UM Honors Blog 2020-2021

  You know, despite democracy being such a praised system by the majority of people in our modern society who have experienced the “freedoms” of the system, democracy just can’t catch a break from being absolutely verbally grilled on the charcoals of aristocratic or empirical grounds. This time, the culprit is Marcus Cicero, who writes to democracy’s weakness well:   “According to these advocates of democracy, no sooner is one man, or several, elevated by [wealth and power, which produce pomp and pride, than the idle and the timid give way, and bow down to the arrogance of riches. They add, on the contrary, that if the people knew how to maintain its rights, nothing could be more glorious and prosperous than democracy. They themselves would be the sovereign dispensers of laws, judgments, war, peace, public treaties, and finally, the fortune and life of each individual citizen; and this condition of things is the only one which, in their opinion, can be called a Commonweal...

 There are so many good lines, thoughts, and ideas in both of the selections from History of Rome  and On the Republic . I really enjoyed On the Republic . I am not sure if it is because of the fact that it is written in dialogue form or if it because it mentions thoughts that are similar to Socrates’s thoughts in The Republic . Anyway, there were several lines in On the Republic  that stuck out to me. One line that stuck out to me was when Scipio is talking about forms of government and the leadership that comes from the positions the government provides. Scipio said, “when he himself exhibits all the merit to which he incites and educates the citizens” (Cicero, 3). One of the first things that is learned when learning about leadership is leading by example. Leadership is not all about telling people what to do and how to do it. Leadership is more than that. Good leadership is more being bossy. Good leadership leads by both actions and words to help a community or team r...

 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word plagiarism means "the action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft" (OED). Look, I know that the idea of property rights was a much more flexible theory back then, but COME ON. In the excerpt from Cicero's writings, the character of Scipio says, "If the state chooses its ruler by haphazard, it will be as easily upset as a vessel, if you chose a pilot by lots from the passengers" (7). In the writing world, it is one thing to take what someone says and restate it in your own words, and to a certain extent, that can be permissible. If, however, you choose to blatantly copy over someone's work, at least use different metaphors! Okay, I'm done being silly! In all honesty, I think that Cicero used The Republic in the exact way that it was supposed to be used. Plato's work was not published so that he could receive praise, no matter...

I somewhat enjoyed this week's readings; it was interesting to read how an ancient Greek scholar viewed aspects of character and virtue. I found it particularly interesting how Aristotle considered the virtue of anger, specifically his belief that anger, in moderation, is cause for praise. "The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised" (Aristotle, Book 4 Chapter 5). Anger tends to have a negative connotation, given that it usually leads to violence. Aristotle takes an interesting stance on anger, one that I see as somewhat controversial. "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32) As Christians anger is something we try to avoid; we strive to live a lifestyle of loving one another, just as...

Honestly, Aristotle's "Doctrine of the Mean" was probably one of my favorite sections while I was in Philosophy 101. The problem is, however, who is to determine the middle ground between the two extremes. Who is to determine the said specific mean? While some cultures and societies may thrive on the extremes of excessive boastfulness and find nothing wrong with it, others may live in a completely self-depreciative society. They could both look at each other and find the other detestable, but who is to determine where the lines are drawn.  I happen to think that there isn't a true mean or exact middle point of described characteristics between two extremes, but rather I think it is more a set of loose boundaries that encompass the middle ground. One temperament and characteristic cannot solely fit every single situation. I feel as if practice and experience help someone guide their way through social encounters. It may not be a set standard, but rather a game of push ...

 “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18, KJV) Aristotle said that a man who is proud of himself thinks that he is worthy of great things. However, this does not mean that we shouldn’t have ambition and set goals for ourselves. Aristotle said that pride is concerned with certain great things like honor and goodness, since he thinks that he deserves the most. “Pride... seems to be a sort of crown of the virtues; for it makes them greater, and it is not found without them.” (Aristotle, Book 4, Section 3, par. 3) It seems to me that Aristotle thought that pride seems to exaggerate the good qualities. That also would most likely mean that pride exaggerates the bad qualities as well, kind of like the super soldier serum that Steve Rogers was injected with. It makes the good man better and the bad man worse. Pride does the same thing; it amplifies the good and bad qualities.  I commented on Jamie’s and Clabo’s posts.

