Comparing the Spartans – Plutarch Has Lycurgus and Numa Go Head to Head

Plutarch writes our midterm paper for us by comparing Lycurgus and Numa directly right after he tells us about both of their lives. He starts with a quick look at their likenesses: moderation, religion, capacity for government and discipline, and their both deriving laws and constitutions from the gods. Also, both appear to have been Spartans, as Numa was a Sabine, who claimed to be a colony of the Lacedaemonians.

In comparing them both, Plutarch seems to think that Lycurgus was the better lawgiver because the Spartans carried on his government and his plans after Lycurgus was gone, while Numa’s peace lasted only as long as he did, and the Romans needed to reverse course to build an empire by throwing open the gates of Janus and going to war.

While it might seem that this is a value statement on the merits of a military versus a civil society, I would argue that Plutarch’s comparison is more one of method than value. He says that Lycurgus was a better lawgiver, but more because of the duration of his laws than the value of them.

“One benefit among many that Lycurgus obtained by his course was the permanence which it secured to his laws.”

“But Numa’s whole design and aim, the continuance of peace and goodwill, on his death vanished with him; no sooner did he expire his last breath than the gates of Janus’s temple flew wide open, and , as if ware had, indeed, been kept and caged up within those walls, it rushed forth to fill all of Italy with blood and slaughter, and thus that best and justest fabric of things was of no long continuance, because it wanted that cement which should have kept all together, education. “

Here we see that Plutarch says Numa’s city was better, if shorter lived. He called it “that best and justest fabric.” He writes that Numa was a great deal more humane than Lycurgus and nicer overall to women, though I suppose this may be a point of contention depending on the kind of woman who looks at both systems. Plutarch says Lycurgus made his young women more masculine while in Rome “matrons received from their husbands all that high respect and honor which had been paid them under Romulus as a sort of atonement for the violence done to them.”

“Wine they were not to touch at all, nor to speak except in their husband’s company, even on the most ordinary subjects” – hardly an example of women’s liberation.

Still, Plutarch makes much of the similarities between the aims of the two lawgivers.

“In general, it seems that both aimed at the same design and intent, which was to bring their people to moderation and frugality; but of other virtues, the one set is affection most on fortitude, and the other on justice; unless we will attribute their different ways to the different habits and temperaments which they had to work upon by their enactments; for Numa did not out of cowardice or fear affect peace, but because he would not be guilty of injustice; nor did Lycurgus promote a spirit of war in his people that they might do injustice to others, but that they might protect themselves by it.”
Ultimately, the difference in the two comes down to how they educated the children of their respective states. Plutarch writes that the rules Lycurgus drew up for raising children and making them wards of the state are what gave his rule a long lasting effect on the state and the world. Plutarch also indirectly points out that Lycurgus educated children to put the state first and to fulfill a role within it.

Numa, on the other hand, simply lets parents decide how to raise their children, allowing them to choose how children might be educated and what jobs they might pursue, “as if it were of no importance for them to be directed and trained up from the beginning to one and the same common end, or as though it would do for them to be like passengers on shipboard, brought thither each for his own ends and by his own choice, uniting to act for the common good only in time of danger upon occasion of their private fears, in general looking simply to their own interest.”

One can only speculate what the results may have been if Numa has instituted some education system designed to perpetuate his vision of what the state should be. I think, on some level, he tried to ensure the perpetuation of his vision for a state by creating the many religious offices and regulations designed to guide the citizens of Rome. He may have been counting on these offices to keep the ship of state on course after his death.

If we take as an axiom that education is the key for the continuation of the state, or even for the good governance of the state, we must admit that the military education of Lycurgus is easier to implement and understand than a religious or humane education that would further Numa’s ends. It is simpler to organize people into companies and make them drill, march, and spar, and this way weld them together. But what would the curriculum be for a civic education of a free state? How can you make people free and yet infuse them with a spirit of togetherness?

It has been said that the United States is unique in that being a citizen of the country is a political idea, rather than one of birth. In other words, in the highest conception, a person is a United States citizen because they believe in a constitutional republic that is designed to protect the rights of the minority while bending to the will of the majority. I grant this idea may have been more meaningful at the beginning of the Republic, but it is this idea that allows us to be a nation of immigrants and still cohere rather than balkanizing like early Rome. I think Jefferson’s ideal of a public school system and the idea that all children in the United States should learn how the government works in addition o whatever else they may study is an attempt to answer the question of free people with a sense of political responsibility.

One other thought before I close, Plutarch notes that both Numa and Lycurgus want frugality and moderation. One does it by banning wealth, luxury, and superfluous occupations (though the Spartans do need to bring in outsiders and slaves to accomplish certain tasks), and the other tries to instill these virtues by inculcating religious reverence and fear of the gods.

