Aristotle's Politics Book I

The more I read Aristotle the less I like him. He seems to me very arrogant, smug, and self justifying. I disagreed with most of what I read in book I of Politics. I found myself getting pretty upset about some of the things he said. His teachings helped men of Athens, and no doubt men since his time, justify their ill treatment of women, children, and those with the unlucky lot to be labeled slaves. This was because he made the case that man is the only truly complete being. Everything else was, in essence, created to help man to live virtuously, fulfill, their creation.

I disagreed right off the bat with his claim that every society is created for some good. The band of Gadianton Robbers was not formed for good, neither are most “secret” societies. I believe that these are actually founded to promote evil and are founded by the Devil himself. Societies founded for God are created for some good, but without Him there is no good.

He believed that by nature there are two types of people, those who govern and those that are governed. This goes against my belief in moral agency. By putting people into categories of govern or governed based on such things as gender, place of birth, ancestry takes away the opportunity for people to choose anything for themselves, let alone salvation, which is the purpose of our life here anyway. I believe there are times to govern and times to be governed for all of us. This is why God fives us many different callings and missions throughout our lives. Both governing and being governed are skill necessary for us to become like God.

Another idea he taught was that was that the state comes before the family. God's law tells me that the family is second only to my relationship with God, in fact, in it is where I learn the most about my relationship with Him. The state or any other organization on Earth are only in a supporting role to the family, not the other way around. Along with this is the idea that man is the best of all beings because he created civilized society. Again, this is not true. God created man and civilized society and is the Supreme Being. Man is good only in so far as he becomes like and reflects God.

One thing I did agree with is that the better the governed are the better the government will be. If he had stopped there it would have been fine, but this led him to argue the justification of slavery and oppression of women. This is where he completely lost me. I could follow his arguments, but the fundamental premise was so against God's design for his creation and my core beliefs that his knowledge did not lead to understanding or wisdom, only wickedness.

The rest of Book I was about money making and how it relates to the family. I agreed with him that making money for the sake of getting money is wrong and that usury is the worst form of this. We are to seek the will of God before we seek for riches because then, if we seek them, we do it with the intent to do good. This is God's economy. Aristotle thought that getting money to buy things was the highest use of money.

The other idea I agreed with was that families should focus more on the family members and their virtue than on money making. Again, if he had stopped there he would have been right, but he took another opportunity to elevate men over women and slaves. Women and slaves have virtue (albeit some lesser form than men), but theirs is to be used to serve man in fulfilling his.

He definitely cured in me any romantic notions of life in Ancient Greece. I would emphatically not have wanted to be alive then. He may have had other good ideas, but I don't want to wade through the mire of bad ideas to find them. I have no desire to further pursue the study of Aristotle's philosophies of men. This, also, makes me rethink my high opinion of book I of Ethics.

Ethic, Book I by Aristotle

What a difference from Plato and Socrates. It was a little shocking to go from a conversation style where I imagine them sitting on a couch talking with each other to Aristotle giving a lecture. This one really stretched my brain and I found myself thinking that these issues were ones that I resolved when I chose to follow Jesus and make covenants.

He must have been presenting to a bunch of older men because he said that young men are not fit to be students of philosophy. They have no experience to draw from and they live “at the beck and call of passion.” He did not see a difference between young in years and young in temper and disposition. He believe that a student needed to be experienced, well trained in habit, and to form their desires and act in accordance with reason in order to profit from this teaching.

How many times do we give information to children before they can actually benefit from it? This is why giving children a solid Core phase and a fun LOL phase is important so that they can be mature and disciplined for a scholar phase. Rushing anyone, adults too, through these phases can really hinder their progress and cause them to have to go back and revisit later. The giving of too much information too soon does not just happen to children, it can happen to anyone. When I was baptized the people in my ward began to teach me as if I had heard these things all my life. This was a great stumbling block that took me many years to climb over. I had been instinctively doing my best to avoid this mistake with my children. I now have validation that telling my children that they are just too young for some conversations is justified. I will carry that “suitcase” until the Spirit tells me they are ready. This is not what Ethics is about, but this is what I learned.

His lecture was about telos, the Chief Good, or the Ultimate Goal. For me, this is actually pleasing God and entering into His eternal rest “a good and faithful servant.” For the Greeks it was, according to Aristotle, obviously happiness. What the Greeks didn't agree on what what happiness in fact was.

