Zeno's Paradox

According to Zeno, why would it be impossible for you to show up to class on Wednesday? What must we presuppose in order to account for your presence in the classroom and why.

Let the absurd answers fly but the first person to give me Zeno's answer wins.

Have fun,
Dr. Layne

Seneca on Anger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ0g7IKWG7E&feature=PlayList&p=3AB2124A01423D7E&index=0&playnext=1

This is a pretty cool video, relevant to the brief conversation we had about anger on Friday.

Parmenides

I know according to the agenda we shouldn't be reading Parmenides until Wednesday but for a reason I will divulge to you on Monday, I expect all of you to have read the fragments of Parmenides for the next class.

As for the question of the day, big drum roll please, I want you to tell me how Parmenides and Heraclitus are opposed in their philosophical thinking but also be sure to pinpoint how they may coincide in their thought.

Finally for class discussion I want all of you to be able to summarize what we have learned from the Pre-Socratics thus far. Be sure that you can show knowledge of at least two or three relevant features of each of these philosophers by having quotes from their fragments ready to hand. Also, to tie together how these old dead white guys are still relevant to each of our lives, I would appreciate if all of you found a way to relate at least one of the philosophers to your major.

Have a nice weekend,
Dr. Layne

Shan'Tra S. Henry-Heraclitus

Most of the fragments of Heraclitus are insightful, but I must say that three of them are my favorite. Fragment number eight is true from beginning to end. “Divine things for the most part escape recognition because of unbelief,” this is fragment number eight. The fragment can hold for the example of why most people do not believe in God. God and of that he has created was through his divinity. But because this was such a great task and accomplishment, people have a hard time accepting Him. So most either ignore it or go against it, so I see this fragment as being very true even today. Fragment number thirty –two is also among my favorites. Fragment thirty-two, “All that can be seen, heard, experienced-these are what I prefer.” This fragment in particular suggests that life is meant to be lived, so stop treating it as an option and not a priority. We are supposed to experiences a new thing that is what a life that has been lived means. Everything should not be taken for granted, every great opportunity, triumph and adventure should be embarked on and celebrated. I sure hope everyone feels this way.

Heraclitus

For Friday read ALL of the fragments of Heraclitus. Post your favorite ones, or the ones that you think are the most important and explain why.

Cheers,
Dr. Layne

The "First" Philosophers

Today we discussed the origin of philosophy from wonder. I argued that philosophy is not a mere replacement for a primitive or naive form of thinking but rather, philosophy is the basis for all forms of thinking whether it appears in the guise of mythological or creative works of literature or, more commonly, the  philosophical treatise. I ultimately argued that anyone who ever questions or "wonders," to use the words of Aristotle, approaches the door to philosophy. Thus questioning the origin of philosophy is not a matter of determining the exact day and time that philosophy/rational thinking appeared. Rather the origin of philosophy is something intimate to each of us as human/rational animals. Consequently when we question the historical origin of philosophy in such thinkers like Thales, i.e. when we question who the "first" philosopher is and why he thought the way he thought, we are still investigating how philosophy may arise in each of us rather than just collecting or amassing historical information. Keeping this in mind then, I want you now to read over and analyze the surviving fragments of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. Tell me primarily what "worldview" these men share and why this may earn them the title of the "first" philosophers. Consider also  whether their work is any more "rational" than say the mythology that we were presented with in Homer, Aeschylus or Euripides.


See you Wednesday.
Cheers,
Dr. Layne

Pop Quiz #1

So today we discussed the end of the Bacchae while also reviewing Prometheus Bound and the Iliad. We discussed the worldviews and consequent ethics that arise from these texts while also analyzing their similiarities and differences.

At the end of class and all this reviewing, we had our first quiz. For those of you who missed it. Do not fret, you can still turn in an answer as all were allowed to take the quiz home. Unfortunately if missed class and did not inform me before class, your quiz grade will automatically be deducted 1 point from the 5 as the directions below indicate.