This puts me in mind of a documentary shown on the BBC called “The Power of Nightmares” which argued that radical Islamism and Neo-Conservativism shared a similar desire to make people good through inventing an enemy and making people band together out of fear and a sense of belonging. Although I found parts of the documentary suspect, nonetheless, the ideas were interesting and I think they relate to the questions faced by Numa and Lycurgus in terms of how do you build and maintain a state where the people are good.

Still, it does leave me wondering, isn’t there a way to build a state based on fun and creating more resources so that frugality does not mean denial of a good life for all? Isn’t there a place where the women and men can drink wine, together even, and still be good people? Well, maybe we’ll find out more as we move through the set.

Next Time: Plutarch’s Alexander: So How Great Was He?

Plutarch’s Lives: Numa Pompilius – The Lawgiver of Rome

Many people know that Romulus and Remus, those wolf-suckled brothers, founded Rome, but what happened between them and the Roman Empire of aqueducts, Caesars, and gladiators? By Plutarch’s account, it was Numa Pompilius who used religion and clever social engineering to lay the foundations of what became the eternal city of Rome.

At the time the Romulus died (or was taken up into the heavens by a whirlwind, according to some accounts), Rome was divided between the group that settled the area with Romulus and the Sabine tribe, which said it was a colony of Sparta. Neither group wanted to be subservient to the other, so after a long discussion, the two decided that each would pick a member of the other tribe to be king. The Romans chose a Sabine, and the Sabines gave their choice to the Romans, because they wanted to have a Sabine king. The man chosen was Numa Pompilius.

Now, in the choice of Numa, we see again the idea of leadership versus command. He was chosen, Plutarch tells us, because he “disposed to virtue, which he had yet more subdued by discipline, a severe life, and the study of philosophy; means which had not only succeeded in expelling the baser passions, but also the violent and rapacious temper which barbarians are apt to think highly of; true bravery, in his judgment, was regarded as consisting in the subjugation of our passions by reason.”

Because of these traits, both groups trusted him to make the right decisions for the future of the state and so picked him to lead, rather than submitting to his command out of fear of some sanction.

On being persuaded to take office, which took some doing on the part of the Romans, Numa began to create a unified state out of Rome by remaking it in accordance with his thoughts about how an individual should lead life. In his speech to the ambassadors who came to offer him the kingship, he says these traits will like not make him a good king.

“The very points of my character that are most commended mark me as unfit to reign, — love of retirement and of studies inconsistent with business, a passion that has become inveterate in me for peace, for unwarlike occupations, and for the society of men whose meetings are but those of worship and kindly intercourse, whose lives in general are spent upon their farms and their pastures. I should by be, methinks, a laughingstock, while I should go about to inculcate the worship of the gods and give lessons in the love of justice and abhorrence of violence and war to a city whose needs are rather for a captain than for a king.”

Still, he took the job of king, and then proceeded to lay the foundations for a much greater city by giving the kinds of lessons he described. Of course, looking at it from modern eyes, it is easy to see Numa as a clever politician as well.

His first step as a king was to make a sacrifice to the gods and wait for an auspicious sign so he could ascend the throne with divine approval. Once he had that, he formally took on the job and first disbanded Romulus’s official guard, saying that he would trust the people that put their trust in him.

To Numa we owe the creation of the vestal virgins. He also created many other religious offices, including the pontifex maximus. He reorganized the Roman calendar, making December the last month, and he decreed that when the city had public processions and sacred prayers, the citizens should stop working and give their full attention to religion “free from all noises and cries that accompany manual labour, and clear for the sacred solemnity.”

“At times, also, he filled their imagination with religious terrors, professing that strange apparitions has been seen, and dreadful voices heard; thus subduing and humbling their minds by a sense of supernatural fears.”

Along with the religious efforts, Numa practiced some social engineering as well to get all the people of Rome to see themselves as Romans. As noted above, when Numa was chosen to be kind, the city residents divided themselves along tribal lines. Numa reorganized people by their trades into companies and guilds and assigned to each of them courts, councils, and religious observances. “In this manner, all factious distinctions began, for the first time, to pass out of use, no person any longer being either though of or spoken of under the notion of a Sabine or a Roman, a Romulian or a Tatian; and the new division became a source of general harmony and intermixture.”

The results of Numa’s work were that the gates of the temple of Janus, which were only open during a time of war, remained closed for 43 years, and the people of Rome and all of Italy enjoyed peace and prosperity, according to Plutarch. “Festival days and sports, and the secure and peaceful interchange of friendly visits and hospitalities prevailed all through the whole of Italy.”

