What I Wish I'd Read Earlier - Year One

Frankly, I wish I'd had this idea last year, but so be it.  I'm going to write about what pieces of the list I wish I had read earlier in life.  Note: this isn't necessarily my favorite ones or the ones I would most recommend.  In fact, some of the best stuff, I actually had read earlier so it won't be on this list.  It might be best to think of this as a shorter list I wish I'd given my teenage self.

• Aristophanes - 'Clouds' is simply wonderful!
• Plutarch - 'The Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans' is a book that I wish I'd dipped in and out of much earlier in life.  It's history and biography set in contrast with two time periods and is all very interesting.
• Montaigne - The list suggested seven different essays but there are many more worth reading.  
• Locke & Rousseau - I wish I'd tackled much more of the 17th and 18th century thought that brought back democracy.
• The Federalist - Someday I'd like to work my way through the entire Federalist and the body of opposing arguments.
• Marx/Engles - The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' is easy enough reading.  I wish I'd taken a few days earlier in life and simply made my way through it.

The rest was certainly worthwhile, and I have a grave feeling that I'm short-changing Plato and Aristotle.  

Challenge

If there was any theme to this year's selections, I'd have to say that it was 'challenge'.  Most of the pieces involved an individual writer challenging his society.  Think about it.

• Socrates was so willing to challenge those around him that he goaded them into killing him.
• Aristophanes challenged the will to war with 'Lysistrata' and respected philosophers with 'Clouds'.
• Plato (and to a lesser extent Aristotle) challenged how society was set up.
• Jesus was a challenge to the Jewish hierarchy of his day.  Paul challenged the whole exclusion of gentiles.  
• Augustine challenged the intellectuals of his day, as he made his way to Christianity.  
• Rabelais challenged all kinds of mores and ideals with his writing.  
• Both Locke and Rousseau challenged the monarchical set up that they lived under.
• Gibbon challenged the dominant religion of his day.
• The founders of the United States followed through on Locke's thoughts and challenged the relationship between the citizen and the state.
• Smith challenged mercantilism, the major theory of economics in his day.
• Marx challenged capitalism, and the structures of society. 

In fact, the author of year one that most embraced how things were done is probably Machiavelli.  And he was widely reviled for telling it like it was.
I haven't read all that widely outside of the western tradition.  A number of years ago I read through 'The Analects' of Confucius.  I was struck by how much he reinforced the state.  He didn't seek any kind of revolution, but mainly cautioned against corruption.  As wise as he was, he would not have fit into this years reading list.
Is that one of the unique qualities of western thought?  We admire those that stand up and critique society.  Even when we disagree with a rabble rouser, we admire their 'spirit' and principle.  Does this same quality exist in other schools of thought?  (I'll fully admit that I'm too ignorant to know the answer but I haven't come across it in my readings.)
Maybe that's the best lesson from Socrates.  Be true to yourself, to whatever end you must.  And if they can't take a joke, screw 'em!

Year One in Review

The first year is almost done so I thought I'd take a look back (maybe more than one look!) at what I've read. 