Good Luck Guys!
Dr. Layne

Directions (from the in-class prep): In the next twenty minutes you need to write out an answer to the question below clearly and concisely. Be sure to organize your thoughts so as to have a clear thesis statement supported by evidence. It might be helpful to organize your thoughts into an opening paragraph containing your thesis statement followed by two to three short body paragraphs which detail the reasons why you hold your particular thesis. Once “in-class writing” has been completed you will be allowed to take your answer home so that you may type it up and expand upon it. You may edit your answer for clarity and add further evidence to your paper. Finally, you will be required to staple this written draft to your “final” typed up and edited draft on Monday, Sept.  13. Final Quizzes need only be 1 page long of no less than 300 words but no more than 500. Please turn these two copies in along with posting your answer to the class blog. If you do not turn in your “hand written quiz” with your final copy, your grade will be lowered 1 point from the 5 total points possible.

Question: Pick from the Iliad, Prometheus Bound or the Bacchae. Discuss the worldview(s), (i.e. the cosmology, theology, axiology, anthropology etc.), that the author illustrates in their text and describe how the author criticizes the ethics/morality that may arise from such conditions/beliefs.

A documentary relevant to Wednesday's class

Link:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/emasculating-truth/

According to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, testosterone is declining in American men at the alarming rate of one percent a year. But why? That’s what Casey Neistat and Oscar Boyson sought to uncover in their film An Emasculating Truth.

Ultimately, the short film goes beyond this question to further the current dialogue about today’s definition of masculinity in light of changing gender roles. Boyson, the film’s producer and on camera emcee, came to some very personal conclusions about what it means to be a man today, turning the camera on himself and asking the question ‘what does it mean to be a man?’

And the moral of the story is.....

So after reading the entirety of the Bacchae and discussing the various concepts like gender, human nature, power, freedom and the roles we are given and make for ourselves in society, tell me in a few sentences the moral of the story. What is the identity we can safely assign to this text?

Personally I have always found the Bacchae to be one of the most disturbing tragedies. In fact, the first time I read it, with its gruesome finale along with its stunning portrayal of Dionysus and his followers, I was initially struck by the thought that perhaps Aristotle had been correct in accessing whether such tragedies were meant to be mediums of psychic purification. In the merciless destruction of the ruler of Thebes, his family and finally the city itself we are indeed brought to our knees, forced to fear the divine, this unforgiving god, and pity those hapless fools who followed the relentlessly stubborn Pentheus to his demise. Moreover, both Pentheus and Dionysus seem to be monsters rather than heroes. In this regard I tend to think Nietzsche may have  been correct in regarding Euripides as the murderer of tragedy, as the one who utilizes irony, the character of Dionysus and the literary tool of "role reversal" not to affirm suffering in spite of itself, but to destroy the hope that tragic heroes like Prometheus are intended to instill in the other characters of the play as well as the audience. What in the end is purified by the end of this show? Are there really any winners? Does the good prevail? I tend to regard this as the perfect “swan song” for tragedy, where the meaning or aim of theater is itself questioned as the monstrous nature of both man and god are brought to the fore. 

See you soon guys,
Dr. Layne

Would you rather be right, or be loved?

http://www.adaringadventure.com/life-coaching/would-you-rather-be-right-or-be-loved/

Sex and Going out of Your Mind

Issues of sexuality and madness predominant the next section of the play. In a few sentences, give me your opinion of the role of these topics and what you think Euripides may be suggesting in the confrontation between manly Pentheus and effeminate Dionysus. Think about various things. Some examples might be like what place do the woman have in Pentheus' city? What opinion of women does Pentheus himself hold? Why might Dionysus be the androgynous deity? Why might women more than men need to go mad? What do you make of the actions of the woman in their ecstatic state?