Plutarch writes, “perhaps, too, there is no need of compulsion or menaces to affect the multitude, for the mere sight itself of a shining and conspicuous example of virtue in the life of their prince will bring them spontaneously to virtue, and to a conformity with that blameless and blessed life of good-will and mutual concord, supported by temperance and justice….”

By Plutarch’s account, Numa lived a life of piety and temperance. He also may have been a friend or student of Pythagoras, the philosopher and scientist who gave us the theorem about the right triangle. (As an aside, we normally think of the ancients as ignorant folk who thought the sun revolved around the earth. Plutarch tells us that the fire in the temple of Delphi was lit with a device made from mirrors that concentrated the rays of the sun, and that the Pythagoreans through that the earth moved and kept a circular motion around “the seat of fire.” In other words, the Earth revolved around the sun.)

Now, there are a variety of other reasons that this peace and goodwill may have reigned over Italy, if in fact it did, and Plutarch is not reporting a past viewed through rose-colored glasses. Crops may have been abundant, the leaders of the various tribes may have felt secure and found more profit in trade than raiding, and Plutarch does point out that as the Roman Empire grew, the gates of war were nearly constantly open. Numa does not seem to have been very interested in the growth of the Empire.

Still, I think it is important to consider the power of context. In the modern book, The Tipping Point, author Malcolm Gladwell talks about how the context in which people live can determine their behavior. As examples, he talks about Bernard Goetz, the man who shot three teens on a New York subway and the changes in the crime rate in New York City in the 1980s and 1990s. He also talks about how phenomena like suicide rates can be powerfully affect by context.

Other recent research shows that social networks can affect powerfully obesity rates and whether or not smokers quit smoking.

What this seems to point to, is that Numa may have been using these social tools to affect not only Rome, but also the city’s neighbors. The example that he set, by truly possessing the qualities he sought to inculcate in the populace, and the religious rites and ceremonies he created may have formed a very powerful context in a world devoid of mass communications.

Next Time: Comparing the Spartans – Plutarch Has Lycurgus and Numa Go Head to Head

Spartan Lessons on Comportment, Leadership, and Perseverance

So last time, I talked about the Spartans in rather negative terms, but I did draw some interesting lessons from this reading that I want to share. In amongst the description of Sparta, and Lycurgus are lessons on leadership and perseverance.

The story of Lycurgus himself raises an interesting distinction that I have heard made before and find interesting to read here. There is a difference between leadership and command.

People follow leaders because they trust that leader to make the right decisions and do the right thing.

People obey commanders out of fear of some kind of sanction.

This idea is explored in William McNeill’s The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, and doubtless other places, but it also shows up in the story of how Lycurgus came to be the law giver of Sparta.

Plutarch writes that “A true leader himself creates the obedience of his own followers; as it is the last attainment in the art of riding to make a horse gentle and tractable, so is it of the science of government, to inspire men with a willingness to obey. “

With that as a general statement, he goes on to say that Lycurgus “thought rather that the happiness of a state, as a private man, consisted chiefly in the exercise of virtue, and in the concord of the inhabitants; his aim, therefore in all his arrangements was to make and keep them free-minded, self-dependent, and temperate.”

We can argue over whether or not he achieved those aims. Certainly “free-minded” is up to debate in a military society, but the approach to the happiness of a state is worth consideration. Let’s take a look at an example or two from the biography of Lycurgus.

First, Plutarch tells us that Lycurgus came to power after the death of his father and older brother, but once he found that his sister-in-law was pregnant, said that the kingdom belonged to her child and that he was only the king for the time being. Even though his sister-in-law offered to abort the child and marry him, he refused. Her brother offered to arrange for the death of the child, and he turned this down as well. He left town to prevent anyone from doing these things and planned to remain gone until the child was old enough to take over. But Sparta called him home.

“Lycurgus was much missed at Sparta, and often sent for, “for kings indeed we have,” they said, “who wear the marks and assume the titles of royalty, but as for the qualities of their minds, they have nothing by which they are to be distinguished from their subjects”; adding that in him alone was the true foundation of sovereignty to be seen, a nature made to rule, and a genius to gain obedience.”

Lycurgus came back and began to institute changes such as making everyone equal in possessions and wealth. This naturally stirred up some trouble, and in a protest, a wealthy young man hit him with a stick and by some accounts cost Lycurgus an eye. When this Alcander was given to Lycurgus for punishment, Lycurgus took him in and made him wait upon him at his table. “The young man, who was of an ingenuous temper, without murmuring did as he was command; and being thus admitted to live with Lycurgus, he had an opportunity to observe him, besides his gentleness and calmness of temper, an extraordinary sobriety and indefatigable industry, and so, from and enemy became one of his most zealous admirers, and told his friends and relations that Lycurgus was not that morose and ill-natured man they had former taken him for, but the one mild and gentle character of the world.”