• January started with Plato's 'Apology', which is Socrates completely unapologetic defense of his style of teaching.  He enjoyed pricking the pompous and powerful and talked himself into dying because of it.  For what it's worth, I still don't understand his motives.  
• Then there were a couple of plays from Aristophanes.  'Lysistrata' showed us a group of women who decided to withhold sex until their men stopped the wars.  'Clouds', which was new to me, was about using philosophy and debate to manipulate yourself out of debt.  Very funny stuff!
• February got us back to Plato, with the start of his 'Republic'.  Also some Aristotle from 'Ethics' and 'Politics'.  I remember snatches of this, but not much.  Both of them talked about creating ideal forms of government and understanding the forms that brought us government in the first place.
• On to March and we spent some time with Plutarch and his comparative histories.  We read about four different (very different) types of rulers.  I was struck by how many thinkers in the series had read Plutarch while they were young.  Is there a version for kids out today?
• April was heavy on the religion.  We did two books of the New Testament, 'Matthew' and 'Acts'.  It had been quite some time since I'd read either.  We also had part of St Augustine's 'Confessions'.  Very compelling and touching.
• May was decidedly not religious.   This was Machiavelli's 'The Prince', a classic of power politics and manipulation.  Frankly, it wasn't what I expected.  I thought it had more to do with intrigue, but it was set more at the state level and less the personal.
• Maybe the most mind blowing of the readings came in June, with Rabelais's 'Gargantua'.  Good lord.  A man of great humor, and knowledge.  And no recognition of modern boundaries of propriety.   I liked him.
• July?  In July I was introduced to the decidedly readable Montaigne.  We did about ten of his essays, all very interesting.  The one that stuck with me the most is his writings on the understandings of the natives of the Americas.  I'll return to him, I'm sure.
• To read or not to read?  August's question was simple.  I reread and enjoyed 'Hamlet' quite a bit.  I'd never actually studied it before.  Never realized just how open ended the whole story is.  I would love, love, love to know what the first performances were like!
• September brought us to the Enlightenment, with readings from Locke and Rousseau.  They had varied ideas about how government should be set up, but both of them envisioned a post monarchical world.  Locke especially was like reading the first drafts for modern democracy.
• October gave us Gibbon, who frankly was probably my least favorite of the year.  Some interesting stuff on early church formation but his overall ideas didn't convince me.  (The fault may have been mine though.  It's quite possible I didn't pay him enough attention.)
• Just in time for the November elections, we got a full set of readings from the founding documents of the United States.  I'd read the 'Declaration of Independence' and the 'Constitution' before, but the 'Articles of Confederation' and the 'Federalist Papers' were new to me.  The Articles was much more bare bones than I had thought before.  And the Federalist was more accessible and interesting than I had previously thought.
• And finally December.  Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' was foundational and some of it is interesting, some long.  The counter balance here is Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'.  Frankly, the Manifesto made for more interesting reading.  I wasn't even a little bit convinced, but it was interesting.  

More to come...

Syntopical Discussion

I haven't been all that good about hitting the dates that I'd suggested for the monthly plan. Hopefully no one is too bothered by that. I'm still finding my footing here. The plan calls for some syntopical discussion so we can talk about how the pieces we've read relate to each other. It's pretty early in the project for this to be useful but we may as well put down some early bricks. I've got a few preliminary thoughts but feedback would be greatly appreciated.

• Three of the pieces (Apology, Crito, Clouds) have dealt with the place of the philosopher in society. Plato gives the position lots of credit while Aristophanes treats it with disdain.


• Two of the pieces (Crito and especially Lysistrata) deal directly with how to correct a society. Again Plato and Aristophanes come at this from different sides with Socrates not wanting to damage the state and Lysistrata taking drastic measures to bring about change.


• All four give a picture of ancient Greece, which is important since it really is the headwaters of Western philosophy.

Anyone else?

Crito - Plato

I talked about Plato's 'Apology' here and these two pieces really do belong together. In the 'Apology' we got the trial of Socrates and 'Crito' follows that up. On one of the last days before Socrates' execution he is visited by one of his followers named Crito who urges him to escape. In fact Crito has set up a path by which to do so and has paid the money that would allow it to happen. Socrates resists and refuses.
There are two main focuses here, or at least two main questions. The first has to do with whether or not it is ok to sometimes do an injustice. Socrates believes that no, it is not ever ok. We should always strive to do the just thing.
The second question is the more interesting one to me: are you committing an injustice in trying to avoid an unjust sentence? We get this:

Soc. Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?

Cr. Very good, Socrates.
Soc. "And was that our agreement with you?" the law would say, "or were you to abide by the sentence of the State?" And if I were to express astonishment at their saying this, the law would probably add: "Answer, Socrates, instead of opening your eyes: you are in the habit of asking and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?- you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country."

I'm fairly libertarian and this passage shocked me a bit. If you are a citizen of a country, enjoying all the privileges and rights of said country, must you really suffer in silence any punishment that your country gives you? Or may you speak out but if you can't convince your countrymen then you should simply drop the matter? That doesn't seem right to me.
I didn't mention this in the earlier piece but Socrates is certainly getting a raw deal here. He shouldn't be put to death for speaking his mind, even to young and impressionable youth. This is so far outside of our modern mindset as to be incomprehensible today. The sentence handed to Socrates is obviously unjust.
This was double striking to me because I've been reading a bit of Hugo's 'Les Miserables' lately. As we meet Jean Valjean we learn about his time in prison, specifically why he served as long as he did:

Towards the end of this fourth year Jean Valjean's turn to escape arrived. His comrades assisted him, as is the custom in that sad place. He escaped. He wandered for two days in the fields at liberty, if being at liberty is to be hunted, to turn the head every instant, to quake at the slightest noise, to be afraid of everything,--of a smoking roof, of a passing man, of a barking dog, of a galloping horse, of a striking clock, of the day because one can see, of the night because one cannot see, of the highway, of the path, of a bush, of sleep. On the evening of the second day he was captured. He had neither eaten nor slept for thirty-six hours. The maritime tribunal condemned him, for this crime, to a prolongation of his term for three years, which made eight years. In the sixth year his turn to escape occurred again; he availed himself of it, but could not accomplish his flight fully. He was missing at roll-call. The cannon were fired, and at night the patrol found him hidden under the keel of a vessel in process of construction; he resisted the galley guards who seized him. Escape and rebellion. This case, provided for by a special code, was punished by an addition of five years, two of them in the double chain. Thirteen years. In the tenth year his turn came round again; he again profited by it; he succeeded no better. Three years for this fresh attempt. Sixteen years. Finally, I think it was during his thirteenth year, he made a last attempt, and only succeeded in getting retaken at the end of four hours of absence. Three years for those four hours. Nineteen years. In October, 1815, he was released; he had entered there in 1796, for having broken a pane of glass and taken a loaf of bread.

This was a man who committed the true crime of theft. Was he committing an injustice to the state when he tried to escape time and again? Or was the sentence so out of step with the actual crime that escape was justified? This is an easy call for me.

The Apology - Plato

I teased last week that I'm having trouble understanding Socrates motivations. Let me lay this out now. (And remember, I'm taking Plato's word here which may or may not be the smart thing to do.) Let me construct the timeline.
A. Our story starts with a question to the Oracle at Delphi. Socrates had a friend that asked the Oracle if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. The Oracle answered that no one was wiser.
B. Socrates takes this answer and decides to talk to various wise and accomplished people of Athens and see if they are indeed wiser than he. He discovered that no, they really weren't wise so he became 'odious' to him and all others present. My reading of this is that he systematically started angering the powerful men of Athens.
C. While he was doing this, some of his students tagged along and watched. Then they started copying him and delighted in making fools of even more people.
D. Socrates is then charged with corrupting the youth of Athens. He's also charged with not believing in the city gods but that seems like more of a general charge. It is an especially easy thing to say of philosophers because of the prevalent belief that they looked into the nature of things only so they could confound others.
E. Socrates goes to court and defends himself from the charges. He apparently had some choice in this. I'm guessing that the other choice would have been to flee Athens and live in exile. He went, believing he would be condemned to death saying during the trial that "to fear death is nothing else than to appear to be wise, without being so; for it is to appear to know what one does not know." Are these simply brave words or does Socrates (through Plato) really not fear death?
F. As part of Socrates defense he says, "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." Got that? Socrates is the wisest because he simply declares that he doesn't really know anything. All of the other guys who think they do know things are ignorant for doing so. Can he really believe this? If so he is simply different than any other smart man that I have ever known, read or even heard of. I can't help but tag this as dubious.
G. Socrates defends himself from the charge of corrupting youth with a hard to believe defense that good people wouldn't want to harm others for fear that they would return that harm. (This part deserves it's own post and will get one.)
H. Socrates catches his accuser in a contradiction regarding his atheism. The charge of not believing in the city gods is pretty easily parried.
I. He declares that he does not fear death nor will he stop teaching. So don't even think about leveling that as a penalty, jury! He states that he can't be injured because he does 'not think it is possible for a better man to be injured by a worse [man]'. Which I don't understand. And also that he does not fear for himself but for the rest of Athens for they would not find his like again. He is speaking of his use as a 'gadfly' but is the pride in his position or in himself? It's hard for me not to believe that is pride in self.
J. After he concludes his defense he is found guilty. He is threatened with death but Athenian law allows the accused to suggest an alternative. Socrates suggests that he be given a spot in the Prytaneum, a special building of the Greeks in which prominent citizens and athletes were honored and fed. Instead of being punished he should be rewarded! Why a reward? Because he never injured anyone so he won't accept an injury as a punishment. And he reminds them that he doesn't fear death. So that wouldn't be a punishment. In this he seemly goads the assembly to condemn him to die.
K. After they uphold the death penalty he speaks again. One of the things he says is "neither in a trial nor in battle is it right that or anyone else should employ every possible means whereby he may avoid death". But surely some means are acceptable, aren't they? Socrates could very well have taken a different penalty without sullying himself.
L. He goes on to tell his accusers that they will suffer a more severe fate. They will be judged and accused by others. And boy howdy, I'm sure that has proved true. It would be very sobering to be on a jury that would be second guessed for more than two thousand years. On this point, I don't have any questions whatsoever about motivation . . .
M. And then Socrates tells his supporters not to worry because the gods never warned him away from what he was doing or saying. Therefore "there is a great hope that death is a blessing". This seems to be almost literally whistling past the graveyard.He also says that this will give him a chance to talk with great people who have died in the past. Doubtlessly he'll also expose them as fools.

