is an old man. He believes living a just life is better than living an unjust life. However, he does not seem to know what justice is. At this point the reader should ask himself: do I want, or better can I want, to live a just life if I do not know what justice is? And, if I do not know what justice is can I say with certainty that living a just life is better than living an unjust life?

In other words, the discussion with Cephalus is meant to put the reader into a certain frame of mind - to begin reflecting on what is the best way of life. It is not until the end of one's life that one can truly judge whether he lived a good life or not. It is often hard for the young to think about ethical questions. By putting ourselves in Cephalus' shoes we hopefully can gain some of his perspective.

Adler Rex of Reading

This is some nice stuff Matt sent me. Enjoy!

A Few Tips on How to Read Imaginative Literature
- from Chapters 14 and 15 of Mortimer J. Adler's and Charles Van Doren's How to Read a Book

1) Don't try to resist the effect that a work of imaginative literature has on you.

While the goal of expository works is to communicate knowledge, the goal of imaginative literature is to communicate experience. Van Doren writes, "We learn from experience - the experiences that we have in the course of our daily lives. So, too, we can learn from the vicarious, or artistically created, experiences that fiction produces in our imagination." In order to gain from a work of imaginative literature, one must feel at home in the world created by the writer.

2) "Ideally, a story should be read at one sitting,"

Van Doren writes. If this is not feasible, "the ideal should be approximated by compressing the reading of a good story into as short a time as feasible. Otherwise you will forget what happened, the unity of the plot will escape you, and you will be lost . . . Read quickly, we suggest, and with total immersion."

3) Read out loud.

I can tell you from personal experience that this can be quite fun, especially with books in the style of Oedipus. Imagine the actors on stage and read it (in thought, if not in voice) as you imagine they would do it. Trust me, it helps.

4) A word about the Chorus:

(I'll just quote the whole paragraph): "One thing we do know about the staging of Greek plays is that the tragic actors wore buskins on their feet that elevated them several inches above the ground. (They also wore masks.) But the members of the chorus did not wear buskins, though they sometimes wore masks. The comparison between the size of the tragic protagonists, on the one hand, and the members of the chorus, on the other hand, was thus highly significant. Therefore, you should always imagine, when you read the words of the chorus, that the words are spoken by persons of your own stature; while the words spoken by the protagonists proceed from the mouths of giants, from personages who did not only seem, but actually were, larger than life."

Answer to First Question

This is a continuation of this post.

1) Why begin with Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus?

Justice is a topic that most people think they understand. Most people would recoil at the suggestion that justice (or righteousness) requires definition. Rarely does one find a need to define justice to know how to live from day to day. One knows it is not just to steal, or injure one's friend, or lie. The elderly Cephalus believes he has lived his life justly so why should he define justice? The young Polemarchus does not feel any strong motivation to carefully analyze the meaning of justice and he is satisfied by quoting the beautiful though shallow saying of Simonides. The sophist Thrasymachus is motivated only to win the argument not to find the truth. Socrates demonstrates that each of these interlocutors' opinions do not stand up once forced to contend with real cases. Should one return something to a friend when it might cause him harm? Should one harm one's enemies even though it is wrong to harm anyone? Does might truly make right? What these three individuals have in common is that they believe they know what justice is. They need Socrates to demonstrate to them (and to us, as the readers) that they indeed do not know. By beginning The Republic with the arguments of these three individuals Plato demonstrates the need to carefully examine justice and also enables the reader to come to the realization that he himself does not know what justice is.

Next Reading

Matt sent me the following e-mail:

Each play is about 12-15 pages long, but - at least, for me - each page shall take a harder tyme to reade for it was wrot' in an olde form of Aenglish. Furthermore, although I agree that reading more is better in some ways, I'd also like the opportunity to read through each selection two or three times before the discussion, and I don't think I'll have the time to do so if we read both of these plays. Lastly, according to The Great Ideas Program, "It is unfair to Antigone to read it in conjunction with Oedipus the King. It is almost certain to be compared with the other tragedy; and what should be considered as a superb tragedy in its own right will probably always suffer by comparison with Oedipus the King." In other words, it seems these two plays were only juxtaposed because they are in the same genre, but there doesn't seem to be a common idea which unifies their plots.