Thus Lycurgus made an ally out of an enemy and used that ally to get others to trust him. It is the old maxim of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer, practiced by leaders from Lycurgus to Lincoln.

There is one other leadership lesson I want to draw from the Spartans before I close. Lycurgus made a law that Sparta should not make war “often, or long, with the same enemy, lest that they should train and instruct them in war, by habituating them to defend themselves.”

Plutarch tells us the story of Agesilaus, a Spartan leader who made war on the Thebans so many times that he made the Thebans a match for the Lacedaemonians (Spartans). Antalcidas (another Spartan statesman) saw Agesilaus wounded after a fight with the Thebans and said to him that he was paid for making the Thebans into good soldiers whether they wanted to be or not.

There are two lessons from this. The first is that you can learn from your enemies and they can learn from you. One should draw lessons from their defeats. So, in every encounter, you should draw lessons from it.

The second lesson is one of perseverance. If you learn from your past defeats you can prove victorious in the long run.

I read this story at a time when I was doing a lot of competitive fencing and often taking a beating on the strip. It helped me reframe my experience and think to myself that my opponents would eventually turn me into a better fencer.

Next Time: Plutarch’s Numa Pompilius – Looking at the Lawgiver of Rome

Plutarch’s Lives: Lycurgus – The Spartans Were Totally Gay!

So the most recent reading has been Plutarch’s lives, and the Britannica editors suggest reading four : Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus and Numa compared, Alexander, Caesar. Well, I started in on this reading and realized that trying to take it as one reading would be far too extensive and complicated for a single entry. So, I am starting with Lycurgus.

Lycurgus was “the lawgiver of Sparta,” according to Plutarch, and the one who made Sparta into what we know it as today – a formidable, military state. Much of this entry is really about Sparta more so than about Lycurgus the man, but in ascribing all the Spartan institutions to Lycurgus, Plutarch seems to follow the theory that most history is as a result of the actions of great men.

The Spartans have an image of being tough, hardcore warriors, and it seems that plenty of people think they might be worthy of emulation. The graphic novel 300 and the film of the same name led to a lot of interest in the Spartans recently. The Michigan State University mascot is the Spartan.

A more telling example might be an interview from “Fighting on Guadalcanal,” a 1943 booklet produced for the troops heading to the Pacific Theater in World War II, in which one Marine sergeant who served in the Army says he likes the Marines better because they are “more Spartan-like.”

The historical record seems pretty clear that the Spartans were tough guys, but I don’t think we want to emulate the Spartan state, which was essentially, if we take Plutarch’s view of it, essentially a large, permanent military camp.

“No one was allowed to live after his own fancy; but the city was a sort of camp, in which every man had his share of provisions and business set out, and looked upon himself not so much born to serve his own ends as the interest of his country.”

Sparta was a place where infants were thrown into a gorge if they a committee decided they looked to weak, a practice which led mothers to bathe their infants in wine to give them a more robust appearance. When Spartan boys turned seven, they were taken away from their families and enrolled in a military company for their education, in which their elders would provoke fights between the kids to see who was the strongest. The military education continued throughout their lives, and even as men, they lived as soldiers and subjects of the state, rather than free men. There was virtually no ornamentation or luxury.

Now, I admit that I am probably a softie, but I have to say, I would not have liked living in Sparta or any state like it. I don’t think the Spartans would have much use for a guy interested in hanging out and reading the great books. (How much our own society cares for this thing is a whole different debate.)

And what about this “totally gay” part? Okay, I admit I did that in part for the ratings. But seriously, one of the reasons I am tackling this is that there seems to be some potentially interesting precendent from the Spartans on this.

In the film 300, the Persian king was portrayed as gay, because, according to the director, Zack Snyder: “What’s more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?” (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014479,00.html)

But the Spartans themselves encouraged boys to have lovers in their cohorts, and when they did marry women, they had a strange custom, according to Plutarch.

“After this, she who superintended the wedding comes and clips the hair of the bride close around her head, dresses he up in man’s clothes, and leaves her upon a mattress in the dark; afterwards comes the bridegroom, in his everyday clothes, sober and composed, as having supped at the common table , and entering privately into the room where the bride lies, unties her virgin zone, and takes her to himself; and after staying some time together, he returns composedly to his own apartment, to sleep as usual with the other men.”

Dressing your wife like a man when you go to be with her seems a little odd to me. But maybe this is more common than I think.

The Spartan also would allow other men to sleep with their wives and sleep with other men’s wives if it looked like that would produce strong children. It was kind of free-thinking of them, but very darwinistic as well. I have heard of other tribes where men who distinguish themselves in some way are allowed to choose, or be chosen by, any woman in the tribe as a way making sure there are strong generations to come.