In the Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle speaks of the proud man, a person who finds a balance between being “vain” and “unduly humble” through temperance. This person does so not by how much he achieves, but by finding in his actions the “mean in respect of the rightness of them; for he claims what is accordance with his merits, while the others go to excess or fall short.” (Aristotle 38). So, this person does not undermine his abilities nor exaggerate them; He seeks not rewards of endless wealth nor denies all accommodations and merit due to a belief that he is not valuable enough for them. The humble man can seem “disdainful” at times because he “cares not to be praised nor for others to be blamed; nor is he given to praise.” (Aristotle 39).  The humble man also takes his time, he has a “slow step” and “a level of utterance” as he tries to understand things and keep his excitement from dying while not letting it control him.          ...

               This weeks reading hit different. I can usually find some way to relate the reading to the Bible, but this time It's more than just some observation. As I read on through Aristotle's ramblings about virtue, trying my best not to zone out, one segment really stuck out. It says, referring to virtuous actions, " But most people do not do these, but take refuge in theory and think they are being philosophers and will become good in this way, behaving somewhat like patients who listen attentively to their doctors, but do none of the things they are ordered to do" (Aristotle). I think this quote is true about what Christianity looks like for a lot of people. It's so easy to go to church every week and listen to the pastor  (throwing in an "amen" here and there to spice it up). It's easy to agree with what the pastor is saying and the points he is making. We leave feeling good about ourselves and our faith, but then, life just ha...

 Ah, the Golden Rule. A philosophy I tried to live by long before I ever heard of it, and tried even harder to live by once I had. One thing about this particular philosophy I like is the fact that it can be applied to literally anything. For example: eating. You eat too much and you're a glutton, and if you eat too little, you're going to be malnourished. It's just that simple.   Which reminds me. Another thing I love about this particular part of Aristotle's philosophy is how simple it is. It all boils down to "Don't do too much or too little of one thing." Bringing back the eating example, if you eat too much, you'll become overweight and be at risk of heart disease, if you eat too little, you'll be tired all the time, physically weak, and underweight. But if you eat the right amount, you'll be perfectly healthy (assuming you eat healthy foods, anyway).    Edit: Commented on Rachael Gregson's and Braylan Stringfellow's posts

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

I love reading philosophy, however, I always have a hard time writing for philosophy.  Book IV was very good but felt all over the place. As soon as I was beginning confident about a subject then Aristotle would change subject. There were several times where I would connect our culture to what Aristotle was saying. I will only talk about tow of them.  The first connection I made was to Robin Hood. Aristotle talks of the liberal man by saying, “the liberal man will both give and spend in the right amounts on the right objects” (Aristotle, 35). It can be argued that Robin Hood’s spending on the poor people who need it would be a right thing to spend his money on. I would agree. Aristotle goes on and says, “he will also take the right amount from the right sources” (35). Can it be agreed that the means that Robin Hood took to achieve the money was right? Some would say yes and some would say no. This, however, is not the argument I want to focus on. I want to focus on the questio...

The main thing I want to talk about today is one quote from this week's readi ng: " Pride, then, seems to be a sort of crown of the virtues; for it makes them greater, and it is not found without them" (Aristotle 38). The word pride is a trigger word for most Christians. In the Renaissance Period, it was considered tot worst of the Seven Deadly Sins. In Biblical terms, pride was almost always the downfall of great leaders, like Samson (jeez), King Nebuchadnezzar, and Moses. It is almost like pride is completely abolished in the Bible in favor of the other virtues because of its volatility and unbalanced nature.  And yet, just as Aristotle says, pride really is the crowning virtue of Christianity. Our pride, however, is not placed in our own accomplishments like the Ancient Greeks. Our pride is placed in the fact that we know where our allegiance is. Additionally, the pride we feel in being in the fold of Jesus is widely proclaimed like the gossip of Aristotle's rules....

Scrooge is an amazing story about how a man used introspection and a loopy dream to become virtuous, right? According to Aristotle, that's wrong, and I'll tell you why. Aristotle emphasizes a balance in all things. Anything taken in excess can end badly; even virtuous things taken too far become vices. Scrooge never made sense to me, and I don't think the beloved Christmas story would make too much sense to Aristotle either. In the beginning, it is clear. Scrooge is hated by everyone who knows him because he is a greedy miser. He basically steals from the poor, shows no grace to the impoverished, and accumulates wealth for himself at the expense of everyone else. While he goes about it in a mostly legal way, it still burdens all those around him, as they have no way to pay back the massive debts they accumulate. If you look at it then, it shows a very Aristotlean point of view; he is doing what he should by accumulating money, but by doing it in an excessive way, he harms t...

