Tag Archives: HC221

Iphigenia in Aulis. Euripides(410BCE) Translated by George Theodoridis

15 Replies

*Spoilers ahead*

I don’t think it would be at all interesting to write a plot synopsis of Iphigenia, so instead I’m going to do a quick analysis of each of the consequential characters and their major traits.

  • Agamemnon – King of Argos, Father of Iphigenia, Husband of Klytaimestra,
    • Loves Greece – Is the General of all fighting forces sailing to Troy. Sees conflict with Troy as the only way to protect Greece from raids carried out by barbarous Trojans.
    • Loves his Iphigenia – Doesn’t want to sacrifice his daughter but sees it as the only way to appease Artemis and carry on with the war.
    • Is strictly reactive – At each turn, from the first scene to the last, Agamemnon was reacting to the actions of others. He was told to sacrifice his daughter by Calchas, convinced to do so by Menelaos, forced to carry through with it by the actions of Odyssseus and so on.
  • Klytaimestra – Mother of Iphigenia, Wife of Agamemnon
    • Happiness/Grief – Exists in the play mostly to show pride that her daughter is going to marry a hero and then grief that she is going to be sacrificed. Her emotions are a sort of outsized reaction of what the audience is meant to feel for Iphigenia, particularly when she’s pleading with Achilles to save her. If she has a fault it is her womanliness, which is more of an issue with contemporary society making it impossible for her to act on her own to effect the outcome of the situation.
  • Old Man – Slave of Agamemnon and Klytaimestra
    • Loyalty – The only non-named character to make this list earned his place because of the multiple times he put himself in danger in order to carry out orders he had been given by his master, first by trying to retain his letter from Menelaos, then by exposing the sacrificial plot to Klytaimestra and Achilles. Both of these events were attempts to save Iphigenia’s life and save Klytaimestra from strife.
  • Achilles – Chief of contingent of the army, Greek Hero, son of goddess, Thetis
    • Honor/Duty – Achilles agrees to defend Iphigenia from her father and the hordes of Greek soldiers, not because she is innocent and deserves to be saved, but rather, he promises to save her because she was lured there using his name. Because Agamemnon used his name to lure Iphigenia there without his knowledge he feels responsible to protect her, however, Achilles explicitly states that had he been informed of the plot to lure Iphigenia before it was carried out he would have cosigned it. This demonstrates that it isn’t some “defense of the innocent” moral that he is guided by, but that his personal honor is most important to him.
  • Iphigenia – Daughter of Agamemnon and Klytiamestra, sacrifice to Artemis
    • Innocence – Iphigenia is the only character who is without a fault in my mind. She acts without pride or ulterior motive throughout the play, doing what she thinks is fair or what is best for all.
    • Selflessness – Being the only character that shows growth (honorable mention to Menelaos, who wasn’t important enough to make this list), Iphigenia goes from frantic at the thought of being sacrificed, to at peace with the idea. It is imparting this selflessness onto the audience that was the object of the play.

This is everyone I felt deserved a place on a “consequential characters” list. I was tempted to add Menelaos but I don’t see him as having a particular personality and his only action in the play was to foil the plot to get Iphigenia not to arrive, however that event didn’t necessarily have to be because of him, inclement weather stopping the messenger would have been just as effective.

The Analects of Confucius. Confucius (551-479 BCE), Annotated by Robert Eno (2015)

53 Replies

The Analects of Confucius are delivered to the reader in the form of truncated conversations, often only a sentence or two long. This format was initially difficult for me to read, but it grew easier and by the end of the reading I was glad not to have to read anything but the essential portions of speech. The Analects are separated into 20 books, each with its own theme, though sometimes what the theme was was lost on me.

There are several themes that show up repeatedly throughout the text. Dao, commonly translated as “The Way” or “The Path”, is something that can be shown to someone but that person must follow it themself. Li are the rituals one ought to follow in order to be honorable and respectable. Li applies both to behavior in court, making sacrifices to ancestors, and one’s reverence to their parents and older brothers. (I here say older brothers specifically rather than older siblings because women are only mentioned a few times throughout the reading and never in a position of respect or authority). Ren, difficult to translate satisfactorily, can be taken to mean humanity or goodness, though untranslated I found it easier to encompass the full idea of “those traits worth striving for in able to become a good, just person”. Junzi is literally a “true prince”, not one who gained their position by relation, but who possesses the traits that make one a good leader. A junzi doesn’t need to be in a position of power in the government, but they must be pursuant of ren.