Thinking about this reading in context of the modern day, it makes me wonder whether the whole gays in the military issue is a fuss over nothing. While I’ve always thought that those in the service would be mature enough to serve with homosexuals, this reading makes me think that if the best warriors from Ancient Greece didn’t have a problem with it, and they had a much harder go of it than our guys do today, then maybe the U.S. military could handle it as well.

Also, if thinking about these bad-ass warriors being unafraid of homosexuality means that it might lessen homophobia elsewhere, then that is a good thing.

Now, even though I wouldn’t want to be a Spartan, that doesn’t mean I find them completely without merit. I will dig into that in my next entry.

Next Time: Spartan Lessons on Comportment, Leadership, and Perseverance

Aristotle’s Politics – What Living With Other People Leads To

In the first book of the Politics, Aristotle begins with the notion that humans are political and social animals who must live together. In living together, humans all have certain roles that they must play, and these roles are determined by whether a person is a man or woman, adult or child, free person or slave.   

Aristotle’s argument is that states exist to provide people with a good life, and he points out that wealth must have limits in order for that good life to be obtained. Merely chasing after money is not useful, according to him, and despite some ideas that may not hold up under the empirical experiences of modern days, he seems to have identified a problem with modern life. Namely, we are too interested in the medium of exchange and trying to develop wealth without limits rather than natural riches.

“For natural riches and the natural art of wealth getting are a different thing; in their true form, they are part of the management of a household; whereas the retail trade is the art of producing wealth, not in every way, but by exchange.”

In considering households as the basic building block of the state, Aristotle devotes considerable time to household management and wealth creation in this first book. He posits that the household exists to provide for essential needs, villages are created to provide for something more than basic needs, and thus societies are formed. Once enough villages come together, then “the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.”

Aristotle begins with the notion that people must live together.

“Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not be mere accident is without a start is either a bad man or above humanity….”

He goes on to show why the state is a creation of nature.

“The proof that that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the while. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part or a state.”

Having convinced us of the necessity of living together, Aristotle wants to understand how states work by breaking them down into their constituent parts. He regards states as a collection of households, and here he begins to lay out the roles that people must play.

Aristotle looks at families, which he says are comprised of master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. The father and man of the house is the one in charge for Aristotle. He says that some people are “from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” 

While slavery is a state of nature for some people, and those people serve as instruments of creating and gathering wealth, others are not meant to be slaves, and to keep them in slavery is a bad idea.

“Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force, the reverse is true.”

Slavery is an odious institution, and I cannot see a strong argument for it in anyway, but then, that stems from my belief that there is no natural relationship that could create a slave. Power tends to corrupt, and we see petty and large tyrannies everywhere that show people who try to create slaves never have a “natural” relationship with them.

Aristotle even talks about how the “meaner sort of mechanic has a special and separate slavery” and that artisans also have characteristics of slavery. If Aristotle were right that masters are sources of excellence in their slaves, the existence of slavery might be more palatable. But even middle managers routinely fail at creating excellence in this society of free people, so I fail to see how someone who is in a position to be abusive and capricious could possibly maintain excellence in themselves, much less in others they consider beneath them.

Aristotle also believes that men should rule over women and children. Even though a woman can be temperate, brave, and just, that does not mean that these qualities are the same in men and women.

“Clearly, then the moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.”

Now, I find Aristotle an interesting read, but he and I part company here. Although men and women are different, looking at things empirically, as Aristotle would like us to do, I can’t say that this is correct. Perhaps the difference is in my time, women have be involved in all spheres of life, public and private, while in his time their roles were much more limited. It is interesting to think about what Aristotle would say today, faced with the evidence of our modern society.

However he might change his views on slavery and the roles of men and women if he were to visit modern society, I think that Aristotle would find evidence to support his belief that riches should have limits.

He divides the art of “wealth-getting” into two kinds, unnecessary and necessary. The unnecessary kind is that which is just about accumulating coin through retail trade, as he terms it. He says that virtues are corrupted through this. I think here, Aristotle is correct in that in the past twenty to thirty years, we have seen the best and brightest of our country devote themselves to creating money out of money, rather than building true wealth through the creation of valuable objects or tangible resources. Even things once designed to bring us happiness and inculcate virtue have become marketing tools. Why do Christmas decorations come out in stores during October?

Aristotle would say the United States has gotten out of hand with its search for wealth.

“Those who aim at a good life seek the means of obtaining bodily pleasures; and, since the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property, they are absorbed in getting wealth; and so there arises the second species of wealth-getting. For, as their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art which produces the excess of enjoyment and it they are not able to supply their pleasure by the art of getting wealth, they try other arts, using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature.”