To sum up, I don't understand why Socrates talked himself into dying. It seems to me that he got into this mess in the first place because he was going out of his way to be a jerk. Not only that but showing his students how they too could be jerks. His reasons for gauging the wisdom of others don't add up and I can't credit his position that he is only wiser because he knows that he doesn't know things. (And frankly, if he really did believe that, then I'm even more confused.)
Once he was in the mess he could have gotten out of it by swallowing a bit of pride and simply said that perhaps he should have talked with the other men privately. Or come to the conclusion that it may not be all that important to have loud contests of wisdom. And if his pride was too much for that he could have simply allowed for some smaller penalty. Socrates mentions that he has no money to pay a fine but he had to have known that he would have help from various supporters.
Instead he chose to die. For the life of me I can't understand what lessons he was trying to pass on. Even worse, I can't understand what lessons Plato is passing on. Is he saying that truth is so important to a philosopher that they would risk, nay welcome, death if that is the price for telling it? But what truth was told here? That some important people are blowhards? What a cheap truth! And it seems there must have been an easier way to convey that than to goad those same blowhards into killing you.
But maybe I've missed the point somewhere. If so, fellow readers, please help me find it!

Author Timeline

BC
Aristophanes 446 - 386
Plato 424? - 348?
Aristotle 384 - 322

AD
Plutarch 46 - 120
Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles (around the end of the first century)
St. Augistine 354 - 430
Machiavelli 1469 - 1527
Rabelais 1494 - 1553
Montaigne 1533 - 1592
Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Locke 1632 - 1704
Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Gibbon 1737 - 1794
Declaration of Independence - 1776
The Constitution of the US - 1787
Federalist Papers 1787 -1788
Smith 1723 - 1790
Marx/Engles 1818 - 1883/1820 - 1895

January Reading

January

Plato: 'Apology' and 'Crito' Kindle/Nook/Google
Aristophanes: 'Clouds' and 'Lysistrata' Kindle/Nook/Google,Google

Year One, January Reading

January

Plato: 'Apology' and 'Crito' Kindle/Nook/Google
Aristophanes: 'Clouds' and 'Lysistrata' Kindle/Nook/Google,Google

Year One

I'm going to try and set links to the Kindle, Nook and Google books copies of all of these. I expect that these links will break at some point due to common internet drift. Please notify me and I'll fix them at least during the year that we're working through these pieces.

January

Plato: 'Apology' and 'Crito' Kindle/Nook/Google

Aristophanes: 'Clouds' and 'Lysistrata' Kindle/Nook/Google,Google

February

Plato: 'Republic' books 1 and 2 Kindle/Nook/Google

Aristotle: 'Ethics' book 1 Kindle/Nook/Google
Aristotle: 'Politics' Book 1 Kindle/Nook/Google

March

Plutarch: 'Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans' (only Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus and Numa compared, Alexander, Caesar) Kindle/Nook/Google

April

From the New Testament: Gospel of St Matthew and Acts of the Apostles Kindle/Nook/Google, Google
St Augustine: 'Confessions' books 1-8 Kindle/Nook/Google

May

Machiavelli: 'The Prince' Kindle/Nook/Google

June

Rabelais: 'Gargantua and Pantagruel' books 1 and 2 Kindle/Nook/Google

July

Montaigne: 'Essays' (Of Custom; Of Pedantry; Of the Education of Children; That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity; Of Cannibals; That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion We Have of Them; Upon some Verses of Virgil) Kindle/Nook/Google

August

Shakespeare: 'Hamlet' Kindle/Nook/Google

September

Locke: 'Concerning Civil Gov't', second essay Kindle/Nook/Google
Rousseau: The Social Contract books 1 and 2 Kindle/Nook/Google

October

Gibbon: 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 15 and 16 Kindle/Nook/Google

November

Declaration of Independence Kindle/Nook/Google

Constitution of the United States Kindle/Nook/Google
The Federalist Nos 1-10, 15, 31, 47, 51, 68-71 Kindle/Nook/Google

December

Smith: 'The Wealth of Nations' Introduction - Book 1, Chapter 9 Kindle/Nook/Google
Marx-Engles: 'Manifest of the Communist Party Kindle/Nook/Google