My overall impression of Confucius is complicated. I appreciate his focus and desire on virtue coming from an individual trying to perfect themself and that only if one pursued personal perfection were they worthy to lead others. What I disagree about is that a good and just leader will make a good and just society. This attitude sees the lower classes as purely reactionary beings who have no reason of their own.

I have a lot more that I could say about the various themes of the reading and examples thereof, but I don’t think it would be either sufficient or interesting, so I’ll leave this writing as a brief one.

The 42 Negative Confessions (Excerpt from the Book of the Coming Forth by Day). Translation by E.A. Wallis Budge (Translated 1913)

23 Replies

The 42 Negative Confessions are the confessions a soul must make, according to the Book of the Coming Forth by Day, or as it’s also popularly known, the Book of the Dead, before being judged before the scale of Ma’at and entering the afterlife. This brief text has a short introductory paragraph explaining what the confessions are, to whom they are given, and who the translator was. After the introduction the rest of the text is presented the confessions as they were meant to take place.

As I stated above, the confessions are those that a newly deceased soul would give before being judged by the scale of Ma’at. The text itself does not give any more illumination as to what happens if one is deemed worthy or unworthy by the scale, but does illuminate what traits were valued by Ma’at. Each confession was given to a different of the 42 Gods and Goddesses of the Nomes (a territorial division) of Egypt. There is likely some correlation as to which confession is delivered to which God or Goddess, but the sparseness of the explanatory text makes it so that a reader must have background information to know what that correlation is.

The bulk of the test takes place in the form of a numbered list wherein at each interval the “speaker” hails a new God or Goddess, calls them by their title and proclaims that they have not done a particular type of wickedness in the eyes of Ma’at; for example, I have not snatched away food, and I have not set my lips in motion against anyone. The negative confessions shed a decent amount of light on the nature of Ma’at itself; Ma’at means to be truthful, righteous, and honest. The basic concepts are familiar to anyone; it’s just the form it takes that is foreign.

The biggest question that the form of negative confessions brings to my mind is, is it good enough to not do evil, or must one do good in order to be ethical?

The Maxims of Ptahhotep . Ptahhotep (c.2500BCE)

62 Replies

The Maxims of Ptahhotep was an instruction manual, not on the specific acts to take, but the behavior to exhibit if one wanted to live a successful life among the nobility of Egypt. The author implies he expects the rules for polite society to remain the same forever, stating that the rules he sets down are the reason he has been favored by god.

Though the maxims are long and poetic, many can be summed up simply in a sentence or two, and many of them have the same central conceit. Withholding my opinions for the end of this writing, I will now list several of the common themes in no particular order.

Be charitable: If you have amassed wealth, share it among your friends and neighbors; being giving with your wealth increases your reputation and the loyalty of those around you. One who is not charitable risks their friends and neighbors becoming bitter and jealous.

Stay out of drama: If two people are arguing, even if you have specifically been assigned as the judge in their case, don’t pick sides.

Listen: If someone comes to you with a problem, even if you can’t or don’t want to help solve the problem, listen to them. Just listening is often helpful on its own.

Maintain your professionalism: If a person of any social rank becomes belligerent they lose standing. Through remaining silent in these situations you gain respect.

A woman is to be controlled: You chose your wife, now you must keep her

Being well liked by your boss is paramount: Manners and flattery go a long way

Prudence: Do not act until you are sure of your actions and know the right course

The list goes on. Quite often the message is to respect authority, give good advice, and move up in the world. All maxims regarding charity come with the caveat that it is to gain influence over others. The maxims about respecting authority often advise that that is the path upward. I found almost all of the maxims to be either offensive or obvious, particularly those involving women, maxim 18 advises one not to sleep with his colleagues’ wife, maxim 21 is that the relationship between man and wife is transactional in that he keeps her fed and clothed and she gives him sexual favors.