There is a proper reason for gathering wealth, however, and that is to live a good life.

“Of the art of acquisition then there is one kind which by nature is a part of the management of a household, in so far as the art of household management must either find ready to hand, or itself provide, such things necessary to life, and useful for the community of the family or state, as can be stored. They are the elements of true riches; for the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited….”

One can only wonder what Aristotle would have thought of credit cards and subprime loans.

Next Time: Plutarch’s Lives — Learning About Ourselves Through the Biographies of Others

These Books are Big: Some Thoughts on the Set

I want to take a little time out here to talk about the set and actual books in the Great Books of the Western World. In my set there are 52 volumes and each one is about 9 and ½ inches tall and 6 and ½ inches wide. Their thickness varies, based on the work. You can see from the photo at the top, that they look good on a shelf. The volumes are even color-coded. Yellow volumes has poetry and novels, blue books contain histories and “works in ethics, economics, politics, and jurisprudence” in the words of the editors, green volumes are natural sciences, and red books are philosophy and theology.  (To be fair, my set, being from the 1950s, as near as I can tell, is a little faded.)

 Given the fact that I am reading the set, I think it is obvious that I like it. All the same, I think that the individual books can be a little unwieldy to take on a train or a bus to read on a commute for example. Perhaps the subject matter is a little too weighty for casual commute reading anyway.

When I think about the age of the set, I have the image of the 1950s dad coming home, having dinner, talking to the kids about school, and then retreating to his study to read after the kids are in bed. Maybe with a highball. While this is kind of a fanciful notion, I kind of wish I had a study to retreat to, and that I made the time to read more consistently. This is more of an issue of managing all the inputs and distractions of daily life. While it can be done, I have often found much of my best reading was done on the bus or the train, commuting to and from work. It was a time when I could sit and read rather than be caught up in a phone call, taking care of chores, or one of a million other things.

This is why I think about the design of the books. I wonder how much influence the design has on whether or not the books get read. The set should not just be an attractive shelf piece. Does it matter that the books are 9 and ½ inches tall, color coded and with two-column text pages, versus, say, the Harvard Great Books set, which tend to be smaller in the editions I’ve seen.

 As an aside, the Harvard Great Books, which I plan to tackle some day, were created by Charles Eliot, a president of Harvard University, after P.F. Collier & Sons Publishers challenged him to make good on his assertion that he could design a set of books that would educate people who were willing to read for 15 minutes a day. You can read about the set, and one man’s attempt to read them at http://thewholefivefeet.com/home.html.

 On some level, I think that the design of the books just takes some getting used to, and I think I am getting used to them as I go along. On another, though, I wonder about the importance of the design in getting these books read. I think that reading them is incredibly valuable. I have recently had discussions about real life problems that have been based on my most recent reading of Aristotle. So, I think that these books can really change peoples’ lives for the better. Anything that contributes to that is worth considering.  (I have also been asked to post more of the reading lists from the set to give an idea of the what the next nine years of reading would look like and will do so in the near future.)

 Next Time: Aristotle’s Politics – What Living With Other People Leads To.

Aristotle’s Ethics: Learning to Behave and to Be Happy

This week’s reading is the first book of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. This is an important reading because it can give us some practical guidance on how we should live our lives. In this book, Aristotle begins to look at the question of what is good, how we know it, and how we should behave.  His premise is that there is some good that every art, action, and pursuit aims to achieve. He goes on to say that the end goal of all the things we do is happiness, and we achieve this by living a virtuous life.

Even an author from 2,000 years ago is prepared to admit that this is something of a cliché. ‘Oh, we just all want to be happy.’ But he argues that all the things humans strive for — health, honor, wealth — aim at this one goal of happiness, and that it is the only thing we seek for its own sake. “Happiness, then, is something self-sufficient, and is the end of action.”

“Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given if we could first ascertain the function of man,” Aristotle says.

The function of man is “an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principle,” is how Aristotle defines it. In other words, he is saying we are rational creatures who can define, pursue, and achieve excellence and virtue. Once we do so, then we can live a happy life. 

It is important to note here that Aristotle defines happiness in terms of virtuous activity. Happiness, and virtue, for that matter, are not states of being of Aristotle. You do not achieve these things and have them forever. Instead you act them out throughout your life. Aristotle shows us that we can’t just collect a certain amount of wealth or accolades and call it a day.

“For no function of man has so much permanence as virtuous activities…and of these themselves the most valuable are more durable because those who are happy spend their life most readily and most continuously in these….The attribute in question, then, will belong to the happy man, and he will be happy throughout his life; for always, or by preference to everything else, he will be engaged in virtuous action and contemplation, and he will bear the chances of life most nobly and altogether decorously, if he is ‘truly good’ and ‘foursquare beyond reproach’.”