Aristotle separated life along three distinct lines: sensual enjoyment, society, and contemplation. The lowest people believe it is pleasure. The refined and active think it to be honor. These are the society people, celebrities, the powerful, the attention seeking and their circles. Those who are the highest, in Aristotle's opinion, are the contemplative. They believe it to be living virtuously. This is virtue in the traditional sense of living up to the purpose of our creation.

Well duh! I know that I have a mission in this life and a divine nature, and I will only be happy if I live up to this. He brings up the point that we can't measure the happiness of a man until after a lifetime of living virtuously. I call this enduring to the end. He thought happiness could be effected even after death because of the behavior of our posterity. This is the doctrine that teaches us that without our dead we can't be saved and they can't with out us. He also taught that a truly happy man is one who spent his life doing good, using his money, time, and talents to help other people. Idle or wicked people can never be happy. This is, almost word for word, presented in my Core book. It says that we are saved, “after all we can do.”

One thing he did get completely wrong was that little children can not be happy because they have not fulfilled their purpose for long enough, if at all. He also talked about how the truly wise man only tries for precision in whatever he does as far as that is possible in this life. He believed in precision by degrees, but not happiness by degrees. First of all until at least 8 little children are fulfilling their purpose by just being here. After that we all fulfill our purpose as far as we are able in this life by progressing and growing in knowledge, grace for grace. He also did not either consider or know about the idea of seasons of life. We have different purposes at different times in our life. The most important thing he didn't know about was the atonement of Christ as taught by the Old Testament prophets. Through this we can share in the happiness of Christ who will/did fulfill His purpose and was truly happy. When we repent of our sins, in other words not living up to our potential, he fixes it for us and we start over perfect again and that is happiness, even by Aristotle's definition.

I can't judge him, though because I am reading and contemplating this in the light of the restored gospel. Whereas, Aristotle, at best, only had the light of Christ and the occasional influence of the Holy Ghost to guide him. Without the gift of the Holy Ghost and the teachings of the prophet I don't think that I could have come to the conclusions that he did. Aristotle was a little wordy, and it was all too obvious to me.

The Clouds and Lysistrata by Aristophanes

These plays were fun to read (that may be a stretch). It was nice to laugh out loud. On the surface they seem silly and a little vulgar, but I know I was missing something because, after all, they were included in the Great Books. The Clouds was a commentary about Sophistry and how dangerous philosophy can be. Before I read this I didn't even know what sophistry was. It is using rhetoric to persuade someone to your side without regard to truth or right. All of the accusations laid against Socrates in his trial that led to his death were in this play. Aristophanes was pretty harsh, but I have a hard time believing that he wanted him to be executed for what he taught, although this play seems to have had a direct influence in that actually happening.

I did agree with him that teaching Rhetoric with out morals leads to corruption and that sophistry was not the best talent to enlarge. I thought it was really silly of Strepsaides to not think that teaching his already out of control son the art of arguing out of anything would not have any negative consequences for himself. People need to firmly know right from wrong before being given tools like this for them to play with.

Lysistrata was quite a shock to my sheltered mind. This was the most pornographic anything I have experienced. I skipped a lot, yet still had horrible images in my head. The scene with Myrrhine teasing her husband, Cinesias, was humorous, but probably that is because I am happily married. Some claim that it is about the battle of the sexes, but I can't buy that. Women were nothing to the Greeks. They had no status, they certainly were not going to be getting any power. In my opinion, this is all about the foolishness of the war. By the time this play was written, they had been fighting the Peloponesian war for 21 years. Aristophanes was saying that the time to end the war was so obviously now that even women could figure it out. It was even a woman who came up with the solution and negotiated the peace treaty.

I did enjoy learning a little about the everyday life was like for the Greeks. I learned a little ab out their customs, clothes, food, and furniture. I even learned some of the history because I researched for context. These plays make me wonder what people will have to read from us 2000 years from now. Oh please don't let it be face book, the Hunger Games, or, please shoot me, Twilight.

The Republic Books I & II by Plato

This was an exciting read. Even though I end up disagreeing with Socrates, many times, I find him fascinating and thought provoking. I can't imagine what he would have been like if he had had the Gospel to add to his intellect. Book I concerns the meaning of justice and the profitability of one over the other. Book II is about creating a perfect State, a Republic.

Socrates begins his conversation with an old man named Cephales. They are talking about wealth and old age. He tells Socrates that the more the pleasures of the body fade away, the more he appreciates good conversation. I remember Cidi Boorsma telling me that he least favorite part of getting old was that she could not taste as well as she could before, she just didn't get very much pleasure out of eating anymore. When I read this statement attributed to a man I thought about how pleasures of the body fading may be a blessing for a man. If a man felt the drive for physical pleasure with the same intensity all their lives, they would be very frustrated old men, especially when they begin to lose their minds. This is just a side note to the justice conversation, so on to it.