If I hadn’t been reading this for a class I would have stopped less than half way through.

If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is. Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden (2016)

18 Replies

In this very brief opinion piece submitted to the New York Times Opinions page in 2016, the authors argue that one of two changes ought to come to the exceedingly high number of philosophy departments around the United States and Canada that have no specialists in any field of philosophy outside of those written by European and American men.

In the first paragraph, the authors go into statistical detail about the lack of departments offering classes in more diverse fields of philosophy than the standard European and American classes. They draw particular attention to the lack of representation of philosophers who are Chinese, African, Indian, Islamic, Latin American, or Native American. Having pointed out these glaring deficiencies, the authors go on to say “the present situation is hard to justify morally, politically, epistemically or as a good educational and research training practice.”

In the following paragraphs the authors go on to argue what I have to imagine they know to be a losing point; that departments who fail to diversify their curricula ought to specify their name. Rather than being the Philosophy Department, the authors suggest they be called the Anglo-European Philosophy Department.

The next few paragraphs are the authors effectively exchanging justifications and refutations with an imagined opponent of such a change, but the end result, as is the case when anyone debates someone who isn’t there, is that the authors win out.

I don’t imagine Garfield and Van Norden thought any department would undergo such a name change as they suggested, but their rhetoric did effectively expose a critical contradiction in the logic of those philosophy departments, something I’m sure philosophers can’t stand.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Pgs 72-86) Paulo Freire (1968)

23 Replies

It’s easy to understand why this is the first piece of reading a teacher might assign. The topic discussed is the failings of the educational system with regards to the freedom of thought left to students after they’ve completed their studies. The text begins by addressing the dichotomy of teacher and student, then spends quite a deal of time describing the current common mode of teaching, what the author calls the “banking concept of education”, followed by what the author suggests as a replacement to that method.

The relationship among teacher and student, Freire argues, is a strict vertical hierarchy. The teacher is in a roll that grants them authority and value, and their responsibility is to recite information to the students. The student is valueless without the teacher, because the teacher is the one who gives them information. The transaction is such that at the cessation of the relationship, the student should have memorized the same things the teacher has with regards to the subject of the class. Freire poses an alternative relationship where in there is not a teacher and many students, but rather a teacher-student and many student-teachers. In this new mode of organization value can be shared and moves in all directions rather than in a strictly vertical teacher-to-student direction. The teacher-student then becomes the person who has the most information or experience on the topic at hand, but always leaves room for more depth of understanding to come out of interactions with the student-teachers.

Freire criticizes the current mode of education as too impersonal, prescriptive, rigid, and transactional. Using the banking analogy, the teacher deposits information into the student, who is otherwise an empty vessel. Freire describes the banking concept of education by ten rules, including; the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing, the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it, and, the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students. The result of this style of education is the stripping away of the creativity, kindness, and free-thought innate in humankind, and, by extension, the mechanization of the people. Freire then states that a person’s natural vocation is to become human through the exercise of their own will.

As an alternative to this style of education, Freire suggests the “problem-posing” method. In the problem-posing method of education, each lesson becomes a discussion among peers. The teacher-student may decide the topic of discussion and guide the discussion from going too far astray, but should not set strict limitations. Through this method there will naturally be a great deal of exchange and evolution of thought. Not only does each student-teacher instruct the teacher and their peers, but they must also examine more closely their own opinions before giving them voice in a room of other free thinkers. This is what Freire calls “libertarian education”; education that sets one free.

Freire’s theories on education suggest that the mode in which one is educated is responsible for the way one lives their life. An education wherein one is taught to memorize and repeat information leads to a rigid, docile, easily-controllable population. A libertarian education is one that demonstrates a dynamic, changeable world in which the “students” are actors and who may affect its course. As Freire was a Marxist, he argues that any revolutionary society must adopt a liberatory educational system or risk becoming reactionary themselves. The influence of Marx is also clearly visible in the idea of a discussion based class, the focus on dialectics being the path to true knowledge.

I was excited as I read this piece and if it is an indication of what this class has to offer then I look forward to starting class in a few days.