Aristotle here becomes kind of a self-help guru and says that happy men, who are truly good and wise will make the best of circumstances.

Now, I am taking the book in somewhat reverse order, because in the first part of the book, he lays out how we can know what is good. For Aristotle, people know what is good because they are educated in good habits and by getting a good all around education, they become good all-around judges.

Aristotle says that we all learn by example what is good, rather than deducing what is good by comparing examples to some universal knowledge of an absolute good. This separates him from his teacher, Plato, who argued through Socratic dialogs that we know what things are through understanding universal forms, and we know what is good because we have some idea of the ultimate idea of good.

According to Aristotle, we learn through experience rather than revelation. 

“It is hard, too, to see how a weaver or carpenter will be benefitted in regard to his own craft by knowing this ‘good itself’, or how the man who has viewed the Idea itself will be a better doctor or general thereby. For a doctor seems not even to study health in this way, but the health of a man, or perhaps rather the health of a particular man; it is individuals that he is healing.”

Aristotle is talking about finding virtue through induction, as opposed to the deduction used by Plato. The New York Public Library Desk Reference, third edition, defines the two as follows.

Inductive Reasoning: Any process of reasoning from something particular to something general, or form a part to a whole. Inductive reason can be valid or invalid.

Deductive Reasoning: Reasoning from a general statement to a particular or specific example; for example, “All cats are mortal; William is a cat; therefore William is mortal.”

In addition, Aristotle takes pains to say that we need to set limits on our inquiries into these matters. He says that it is too easy to make the inquiries infinite unless we set limits on what we are trying to find out.

Where does this leave us? To start, Aristotle says we need to exercise our judgment and rational faculties to know what is good.

He also says that to achieve happiness we must behave in a good and virtuous way. Happiness is actions, not a state of being. I think this may be why many people are chronically unhappy even after they have gathered things and created a set piece that they think should make them happy.

Happiness is not having; it is doing.

Next Time – These Books are Big: Some Thoughts on the Set

Plato’s Republic Book II: Your Dog is a Philosopher

Book II of the Republic shows how a little question can get way out hand. But to show this, I need to reach back into Book I for a moment. Thrasymachus, one of the other party goers, says that justice is the interest of the stronger. In doing so, he brings up the idea that laws are written for the benefit of the state and the state is stronger than individuals. I am compressing a lot of argument here, but this seems to plant an idea in Socrates’ head.

Glaucon and Adeimantus both take up the argument to say that being unjust is better than being just. Glaucon tells the story of the ring of invisibility and how if people could get away with it, they would commit all sorts of unjust acts. He also says that the unjust man can deceive others into thinking he is a really great guy and even make a just man seem bad. The unjust man reaps rewards, while the just man:

Glaucon: They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound – have his eyes burnt out, and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled: Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just…. 

Adeimantus raises the possibility that there are no gods to punish the unjust in the hereafter or that they are in different to human affairs or can be swayed. The two men make the case that it is better to be unjust and ask Socrates to refute them.

Adeimantus: And therefore, I say, not only prove to us that justice is better than injustice, but show what they either of them do to the possessor of them, which makes one to be a good and the other an evil, whether seen or unseen by gods and men.

This is important, because it sets up the idea of the Platonic ideal: that there is something that is irreducibly just, or good, regardless of the opinions of me, or even gods. There is something inherently good about justice, and thus there is an inherent good. This good is elemental, rather than something that is open to interpretation.

Here’s where things get out of hand. Socrates proposes that the assembled company explore the idea of justice by looking at it as a large virtue, in the form of a state.

Socrates: Then in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernable. I propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them.

So they decide to imagine a state that is just. Apparently truly just states are in short supply, even in Ancient Greece. The party agrees to create one from scratch, and thus the stage is set for the rest of the book.  

In the creation of this state, the company decides that it needs guardians, people who will protect and take care of the city. People who will be perfectly gentle to their familiars and the reverse to strangers, which is how well-bred dogs are. Socrates says this shows that a dog is a true philosopher.

 Socrates: Why, because [a dog] 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?

Here we come back to this idea of knowing and not knowing. It is this idea of knowing something elemental, friend versus foe, testing knowledge and ignorance, that determines what something is and how we behave. Whether or not this is applicable to a dog I think could be debated, but for Socrates’ point it comes down to learning the form of friend and stranger that is important.

From here, The Republic goes on to develop a number of ideas, and Book II is really the entry point into much more. But, the editors have us bounding off to our next reading.