Book I didn't answer any questions about what justice and injustice are. They did manage to tell us many things that they are not, including that justice is giving good to friends and harm to enemies. Justice is, also, not giving good to friends when we are sure they are good and harm to enemies when we are sure they are bad. After coming to these conclusion they are interrupted by Thrasymachus.

This is where Book I gets a little irritating. I did not like Thrasymachus' style of arguing. He acted the way someone looking to justify their own actions. His arguments were not well thought ow because Socrates quickly shot through them. Then when he began to lose the argument he really go childish. He tried to seem like he was only patronizing Socrates, that he didn't actually care whether justice was more profitable than injustice or not. Considering that he came at Socrates with such a force that he said, “I was panic-stricken at his words and could not look at him without trembling.” Even if he was being sarcastic it must have still been pretty forceful. I have experienced someone talking to me this way and could never have believed that they were “just kidding.”

He claims that no matter what justice is, injustice is always more profitable. Socrates listens to his arguments and then refutes them. When Socrates starts to get the better of him, Thrasymachus says, “Let this, Socrates, be your entertainment at Bendida.” As if he had only been out to entertain him. I hate it when people don't have enough integrity to either keep their convictions which can be defended or when they can't are not able to admit that they are wrong. This brings to my mind the argument that I have heard so much lately that truth is different depending on the person. This is so not true! There are absolute truths.

Back to The Republic. Glaucon and his brother, Adeimantus decides to take Thrasymachus' position after he leaves, even thought they do not believe it because they feel like it is a conversation that needs to be had. Glaucon has three topics to discuss: the nature and origin of justice, people who are just only do so because of necessity, and the life of the unjust is better than the life of the just. His arguments are pretty compelling, in fact Socrates compliments them on being able to argue so well and still maintain a contrary belief.

For the rest of Book II, and from what I understand on into Book III, and maybe beyond Socrates invites Glaucon and Adeimantus to discuss the creation of the ideal State. This part scares me a little. I can see why Socrates has been called the found of Communism. He suggests that people should all work together, specializing based on specific skills. Only doing their part, but providing it to all the people, not just himself. He advocates major control of education and censorship of ideas. For a State this is a recipe for disaster because it is against human nature, but for my family it is great. We definitely specialize and rarely cross over. I am a home maker and Matthew is a work for money guy, and the kids' jobs are learning and maturing. I believe in controlling education and censorship until a time when they are mature enough to make these decisions, always following the spirit.

Socrates had some really radical ideas about God and gods. I don't think he believed in multiple gods anymore, but felt that God was the author of all that is good, being good he cannot change becaue if he did he would only be able to make himself worse, and that he cannot lie. In his words he said, “Then God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.” This is pretty close to my testimony of God. Again, if he claim to these conclusions having been taught to worship idols, imagine if he had been taught to worship the Only True God. This is the definition of God that he would have had taught to the future guardians of the state, this is the only definition I teach to my children, lucky for me I have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost so I don't have to be as smart as Socrates to figure this out, the spirit will tell me all I need to know and He is smarter than even Socrates.

Apology and Crito

What I found most surprising about these reading is that they are really not that difficult. I understood these! I had always thought that Plato would be hard to read. I feel much more confident about my ability to read these writings now.

On my first reading through I thought that this was funny. I enjoy seeing people caught in their own words. I am pretty good at this, but I often get caught myself, this is why I am reading these books so I can take time to read and reflect and come to know what I really believe. Knowing this and also knowing my tendency to be prideful I read it again much more critically.

My first impression of Socrates was that he was very good and virtuous. He chooses to do what is right no matter what, even when facing death. He got a call from deity and could not waver from that path. This is how I wan to live. I want to know God's will for me and do it, no matter what. He was willing to die for it, am I? I say that I am, but I don't know because this is not something I have had to seriously consider before. If I only had myself to worry about I would shout yes, but I can not shake my duty to my children as easily as Socrates did. I do not want others to raise them or teach them. They were sent to me because I am the most qualified to help them navigate this world and if I am not here, they may not get all they need.