  I always imagined what it would be like if I had all the money in the world. Growing up, I always thought I would spend my money on brand new, working things for my mom. A house with working air and heat, a car that didn’t break down every three months, and all the designer clothes she could ever want. I also imagined giving the money to people and programs. The fine arts department at my high school, my church, and all my friends. I’m sure you’ve noticed: my money would be out like a light within the first few hours of me having it. Aristotle captures this in Book IV. This is about to take a sharp turn, so hold on to your diplomas.   I have so many questions. Why is wealth, honor, and pride (predominantly wealth) the main focus of everything?  “The poor man cannot be magnificent because he has not the means with which to spend large sums fittingly” (Book IV, paragraph 2). But if he spends all he has on the right things and refuses to take from the bad things, is h...

 "...Quick! Bring the finest robe in the house and put it on him. Get a ring for his finger and sandals for his feet. And kill the calf we have been fattening. We must celebrate with a feast..." (Luke 15:22-23) A man has two sons; one older, and one younger. The younger son decides to take all of his inheritance right away. His father gives him his money so he leaves home, and spends it all on lavish living. As soon as the money runs out, a famine strikes the land and the son is left starving. After working as a farm hand and being so hungry that even the pigs' food looks appetizing, the son decides to return home and beg for a place as a servant in his father's house. Instead of scorning him for wasting his money so foolishly, the father welcomes him home and showers him with rich gifts.  This is the story of the prodigal son. As I read what Aristotle had to say about prodigality, I couldn't help but think of this story in the Bible. I must confess, I didn't ...

      In todays world, the terms liberal and conservative are considered to be so far apart and so different from each other. This is because of politics. But the term liberal in it of itself is not necessarily a bad thing like conservatives think. The word liberal can simply mean generous. I wouldn't think any conservative would say this is a bad thing.      When Aristotle is talking about the liberal man, he is not talking about democrats in todays government. What he is referring to is the same type of man found in the Bible in the book of Proverbs. Proverbs 11:25 says, "The liberal soul shall be made fat" (KJV). This means that someone who is generous or liberal will be blessed beyond measure or be made fat.      Aristotle says that the liberal man is praised for his actions. When we as Christians are liberal in our giving in our tithes and offerings, we are, in essence, praised by God and rewarded by Him.      I am a conse...

 Reading Aristotle's writings and how he defined the difference between magnanimity and pusillanimity, I immediately pictured a road splitting off into two in my head. In life, we've all come to a crossroad before, probably like a thousand times if you're me, and each time a choice demands to be made.   The meaning of magnanimity is "greatness of soul". A person of this virtue chases after things in life that are considered honorable and respectable. The meaning of pusillanimity is "smallness of soul". In comparison to the magnanimous individual, one who is pusillanimous turns away from noble duties because he fears what is asked of him and instead settles on whichever's the easiest path of the two. He smiles to himself as he walks away, not understanding that almost always the easier path will lead to the hardest lessons in life until there's no point in turning around.  I think a possible thing Aristotle could have been getting at is that pusil...

I wasn't expecting to be so personally attacked by our reading this week? I mean seriously, why did Aristotle gotta do me like that?  Anyways, when the philosopher began speaking about magnanimity and knowing one's worth, I felt slightly uncomfy. I typically tend to lean more towards the underestimation side, but Aristotle seems to see this quality as being just as unethical as being conceited. He calls this trait "pusillanimous" and, apparently, it is worse than conceit. Well, wonderful. Guess my self-deprecation jokes aren't as funny as I thought. Speaking of self-deprecation, this quality can also be found at the farthest end of the truthfulness/sincerity spectrum. With self-deprecation and irnony at the lowest point on the graph and boastfulness at the top, I suppose I am destined to constantly reside at the bottom of the pile. Oops! Wait, that joke was both self-depricating and ironic . . . Gosh, this is going to be difficult to fix! Setting the humor aside, ...

Aristotle's style of creating spectrums to define various virtuous or unvirtuous qualities of people really drives home how important it is to master the art of self control. Many times throughout history, division and chaos have been caused by those who do not exercise proper control over their feelings. One quality of utmost importance that can really cost someone quite a bit is their temper. Though at times it is best to let anger or rage motivate us to accomplish a positive goal, it is often this same temper that causes children to smash toys, fights to break out in the stands of sports events such as the NBA's Malice at the Palace in 2004, and rioters and looters to annihilate entire blocks on city streets. What does having a good temper look like? Aristotle makes his answer clear: " The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then...