For these reasons, I think it would be best to split up the readings.

I think everyone would agree. So, we will officially limit the reading to Oedipus the King.

The Republic

Today, we discussed the third reading: "The Republic". We started by giving a synopsis of our selection and dividing it into its major parts. The article on "The Republic" in Wikipedia provides the subdivisions of Cornford, Hildebrandt and Voegelin - they were very similar to our own divisions:

Prologue

I.1. 327a—328b. Descent to the Piraeus

I.2—I.5. 328b—331d. Cephalus. Justice of the Older Generation

I.6—1.9. 331e—336a. Polemarchus. Justice of the Middle Generation

I.10—1.24. 336b—354c. Thrasymachus. Justice of the Sophist

Introduction

II.1—II.10. 357a—369b. The Question: Is Justice Better than Injustice?

We, similarly, viewed the contents of Book I as a kind of prologue to the rest of the book. We gave the first three interlocutors the following characterizations:

Cephalus - the seasoned elder who claims living a just life is best but is not capable/willing/interested to give a clear definition of justice.

Polemarchus - brash youth who has not taken the time to develop his thoughts - he does not give his own opinion just the one that sounds nice to him: the opinion of Simonides.

Thrasymachus - the devil's advocate - he seems more interested in arguing than finding the truth. However, we at times share his frustration with Socrates who often seems more interested in arguing with and breaking down his opponent than actually saying something.

We also discussed the following three questions:

1) Why begin with these three interlocutors?

2) Why not just start with Glaucon and Adeimantus's question?

3) What is the significance of starting with Cephalus?

I hope in the next few posts to briefly discuss each question. If I missed any please make mention of it in the comment section.

Link to the List

This is the link to The Great Ideas Program Book List.

Death or Righteousness?

The previous post was really just a lead in to this post. Here I will attempt to give an answer to Matt's question (if only a beginning):

I am bothered by the following question: if Socrates knew that death was evil and therefore fearful should he do what is right anyway or refrain out of fear of death? Socrates says: "But I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil. " It does not seem like Socrates should care if death is good or evil as he says: "a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad." It would seem Socrates only discussed whether death is good or evil to amplify the wisdom of his choice - not that his choice rested upon that.

However, if death is evil should that not make a difference? Is it right to bring an evil upon one's self?

According to the Torah, it is better to live than to die in order to keep the commandments with the exception of three cases: murder, illicit sexual relations and idolatry.

The Torah could mean one of two things: 1) God commands us that at times we must do what is evil in order to live, or 2) since the entire Torah is God's command if he tells us to transgress a commandment (in order to live) that evil is in effect good. Both possibilities are problematic. The first is problematic because it is saying that God commands us to do something evil. The second is problematic because it is saying that something that is evil can also be good.

I believe that the Torah endorses the first possibility. But how can God command us to do something evil? The Torah is a highly nuanced system. The only evils one should die for are the ultimate violations of one's relationship with man and God. Murder and illicit sexual relations (rape being the highest violation) are the ultimate violation of one's relationship with one's fellow human. Idolatry is the ultimate violation of how one relates to God. Why should death not always be preferable to doing evil? I believe the answer is simple: death too is an evil. The Torah instructs us how to balance two competing evils.

David HaMelech prays (Tehillim 30): "9 Unto Thee, O LORD, did I call, and unto the LORD I made supplication:10 'What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise Thee? shall it declare Thy truth? 11 Hear, O LORD, and be gracious unto me; LORD, be Thou my helper." How different are King David and Achilles!

Fear of Death as Disobedience

In the Apology, Socrates says (when he answers the charge that he should be ashamed, for living "a course of life which [was] likely to bring [him] to an untimely end):

"If, I say, now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretense of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? "

Is Socrates' point that he would not disobey God out of fear of death since he does not know whether death is good or bad? Or, does he mean that the disobedience would be in fearing death: since that would be a pretense of wisdom? It seems he is making both points.