Believing he only did what God wanted him to do did not, even in his eyes exempt him from following the laws. He knew that if the laws were allowed to be broken by the people the society could not survive. This is why making sure the laws are just to begin with was so important. Because he chose to stay and live in Athens, when he was free to leave at any time, made him morally obligated to follow their laws. He possibly wasn't following their laws, which is why he accepted the sentence given him so willingly.

This led me to ask, is it possible to be virtuous, which is what Socrates sought after, without following the laws? Keep in mind that morality is only one part of the definition of virtue. The word wholly means fulfilling our purpose, to do all we are sent here to do. A bike was created to be ridden and is not virtuous unless someone is riding it. There have been times when, in my view, this was true, for example the Colonists before and during the Revolutionary War, the people who helped slaves escape, those who helped the Jews hide during WWII., but I don't believe that now is on of them. God will tell me if there comes a law that I should not follow. I will listen to the prophets and for now I will follow the laws.

My favorite line was, “That man is wisest among you, who, like Socrates, knows that he is in reality worth nothing with respect to wisdom. I see this manifest in many people including the prophets and other general authorities. I, also, know many who manifest the reverse, I have fallen into that trap before, it is tough to really look at yourself and be truly humble when it comes to wisdom. You can also, replace “wisest” and “wisdom” with “humble” and “humility” or any other virtue we are supposed to possess.

I also thought that he was very proud. He wanted to seem like he was humble, submitting to the will of the gods and accepting his sentence, yet he thought that he was better them almost all in the court room. In fact he felt disdain for any who thought different than him. He not only thought, but went on record at his trail that his teachings were the best thing to happen to Athens and the people.

I believe he did break their law when it comes to corrupting the youth of the city, and was not acting morally. He asked a lot of questions yet provided little answers or guidance, other than reason. He, no doubt, left some of those who followed him confused and jaded toward any authority, which is a tactic of Satan. I don't believe that Socrates was evil, but this is why we are warned to rely on God rather than the “arm of flesh.” God will use our intelligence and reason when He needs it, yet without the Spirit these will only lead to the devil and his kingdom. I believe that those with more experience are morally obligated to help those with less. He started on the path of helping them, teaching them to ask questions and not just blindly follow, but did not finish because he did not direct them in the right way. There is one Truth and one Right Way, yet he seemed to think that there were many. I do not think it is possible, as learned as he was, to not have heard of the Lord, God of Abraham. He must have know at least one Israelite.

My Journey to Scholar

I began my quest for an education after I graduated from college in 2003. Even, though I had the paper that claimed I was educated, I knew that I was not. My plan was to go to graduate school and there get my education. Luckily two months before I was to start at ISU I found out I was pregnant with my first child. Nevertheless I was confident I could do it on my own, get an education I mean. I already had the books for my first semester so I read them. After a few weeks I realized there were too many holes in my education to really learn from them, so I switched to reading classic fiction, which I already knew I was good at. Two years after that I found a book that outlines how to give a classical education to children. This was exactly what I wanted for myself as well. I thought about just going through the whole program myself, but it seemed to daunting. About a year later I was introduced to TJEd and felt that this was the answer to my dillema concerning the acquisition of an education. I saw a way to get a classical education, but also a way to overcome the fear and anxiety I had about myself. I was excited.
The more I learned about the phases of learning, the more I realized I was still on the edge of Core Phase and LOL. It took me a while, but I finally decided to go with it. I studied my Core book and I tried many different things. I finally came back to my two true loves, reading and sewing. I spent more than two years trying out scholar activities. The best thing I did was join a scholar type discussion group and a classic fiction book club. I learned some from the readings, but more importantly I learned how to really read and discipline. I learned that I was capable of doing hard things and eventually I began to change from the readings.
Last Spring I set out to practice scholar phase. I picked six books that were things I thought I should learn and studied every day. I set up a schedule and made myself stick to it. I even made myself takes notes. At first the notes didn't help so I changed to written narrations Charlotte Mason style. Wow! Did that change my reading and writing. I began to pay attention more and to formulate my narrations as I read. My writing improved as well, my ideas began to come together on paper in a more cohesive way, not to mention faster.
Then I signed up for the Shakespeare class at Abigail Adam's Academy. This was my hardest “project” yet. I had not really read much Shakespeare and what I did I certainly didn't understand very well. It was hard, but now I am finished reading the third play, Henry V, and I loved it. Shakespeare is not hard anymore.
I feel like I am really ready for the next step in my scholar phase. My previous Core Phase issues seem to be manageable, my LOL issues don't seem to be a bother any more, and my scholar skills are improving every day. I am looking forward to a quiet, secluded winter so I can study with minimal interruptions.