  The Roman account of the Great Flood is very interesting when compared with the Christian account. We can see similarities in the overall ideas of the story, but, more specifically, in the language.  Jupiter says on page 6, "...it would take too long to tell what wickedness I found everywhere..." (Ovid, Book I). These words are strikingly similar to those of Moses in Genesis 6. "The Lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil" (Gen. 6:5). Both of these passages illustrate the major problem in every flood story: the totality of human evil. Of course, the only way to fix this problem is to destroy this flawed humanity and start over.  The method of choice: a flood. Obviously, in both stories the mode of destruction was a flood. On page 8, we read about how "...the sea in unchecked freedom has buried the hills, and fresh waves beat against the mountaintops" ...

 As I read through this "brief" list of how the ancient gods came to be and their lineage, I was immediately reminded of the book of Numbers in the Bible, when God told Moses to get "a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel . . . all in Israel who are able to go to war, you and Aaron shall list them, company by company" (Numbers 1:2-3). While I'm hesitant to say that the Bible can be boring, I think some of you can agree with me that this book of the Bible dragged on quite a bit, not unlike this passage.  One thing that also caught my attention was Rhea's efforts to hide the birth of Zeus from her husband Kronos, who was busy eating his offspring because of his awareness that he was fated to be brought down by his own child. I mentioned this before in a separate blog post, but how is it that these immortal, supposedly omniscient beings, are able to be deceived? Similarly to how Zeus was seduced by Hera in The Iliad to further her ulterior mo...

Not gonna lie, my brain pretty much checked out when reading through the insane genealogy of the gods and goddesses. I didn't intend for it to happen! I suppose my subconscious just though, "Oh. We've already read Percy Jackson. We're fine." However, I snapped right back into attention when the story of the flood appeared. I found it highly ironic how both the Bible and the Greco-Roman religions included a world-wide purge of humanity. Both God and the Greek gods and goddesses saw mankind as too-far-gone at one point and decided to hit restart. The main difference between the two stories, is that God showed mercy in His judgement. By sparing Noah and His family then later promising to never flood the entire Earth again, the Lord proved Himself to be a God of mercy. The Greek gods and goddesses, however, were violent in their destruction. They did not help anyone survive and only made it more difficult for those seeking shelter from the waves.  I wonder if the Gree...

 I know that I bring this up a lot, but I can't help it. There's a reason it's my major; I love psychology! It's my passion. To see how people's brains work, or don't work, and how they process things is just so interesting to me. What I want to highlight from this week's reading is an emotion that may seem trivial, but I think is pivotal to most of the stories we've read this semester. I don't know if there's a word that can fully encompass this emotion, but the closest one may be paranoia. Throughout our readings, specifically in Oedipus and in Theogeny , something that pretty much always leads to downfall is an amalgation of arrogance, paranoia, power, rage, and the insanity that comes from those things. Oedipus and Kronos both have a position of power. Their position is threatened, so they take drastic measures to thwart it (read: attack their family and loved ones). However, both of them are seemingly blind for the majority of their own stor...

    Women. Greeks had an interesting description of the origin of Women that almost directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian worldview of women. There is quite a bit in the section concerning women in the Theogony. First of all, I find it very interesting that somehow there were female gods but no mortal females before Pandora. To sum up 570-585 in the Theogony, they made women as a beautiful evil for mankind then presented it to all the men and gods. (I know that is an enormous amount to summarize) This Idea of greek Women is much different than the biblical view of women. Genesis 2:18 shows us the first thing God says was not good,       " The  Lord  God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' "       Later on we see God search through all living things and not find a single creature that was  suitable for him, so he created Eve with a special design spe...

      In the Bible's version of the flood, those who survive,  Noah and his family, are those who were considered righteous by God. In the flood invoked by Jupiter, those who survive, Deaucalion and his wife, were not chosen to survive. They simply did and just so happened to be loyal to the gods. The story says that Jupiter saw that they had survived and thus decided to end the flood. He did not have the knowledge that they were going to survive. This difference in versions of the flood story is fascinating. Yet, that is not the only thing which caught my attention. In Jupiter's opening dialogue justifying why he is going to cause a flood, he states that "the incurable flesh must be excised by the knife, so that the healthy part is not affected"(Ovid I 177-198). He proceeds to say that the healthy parts are the demigods and that the gods should allow them to at least live in safety on the earth since they are not to be allowed in heaven. Thus, Jupiter wishes to get ...