See ya soon,
Dr. Layne

Shan'Tra S. Henry- The Bacchae

In the Euripides Bacchae characters Pentheus and Dionysus seem to continually have an ongoing battle in regards to how much power one may hold over the other. In the particular text, Penthesus’ arrogance and persecution of the Bacchants can be justified. It seems that Pentheus’ city has been receiving some terror from the Bacchants, as I understood it is in regards to the mistreatment of their women or at least it’s affecting them the most. In this case why wouldn’t Pentheus feel that is important to condemn the Bacchants? Any ruler of a particular area wants there citizens to be at peace and will bring to justice those that are causing an up roaring. Dionysus was attempting to spread ideals in the kingdom of Pentheus, how disrespectful. I just think that Dionysus is being extremely sensitive when it comes to Pentheus not treating him like a “real” god. I believe Pentheus refers to Dionysus as a “new god” because maybe he does not yet deserve the respect that other gods have, so Pentheus refuses to treat him as such. Throughout this text Penthesus is justified in all that he is doing, it’s just that because Dionysus is a “god” that he comes off as being arrogant. But any king that cares about his people and kingship would have committed the same actions as Pentheus.

The Bacchae

Now after discussing the importance of combining Power and Intellect for true freedom, we shall turn to a text which pits the two concepts of Faith and Reason against each other.

In light of this, most readers of the text immediately regard Pentheus' rationalism and refusal to believe in Dionysus as a tyrannical hubris or stubborn/disgusting arrogance which will ultimately lead to his downfall. Regardless of this instinctual characterization of Pentheus, can you give me reasons that may justify his arrogance and his consequent persecution of the Bacchants. If you don't think their is any justification for his arrogance, please explain why you think this.

Have fun,
Dr. Layne

Just a reminder it doesn't matter how great your post is, if I read it in class and you aren't in there to defend it your participation grade will be affected.

And the Cow Enters the Room

Today I attempted to argue that Prometheus is not the freest character in the first half of the text. I referred to his almost insufferable self-pity and submission to his own fore-knowledge/fate. He, I believe, felt bound long before he was physically chained to the rock. In both classes though, I alluded to my belief that Prometheus changes in this text and ultimately becomes free. In this vein then I ask two questions. You are "free" to answer both or only one.

For those who agree with me that Prometheus laments and suffers fate and is therefore bonded or enslaved by fate, how do you think this changes in the second half of the text? Does he change at all in fact? If so, how do you think this transformation comes about and how do you think Io is related to this change?
Or 
For those who believe that Prometheus always represents true freedom, what role does Io play in the text? Why do you think she was an important character for Aeschylus with regards to the plot and "moral" of the story. Here I want you to think about the similarities between Io and Prometheus. How are these two characters lives intertwined and why would such a relationship be important in a text were issues like free will, fate, destiny and the human relationship with the Gods, particularly the tyrannical Zeus, are constantly invoked?

See you soon guys,
Dr. Layne

Prometheus Bound Question 3 Due before 12:00 on Sept. 8

Turning now from a "Iron Age" text by Homer to a "Classical" Greek text by Aeschylus, name the most powerful character in Prometheus Bound. Do not forget to justify why you think the character you have chosen is the most powerful. It may help to define what power is.

Have fun with this text. It is one of my all time favorites.

Cheers,
Dr. Layne

Food for the Weekend

Okay guys, I talked a lot today in class. You got to hear my opinion of the text. If you would like, please post your opinions. Do you agree with me that the Iliad doesn't glorify war or heroism but criticizes it? Don't the appeals to dipolmacy, peace, and the care of concrete others over abstract, remote ideas like honor prevail in the end? Furthermore, feel free to share your opinions on contemporary war and the bravery of combat soldiers. Does the Iliad have anything to teach both ourselves on the home front and, more importantly, our soldiers in Iraq? Or are these wars incomparable? Just think of the difference in the way we fight, the methods of war? Yet, don't we honor soldiers in a similar way? Do we not consider those who die for this cause brave, do we not commemorate them, immortalize them, for the commitment to their country regardless of their personal feeling toward the war?



Of course this isn't a required question....I would just like to see what you think.