Next Time – Aristotle’s Ethics: Learning to Behave

Plato’s Republic – Starting with a Nod to the Skeptics

This week’s reading assignment, if you will, consists of the first two books of Plato’s Republic. While they are grouped as one reading, I am going to take the two books separately. The first two books are rich with ideas and information and very important to setting up the rest of the work. I think maybe the editors of the set were looking to draw readers into reading the whole thing. That is definitely worthwhile, but for now, I am just sticking with the reading list.

 In the first book of The Republic, Plato is essentially saying that the exercise that he is about to go through will not satisfy everybody and lays out some ground rules for the discussion to follow. Years ago, in my undergraduate days, a friend of mine came to me after being assigned readings from The Republic in one of his classes and said that his problem with the book was that it seemed like Socrates was engaging in rhetorical games rather than problem solving and that the things he was talking about did not apply in the real world.

 This led me to reconsider and reread the book. I think book one addresses this in a couple of ways.

 In the opening, we find Socrates and his friend Glaucon returning from a festival, when they run into Polemarchus and his friends who invite them to have dinner and conversation afterwards. Polemarchus wants Socrates and Glaucon to stay, but meets with some resistance. Here is how he responds:

 Polemarchus: But you see how many we are? [Referring to himself and his friends]

Socrates: Of course.

Polemarchus: And are you stronger than all of these? for if not, you will have to remain where you are.

Socrates: May there not be the alternative that we may persuade you to let us go?

Polemarchus: But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you?

Glaucon: Certainly not.

Polemarchus: Then we are not going to listen; of that you may be assured.

 While this seems like an exchange to move the story along, I think Plato is saying two things with this passage. First, you can’t convince someone who won’t listen to reason. So, if you are going to read this book, then you must be willing to listen to the arguments. Second, he is saying that sometimes, in the real world, dialectic succumbs to outside forces, such as a mob.

 [Permit me a slight aside on punctuation at this point. You will notice the “for” in the above quote is not capitalized. This occurs in several translations in the Great Books set. I think that it is deliberate, and a way to show the ideas flowing together. More on grammar as a logical operator another time, though.]

From here, Socrates and Glaucon go to Polemarchus’ home and there begin their evening discussions with Cephalus, Ploemarchus’ father, who has been making sacrifices to the gods. They talk about the burdens and benefits of old age and wealth, with Cephalus saying that one benefit to being wealthy is a chance to make good with the gods for all the bad things you have done in your life. This leads to the beginning of the discussion of justice. But Cephalus leaves the dialog to his son, and goes back laughing to his sacrifices.

 I think here Plato is saying that there are some people for whom philosophical discussion is useful only insofar as it is a practical matter – preparing for the afterlife in Cephalus case. He leaves the discussion to take care of his sacrifices, having gone as far as he feels is useful. Plato is saying you have to stick with these discussions beyond just trying to figure out what kinds of sacrifices you should offer or what actions might be necessary to be a good person. ‘We are going to the heart of the matter,’ Plato is saying.

 One more ground rule is laid down in book one that I think is important, and that is the idea that the just man cannot harm anyone. He is trying to get this discussion of justice going in a particular direction. It is interesting that Socrates is sometimes referred to as a pre-Christian Christian. I think passages like this may be why. It is also interesting to read this after reading the Crito, where Socrates says he cannot escape from the prison. The just ought not to harm anyone, including the unjust or evil, because it only makes them worse.

Here is what he says in the Republic:

Socrates: Then to injure a friend or any one else, is not the act of a just man, but of the opposite, who is unjust?

Polemarchus: I think that what you say is quite true, Socrates.

Socrates: Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil is the debt which he owes to his enemies – to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just.

 So, these are the ground rules for the Republic:

1. Be willing to listen and be persuaded.
2. Be willing to go to the core of the question.
3. Harm no one.

 Next time – Plato’s Republic Book II: Your Dog is a Philosopher

Read Faster! Why I Am So Slow, and A Promise to Update More Frequently

Well, I can’t imagine that there are any regular readers of this blog, though I am happy a few folks have stopped by and been engaged.

 I have been very slow to update it. In part, this is because I have been very slow about reading the books and writing timely posts. I am working to get back on track though. I don’t know if it is possible, but I would like to try to finish the first year of reading by the end of this calendar year.

 That is kind of a tall order, so I had better get cracking.

 What I have learned so far is that finding time to read in modern life can be difficult, especially with so many opportunities, messages, and interests competing for our attention. While I should have plenty of time because I do not have a 9-to5 job, I find most of my time is being spent hustling up work or entertaining myself in other ways.

 So, here is my pledge to you all. I will read faster and post more often on this blog. I will focus on the Britannica Great Books set, but will occasionally let some other things sneak onto the pages.

Welcome to the jumpstarted conversation. Here’s to good reading and good talking ahead.

Next Time — Plato’s Republic: Starting With a Nod to the Skeptics