After reading through the lineage of all the gods and all the stories of wrath, fighting, anger, punishment, and vengeance, I have no idea how at a certain time humanity believed that these gods were in control of the universe. I mean, if our own God found the earth to be so wicked that he killed everyone but one family with a flood, how can one not think that these Grecian gods would have not done the same to humankind just out of sheer agitation. I remember reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, and even the deities in that story decided to destroy humankind as a whole. I guess my biggest point would have to be that if human beings are so flawed and apt to make mistakes, how come the vengeful and aggressive Grecian Gods would been more patient and accepting than the deities in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and even in the case of our own true God.  What are your thoughts about this? Any opinions or insights?  P.S. I commented on Caroline Tucker's and Haley Riddle's posts. 

  Hephaestus has really captured my attention lately, and I was pretty upset with the information given to me from the reading this weekend. I need more of this beautiful role-model! There is so much more depth and personality to be explored, which brings me to lines 926 and 927 of  "Selections from the  Theogony ." I was excited to get more on this severely under-rated god. I was disappointed. Two lines. Thirty-one words for the god of fire's beginning.  I felt sorry for Hephaestus, at first. He’s always overlooked. I even overlooked him when I learned about the Greek gods before college, and he is easily overlooked. Hephaestus is the only deformed immortal, which makes him the comedy relief for the other immortals. When he's mentioned, it is mainly for his craftsmanship and being laughed at by other immortals. His own father overlooks him. The gods and goddesses that stay in focus have powers and personalities that adhere to what stays in the focus of humankin...

 Okay, can we talk about the story of Prometheus for a second? I'm sure we all knew the story even before reading it, but the story is just so immensely messed up it blows my mind. For one thing, why was Prometheus the only one who liked humans enough to give us the gift of fire? Shouldn't Hephaestus been the one to give humans fire? After all, he is the god of fire.  Prometheus' punishment is far to extreme as well. I mean, he gives humanity fire, which literally allows us to create civilizations. But no, he is called the "Trickster god" for defying them.  It blows my mind that the Greeks probably saw him as someone evil or chaotic, instead of someone who was benevolent enough to give humans fire. Even still, his punishment is far too brutal and grotesque. I mean, getting his liver eaten LITERALLY every day is just cruel. The thing is, this kind of punishment would only work against a god, so can you imagine what it would be like to have to suffer that kind of to...

I can’t remember exactly how old I was when I started reading Greek mythology but I was probably somewhere between 10 and 12 years old. I got to the point where I started reading and studying it and other mythology for fun. Something I noticed while reading about what other cultures believe is that they all have some version of the flood story. In Greek and Roman mythology, Zeus/Jupiter vows to destroy the world with water after being disgusted with the evil in the world. As I got older and started reading about other versions of the flood story, I began to realize that this proves the fact that there was a global flood. The chances of every culture having some version of a story and it not being true is extremely rare. Jupiter vows to flood the world after Lycaon, king of Arcadia, basically pulled a Hannibal Lecter by offering Jupiter the entrails of a Molossi hostage. (And no, I have not seen Silence of the Lambs  in case anyone wonders.) Isn’t this incredibly similar to how God ...

           I don't know about you, but I had to read through the first section of the reading quite a few times to make sure I fully understood what the heck was going on. When I finally realized that the words on the page were telling me that Kronos ate his children and I was not misinterpreting things, I actually found a parallel to the story of Moses...         In Hesoid, Selections from the Theogony , we discover that Kronos ate each of his children because he had been told that he would   "be subdued by his own child" (Banks). However, Rhea, the woman who bore Kronos' children, planned to keep the youngest child, Zeus. She wrapped a stone in cloth and Kronos,(obviously a genius) ate the stone, thinking it was Zeus.      Now look at the story of Moses. In Exodus 1 Pharaoh becomes king and begins trying to eliminate the Israelites saying "Look... The Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Co...

 Look, if it isn't obvious already, I am a HUGE Percy Jackson fan. I just bought the last book in The Trials of Apollo series, like, Sunday, if that proves anything. I have been able to see (from a preteen perspective) the many, many, many differences between the Greek and Roman worlds and mythologies. Many such differences are perfectly displayed in the beginnings of each of these reading excerpts. First, the excerpt given from Hesiod's Theogony details stories strictly about the gods and their decisions. We are shown many thrilling scenes, including Kronos eating his kids (1), Prometheus tricking Zeus (2), the horrible, dooming creation of women (3), and the relationship problems of Zeus. Even though the creation of mankind is discussed, human beings are considered WAY beneath the feet of the mighty gods, and are treated like such. In the Greek world, the gods are respected by the humans, but not considered present in everyday life. The Roman gods, on the other hand, seem to ...