Cheers,
Dr. Layne

PS I will post my question on Prometheus Bound Monday around 12.

Response to Question 2

In my opinion it is unreasonable to still call Achilles a hero. I do not believe Achilles has the respect of others because he is a "hero" but more in how much power he holds. If a person is valued more for their power versus their character then I do not think it is right to refer to them as a hero. I believe that Achilles is blinded by his rage, in that he is not able to see Hector as a human being. If Achilles were able to see Hector this way, then maybe he would be able to understand Hector's faults and imperfections. I, therefore, do not believe the death of Hector was ethical. Achilles was simply interested in the power and fame of Hectors death versus solving a problem in killing Hector.

Hillary Marker Book 22 Blog Response

While I do not think that Achilles should be stripped of his title as a hero, the uncontrolled rage he exhibited in book 22 is far from heroic behavior. His actions lessen the physical bravery he may have displayed in battle because of his total lack of moral standing. It becomes clear from his rage that fighting in battle and killing is no difficult feat for Achilles. Showing compassion for one's enemy and displaying moral bravery would have been significantly more difficult. In contrast dragging Hector's dead corpse around the city is in no way courageous or heroic. He simply disregards the importance of honor and lets his primitive rage take control. It would have shown more courage to have honored Hector's wishes than not to.

Achilles' actions show immoral and irrational behavior far from the Greek ideal. As we discussed in class, the Greek virtues are wisdom, courage, piety, and prudence. Achilles' behavior in Book 22 does not represent any of these virtues. Therefore even by the Greek standard I do not believe that Achilles' behavior would be considered heroic. This also brings me to question Achilles' motives throughout the book. While I have not read it in it's entirety, I can gather that Achilles is considered a very good and courageous soldier. However, his actions at the end put into question his so called heroism as a soldier. Is Achilles showing true heroism throughout the battle or is he simply driven by anger and rage the entire time?

Book 22 Response

Though Achilles is painted as a heartless butcher in Book 22, I think his treatment of Hector is heroic so far as the Greek hero is deemed honorable by fulfilling the commands of his superiors in battle. Achilles appeases both Agamemnon and Athena by, respectively, taking out an opposing hero (Hector) in an enemy territory and softening up the city's (Troy's) defenses, as well as dutifully carrying out the wishes of his goddess-mother for Hector to be killed. Both Agamemnon and Athena are his superiors in political and existential stature, and likewise, their tight control over his fate evince another reason that Achilles' behavior in Book 22 is heroic: simply because he accepts this fate and gives into its direction. By befitting his attitude and behavior to the situations manifested largely by Athena and Agamemnon, Achilles acts not out of vengeance towards Hector, but out of necessity to maintain his own and the Greek's heroic principles. Finally, Hector's death is absolutely ethical, as he provoked Achilles into a battle to the death and failed to defend himself against it. While Achilles' denying him his last wish was extremely cruel and certainly unethical, I cannot believe it detracts from his ultimate heroism. If anything, the Greeks would celebrate such an act of war in light of the fact that it came at the expense of their enemy and it glorified the hero responsible.

Shan'Tra Sarah Henry Question 2 post

Book 2 of the lliad is very interesting. I finally get a visual of Achilles in battle, but honestly I don’t like it! He is very boastful and I don’t think his actions were that of a hero. As stated in the question, he actually does have blind rage and he admits it. When Hector is begging him to uphold his honor after death, but Achilles refuses and instead taunts Hector about how his fury will drive him to basically mutilate him. This is not a way in which a hero is supposed to act. Given, this is a time when war and killing seems to be honorable and that’s fine, kill if you must but the mocking of the enemy to the death is totally unnecessary. The only thing that I am confused about is that action that caused all of Achilles’ rage. What lead him to mutilate Hector? Until I know this answer, I do not think that Achilles’ actions were justifiable. Yet, I do understand that ethically, the actions of Achilles could be right. Considering that fighting for ones honor and pleasing the gods is a sort of code of conduct. I just honestly do not believe that neither the taunting nor the lack of empathy on Achilles’ part can be justified.