 After reading the mess of what is supposed to be the family tree of the Greek gods, I am extremely grateful that I am a monotheist. Imagine having to learn the “family tree” as a part of your religion. I could not imagine. However, some would say the something similar about a Christian. But that is not the point of this blog post.  As I was reading Theogony  by Hesiod, I realized that Hesiod would use the word "incensed" frequently. Me, being not the best at English, was curious as to the meaning. After learning of the meaning ( to be of anger) and seeing the many times it is used, I realized how impactful the gods’ anger is to their actions. We have already seen how a god’s anger influences their actions in the Iliad.  Now that belief or idea is solidified through Hesiod’s Theogony .  With the Greek gods’ actions being influenced by there anger, I am reminded of how slow to anger God is. I am grateful for the endless mercy and grace He shows upon me. That grac...

      When I started reading the Ovid part of the reading assignment, the last thing I thought I would find was Troy from the Iliad. When I got to the part with Julius Caesar, well, there was Troy. The Roman goddess Venus references the city of Troy by saying, "now the ill-defended walls of Troy confound me." This completely threw me in for a surprise because this is Rome, not Greece. I guess the fall of Troy was much bigger than I thought. Back then news travelled very slowly, but I guess the fall of a remarkable city would move fairly quickly. It made it all the way to Rome.  I commented on Caroline's and Logan's post.

  While reading the Theogony, I noted how some parts of it do seem very similar to the Book of Genesis. Both pieces of work entertain the idea of some being(s) creating the world out of nothing, as well as this/these certain being(s) craving a relationship with His/their creation, and the story of Jupiter destroying mankind with water was very reminiscent of Noah and the Ark. However, all similarities between the two stop there because the gods in the Theogony are very, very different from the God of Abraham and Jacob.  Genesis Chapter 1, it is written that God Almighty created everything in the universe, and that therefore we as creation are dependent on our Creator. It is also clearly stated that man specifically was set apart from the rest to be made in God's image; with this gift, He allows us dominion over all of creation. Nothing is out of order, unless God ordains it to be for His purpose and plan.  On the other hand, in Theogony, we see that the world's origin was...

  I couldn’t help but notice the difference in how the different mythological views of the deity of Zeus are dictated by each civilization’s (Greece and Rome) valued virtues. Greece often valued a more familial lifestyle with their philosophy of liberty and duty, which can be seen in the count of Zeus’ lovers and the order he had them, “ Next he wedded bright Themis, who bore the Hōrai: Eunomia, Dikē, and blooming Peace . . . And Eurynome, daughter of Okeanos, having a very lovely form, bore him the fair-cheeked Kharites [Graces]: Aglaia, and Euphrosyne, and winsome Thalia   . . . But he came to the couch of much-nourishing Demeter, who bore him white-armed Persephone . . . And next he was enamored of beautiful-haired Mnemosyne . . .” (Hesiod, 4). This doesn’t even include Hera or any of the other mortals he had affairs with in various other stories also, which just refers back to my previous point.             ...

  I find it interesting that The Republic is concluded with a discussion on reality. The entire story, thus far, has been made up of different ideas and opinions which combine to form the ideal imaginary city. Emphasis on imaginary here. In book ten, Socrates engages his listeners with an analogy for determining what is real and true rather than a copy of truth. He begins by speaking of beds and tables. Socrates states that the physical bed that one might lie on is only a copy of the original idea, therefore, only the idea is the real thing or essence of it. He then goes into speaking of painters and craftsmen as only imitators of an original idea which is the essense of the thing itself. Without getting lost in the complicatedness of it all, we can gather his meaning to be that only ideas are the true forms of things.  But how do we know what good ideas look like? Socrates gives an analogy which explains how only musicians know what a good flute sounds like. The flute-maker w...

 Wow! Just wow!  That is all that I could think of after watching Oedipus the King. I really enjoyed watching it. There are so many things I could talk about.  After watching, I felt saddened for Oedipus. Oedipus seemed to be a good man and tried to do his best for his city. One major fault he had was his short temper. I will agree that there is no excuse for the murder of his father. This is because he murdered him out of anger. However, Oedipus’s crimes against his mother and subsequently his wife and children were done unknowingly. Both sets of his parents are at fault for the unknowingness of marrying his mother and having children with her. I am not saying Oedipus is not in the wrong, I believe that he was most definitely in the wrong. He just did not know his wife was also his mother.  The fact that he did not know that he was committing a crime reminds me of how we as humans sin knowingly and unknowingly. Like Oedipus, whether we commit crimes against God know...

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

While I am completely able to see Socrates's reasons for choosing to banish the poets from the just city, it doesn't mean that I like his decision. His reasoning and logic make sense, but after years of reading and listening to great poetry that can teach virtue and positive characteristics, it is just painful to see him cast this artistic group aside. Sadly, however, it seems one can have no imperfection within the perfect city. Ironically enough, that statement leads to my next question. If everyone else is expected to act without fault and not allow a single iota of corruption into the just city, why is it that the poets are unable to do this? Is poetry naturally unjust in Socrates's eyes? If writers and musicians can make their art with the same emotion and feeling that a poet would and still allow their art to be censored by the state if needed, why couldn't the poets do the same?  Now, there may be something I'm missing or just something I didn't pick up o...

 Bonus blog time! This is my first ever bonus blog so you should be honored. Also, I forgot about whether or not I could talk about all of Oedipus, so I'm gonna talk about the whole thing and just hope for the best. So, I first read Oedipus senior year of high school. I really enjoyed it for  few reasons. One of which was because I already knew I was interested in the field of psychology and I knew this was where the name of the Oedipal Complex came from. But that's not what I'm gonna talk about. Instead, I'm gonna talk about the dramatic irony in the story. My personal favorite part about the whole thing is that Oedipus tried so hard to avoid his fate and ran towards it instead. The faster he ran from what he thought was his fate, the faster he ran to his actual fate, making the prediction come true. It kind of reminds me of someone in a horror movie running away from a monster, and in their panic, they run straight into a wall and knock themselves out. The whole ...

       Call me crazy, but I would conjecture that those who use fear as a tool to achieve their goals are never actually satisfied with their work because they spend all their time being afraid of someone using their own tactics on them. Socrates in Book IX details the Tyrant's power struggle and how the tyrannical man never forges alliances or friendships due to always being weary of anyone he has not payed off to guard him and his possessions. It reminds me of when the Bible addresses that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, which basically translates to you get what you give. If someone oppresses others, then who is really the winner in that scenario? Spoiler alert, it's nobody at all!     I remember a moment from a television series that can really put the Tyrant's struggle in perspective, and how tyranny will inevitably undo itself. Within the masterful storytelling of the third season of  Transformers Prime , Megatron himself ...

 Is it universally true that ignorance is considered to be bliss? They say what you don't know can't hurt you, but I beg to differ; not knowing about a test I have due the next day might be painful.  In Chapter 7 of Plato's Republic, Plato creates an allegory of prisoners trapped in a cave for their entire life, knowing and understanding only what they can see and hear. Behind them a fire burns, with people walking back and forth in front of it, casting shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners. This is the extent of their reality.  I found this allegory to be extremely interesting considering the times we live in, with media censorship and what not. Consider this: maybe we are in the same position as the prisoners in Plato's allegory, and we don't realize this because it's our reality, it's what we've always had and always will have. Plato alludes to this himself in the beginning of Book 7 when Glaucon says "You describe a strange prison and st...

Are we living in a flawed society here in the U.S.? Without a doubt, the answer to this question is yes, yes we are. (I'm sorry if I offended anyone).  The way in which Socrates describes democracy as the inferior method of governing a nation is concerning since this is the very form of government that we are subject to. In his mind, abandoning everything in the name of freedom is one of the worst things a nation can do. While I do agree that some people can take their freedoms a bit too far (Karens) or twist the meaning of what their freedoms allow (also Karens), I would much rather live in a nation with freedom as its basis.  Socrates also believes, that purposely putting the wealthiest people in the highest positions of power is not only extremely unfair and highly biased, but it rapidly increases the overall level of governmental corruption. I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the philosopher on this one. What do you guys think? Do we need to pay more attention to w...

    I think I got that wrong...Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That phrase is a phrase seemingly instilled in every American yet Plato seems to change that phrase throughout the creation so to speak of this city of his. Humans, well more over being human automatically attaches you to this trait of Constantly seeking comfort, pleasure, desire in summary happiness. As Christians we know much of this is bound up in sin nature, but we fail to recognize so often that the reason sin nature is so prevalent is because we are inherently created to worship something. For the vast majority of non-believers and even Christ seekers that thing that we choose to worship is personal happiness. "      "My friend, you have forgotten again that the law is concerned not with the happiness of any particular class in the city but with happiness the city as a whole" (Plato, 519e)  This is what I believe should be the use of laws although not for the general happiness of ...