Rage, Achilles and the Death of Hector

Okay today we discussed the importance of honor in the Greek worldview and the role of knowing one's proper place. Here, we saw that characters like Nestor supported the "toe the line" submission to the social hierarchy where Achilles, a soldier, was expected to submit to his political better, Agamemnon. Furthermore, we argued that Agamemnon also behaved unethically, or transgressed the social order, insofar as he should have submitted to his own better, the will of the gods. His hubris was what brought about the plague and Nector pleads with him to restore order, to appease the gods by acting as he should have in the first place, i.e. respecting the supplicant's wishes and returning his daughter.We brought this around to discussing the importance of Achilles' aggression, his rage against submitting to established figure heads of authority and the importance of Homer putting forward a literary depiction of civil disobedience. I argued that Achilles becomes the source or the paradigm for heroism where the hero is judged more for his moral bravery than his physical bravery.

Now turning to Book 22, I want you to tell me what you think of Achilles and his behavior. Can we reasonable still call him a hero, or does his rage blind him, move him to behave immorally...do you think he has crossed the line or do you think that his vengeance is justified. Is the death of Hector ethical? Keep in mind that Achilles has the support and assistance of the goddess Athena.

Cheers and see you Friday,
Dr. Layne

Ashley Stevens - Post 1 on the Iliad

Of the two main male characters in The Iliad, King Agamemnon seeks power over all other lands and authority of all men. Achulles, however is seeking glory - glory for winning battles and for winning Hera. Both share the belief that the gods are intimately involved in the decisions they make in life and have ultimate authority over the paths their lives lead. Achilles take Athena's direct request and blatantly defies her, again his morals, whereas King Agamemnon fears and respects the god's wishes.

Response to Question 1

The characters of the Illiad share the worldview that people rely on god for all that is good and bad in their lives. Many of the characters rely on god for answers during times of confusion or struggle. It seems then there is little room for self-reliance or trusting themselves in trying situations. Not only do the characters rely on God, but they also feel protected by God. God then acts a escape or protection from the whatever problems the characters experience. Depending on the issue it seems the character will immediately turn to God for answers, versus problem solving on their own. This is, in some ways, similar to the way problems are dealt with in today's society. Each person's struggles are different and while some people may be self reliant, others turn to God for answers. God is many ways the same escape or protection for people today as it is for these characters.

SHANTRA SARAH HENRY QUESTION 1

The characters in Book 1 of the lliad are, or at least they seem to be very engulfed in the religious view that the gods are the beginning and ending of society. So, in that regard they must be pleased above all else. The idea of loyalty and pleasing the gods so comes to mind when it comes to the religion as well. As read, the gods have those "special" followers; these are those that remain loyal to them the fullest extent. Such as Chryes, who seems to be a fateful follower of Apollo, not automatially Zeus. And, because of his loyolaty Apollo punished the whole Achaeans army. These beliefs order the characters life on a daily basis, in accordance to how they bahave and what is ultimately acceptable in society. This is where i believe communal ethics plays an important role. A code of conduct is established when it comes to obeying the gods and thier rulings as a final say or solution. Such as accepting what the gods rule as final, Achilles,the famous warrior, was stopped in his tracks of rage to listen to the gods Athena and Hera. He did not fight their word nor did he disobey them. other examples of communal ethics in this text I believe would include reaching out to the gods for solution and reasoning.This is exactly what Chryses, Achilles, and Thetis have done. In regards to personal morality, I honestly believe that these immortals have been coerced into taking the gods' ideas on right and wrong and on how to enrich a person's life so that they may be a ''good person.'' Personal morality has to do with one deciding for themselves the difference between rght and wrong according to their beliefs. But, when you think about it, being forced feed ideas and values is not much different in this text that how things are in present day America. We have been. for the most part, forced to accept ideas and traditions wiothout giving it a second tought. So maybe our Greek god in the society we live in and its ethics that we are forced to accept.