 In last week's blog post, I discussed the idea of a pretentious mindset. This week, I can't help but come close to that again. This time, however, discussing the art of academia. In book VII Plato states, "they must relish Study and must be able to learn with ease… Intellection is more specifically a matter for the soul and is not shared with the body." Here, he establishes what might as well be the entire basis of academia. Academia is defined as "the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship" by Oxford Languages and I feel as if Plato perfectly captures that in this book. The men having this discussion have unknowingly set that basis for an entire lifestyle in a few words. Academia as a whole has had such a profound effect on society as a whole. The pure emphasis on a desire to know and learn can so drastically change the way someone looks at the world and it is utterly incredible. The sheer idea of Academ...

I have always enjoyed the analogy of the cave, but I have also always had the same question in my head. I have always wondered why Plato describes the person as having to be dragged out of the cave. My initial thought is because some or even most people oppose change, and this is especially evident when it comes to one's beliefs. This then causes me to ask whether people would pursue or have the desire to pursue knowledge on their own and what a life would be like if one were to not develop in their beliefs and intellectually.  Do you think that it always takes someone to initially start someone's journey to knowledge and wisdom, or do you think some people will just be drawn to it. The guy in the cave would have settled with his newfound discovery of the fire and the statues had it not been for the one who dragged him out.  Do you think one's life would be easier if one were to not be prodded by the burden of wisdom? Do you think it would be easier if they were to settle w...

 Ah, yes. The allegory of the cave. One of my favorite lessons from philosophy that I learned over a year ago. It's a shame I don't really remember much of it. I will, however, try my best and give you the rundown from what I have left over in my notes.  So the cave, as I understood it, is about education. I think we all understood that, right? Leaving the cave and learning about the outside world is a pretty blatant example of education. But what stuck with me the most are what Dr. Mashburn called the "confusions." Basically, there are two "confusions," or transitional periods, one while going from the darkness to light, and one while going from light to darkness. The dark period is one of ignorance (duh) and the light period is about knowledge (again, duh). So what he calls confusions are basically periods where you are learning something that conflicts with previously held beliefs. For instance, learning that there is more to life than the shadows on the ...

       In The Republic , Socrates speaks of the type of man that should lead his city. He calls them the dialectic. he not only refers to the term as a person but also as a "journey" (226 Plato). This means that being a dialectic isn't actually being a dialectic, but that the true being of a dialectic is the becoming of a dialectic. The process in which you strive to become a dialectic is the being of the dialectic. Also, when he begins to the define the dialectic he uses present continuous verbs. These verbs make it seem as if the dialectic is always performing these tasks in the moment   "So it is when a man enters into dialectic, shunning reliance on sense perceptions and seeking understanding solely by means of rational discourse. He strives to know each thing in its essence and does not desist until he led by pure intelligence to know goodness itself " (226 Plato).     "Not-knowing is true knowledge. Presuming to know is a disease." (Lao Tzu , Tao...

               The analogy of the cave in Book VII of The Republic reminded me of Catholicism. From my understanding, in Catholicism, if a person wants to repent, they must go to the priest who then goes to God. In the same way the analogy of the cave presents different levels of knowledge and understanding. Those in the cave do not understand more than simply shadows, those who see the fire understand that the shadows come from the statues, and those who can see everything believe it all comes from the light of the sun.  If you understand either of these ideas, please comment below... I would love to hear your thoughts!

In book VII of The Republic, we are presented with the allegory of the cave. Plato gives us a representation of the enlightenment of the soul. This is much like the spiritual enlightenment we receive through Christ.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist household where I was taught the things of God from a very young age. Though I knew in my head about Jesus, He was only a shadow in my heart. He was like the shadows on the walls of the cave. I went to church every Sunday and Wednesday; every time the doors were open. I took in everything but took nothing seriously. I experienced life in a bottle, completely separated from spiritual reality. I was a prisoner chained in a cave; a prisoner to sin and my own selfish desires. I saw only shadows on the wall and heard only the echoes of all the voices around me, but I thought it was real.  It wasn't until Jesus came down into my cave and led me by the hand into the light that I started to see. I began to understand that what I had been li...

We have hiked through Troy and Greece and we have finally stumbled upon the famous Plato's Cave. Now that we're here, it's kind of like watching the end of Inception. Do I know what I know? Is everything that I thought I knew just a dream or a symbol, and not the true Form of the thing? But reading it, I'm tempted to feel sorry for the prisoner who was let go and encountered all this new information. He learned about pain and fire and confusion. There are harsh and painful things in the real world. Things that, theoretically, the rest of the captives in the cave wouldn't have to experience or ever know about. However, there's more to life than being spoon fed what you're "supposed" to know. You must learn things and encounter them for yourself. Enlightenment is key to a higher form of life (thanks Kant!), and those who live in the cave forever, watching shadows and being unable to look left or right or find out things for themselves, can barely cou...