Plato -Euthyphro

I have decided to read plato, partly as I think that the neo-platonists from the seventeenth century were fascinating and I think that in order to understand them that I need to be able to know a little about what plato said initially to see ho wthey reinterpreted him in their time. Euthyphro also interests me theologically, however much i may disagree due to the metaphysical background that informs plato’s, or Socrates thought, as represented by Plato. The core of this text is the question of holiness. What is the standard by which one can determine if one is being Holy. It starts of with a mythcal exlaination, whereby Euthyphro uses Zeus to show how what he is doing is holy as it is what the Gods have done, but the Gods have contradicted each other, this is where I lose a bit of PLato. as he is working from a polytheiestic context rather then a montheism such as Christianity, this makes his points not so pertinant to a western christian reader, such as myself, as they would have in Greece in his time. For instance his point about the agreement of the Gods, doesn’t really work outside of the greek deities. However this is not to say the work is not without merit due to its context, as it brings the problems of finding the essence of holiness to the mind of the reader, and fails to come to a satisfactory conclusion, leaving the reader to decide and make their own decision over what holiness is comprised of, wether it is what God says is holy, whether it is a form of justice or if it is what brings divine approval. Plato at points says that things are both holy and unholy depending upon the God, I would say that this point could be applied to context and circumstance, what was right once, is not right always, and what is right most of the time may be wrong in others. This makes holiness and piety a complicated and difficult problem.

Other ways of solving it are holiness as a form of knowledge, or a science of prayer and sacrifice, the ability to understand and know how to communicate with the gods. The issues seem to revolve around where holiness originates and for what purpose does it serve. Does it benefit the gods, and if so how, and if not then why do we have it? Further, hoe can we be sure that what we decide is holy, is in fact holy? These questions which the work provokes is far more powerfull then the unsatisfactory conclusion that it arrives at, with Euthyphro walking away without satisfying Socrates initial question to provide the standard whereby we can know what is holy and unholy.

existentialism and humanism - Jean Paul Sartre

This book is Jean Paul Sartre’s manifesto of what he saw existentialism as being. THe broader implications of what he saw existentialism had to other areas. In it he refers to phenomenology and Edmond Husserl and the concept that what is perceived is not an objective reality duplicated by the mind but a subjective experience that is the result of our minds own percipient activity. He argues for a very atheistic form of existentialism over Kierkegaard’s more christian form of it. The crux of it is that existence preceeds essence, rather then the ideal providing existence. But what does Sartre mean when he says existence preceeds essence, he argues that man exists and prior to existence there is nothing that defines who he is, dictates his character, goals, aspirations and personality.

“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards’

Thus, the defing of the self is something that is always done in retrospect. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. This is a very liberating doctrine, one however that I think places a huge burden upon the individual to be a judge of their own self and the responsibility for them to live and be the correct person, as they bear the whole burdon for who they are, they have nothing to blame for what they are. Yet, this for me whilst I think is true to some extent, I think Sartre over states the role it plays, as we are not fully free, as he would have us to believe, to become who we want to be. His paper-knife theory holds that an object is created in essence as a theoretical entity prior to its construction, this he says is reversed for man. Man is created and then constructs his meaning. A point that I am struggling to comprehend is what he means when he says that what he chooses for himself he chooses for all mankind. I think that this refers to the concept that we can only be sure of our own existence and thus we project ourselves into the rest of mankind, so what we chose for ourselves in turn becomes our template for mankind. Sartre thus thinks that in fashioning himself he is fashioning the world, or at least, mankind. We therefore have responsibility not just for ourselves but for all mankind. This seems very similiar to Kants univseral ethics, what we choose must be what could be chosen universally in our situation. However this could be the point he makes later using Descartes cogito which is the initial stage for self awareness of our abandonment. I think therfore I am is the absulate truth of conciousness, and ones sense of self

Sartre quotes Dosteivosky when he said that “if God did not exist everything would be permitted.” THis statement is erronous as it assumes that mrality is derived only from God, and that it is God that imposes restrictions upon mankind, I would argue that Man imposes upon themselves their own limitations and prisons of their own perceptions. We want to limit ourselves through constructs and restrictions as it justifies us not acting to a fullness of our potential. As I was reading this it mad me think of Plato’s Euthyphro and his attempt to discover what holiness is and how one becomes holy. However Sartre uses the concept that man devoid of divinity finds himself with nothing to depend upon but himself and is confronted with an infinite number of choices through which he has to decide. It is this anguish of being confronted with so many choices of which we bear sole responsibility for the repercussions that he sees as the essence of existentialism, if essence could be used, perhaps the word core or fundamental feature would be more fitting.

Another term he tries to define in an existential context is abandonment. We alone our the judges that interpret the meaning of the events of our life. He uses the examples of a jesuit who interprets his life as a divine message being unraveled in front of his eyes, and the Kierkgaardian ‘Anguish of abraham’ to demonstrate this concept. This made me thing of the difficulty that we have in identfying the spirit in our own lives. I love his phrase Manpaints his own portrait and that is all he has. In the end who we are is all that we take with us, and in being.It is in in creating and inventing that man becomes as their is no pre-existing image of what man can become, or so Sartre says. Yet, in the light of the gospel we can see that this is not the case, we know both what the meaning of man is, and what he is to become, the image is given yet the practical way in which we become that is existential. I think that existential ideas work in light of our mortal existence but crumble in the eternal light of the gospel. The best thing about the book is the doctrine of freedom, action, and choice. It is these three areas which are its strengths its flaws are in the consistency and way in which they are applied and understood, the premises are true, but the conclusion is flawed.

“Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yourss to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing but the sense that you choose.” (p. 54)

The name of the Rose - Umberto Eco

Umberto Eco is the master of intertextuality, the depth of his reading and knowledge exudes from every page of this work. The influences so vast as the library in which it is based, the text reflects the fragmented narrative that it gives a palimpsest of texts, myths, and ideas woven together in a narrative that is original in its hybridity and synthesis of influences yet has borrowed its imagery and symbolism from other sources. As I read it I was profoundly moved and made to consider th function of a text and an author. What is the purpose of a book and library, is it to preserve knowledge or is it to reatrict and moderate the way in which we have access to knowledge. This book for me is like a collection of glimpses of textx from the past, present and future fused together and woven into an incredibe story that makes you think about the relationship between symbols, books and explaination. The allussions to William Ockham I found most interesting, the concept that the simplest solution more often then not is the best solution. The use of scholasticism and reason is fascinating and the way that William has to balance the semiotics and reason of the event and happeneings that mist be placed into the releveant contexts, the narrative itself fits into multiple contexts as it is Adso’s narrative of his growing understanding of the mystery as it is revealed to him through William. The text has multiple layers that over a plethora of interpretations that spiral into the depths of both scripture and literary theory. The text reveals an complex internal structure comprised of many elements fused together which all in turn reflect out into a broader context. The murder mystery itself becomes a metaphor of the readers journey into the text. The imposition of their own meaning on the ambiguity that confronts them as they read the text. "books always speak of other books, and every story tells a story that has already been told." This refers to a postmodern ideal that all texts perpetually refer to other texts, rather than external reality. I love the book in its post modern semiotic glory that as a reader causes one to construct meaning, i love the way in which as various meanings are attached to events they become the driving force for events, whilst the truth escapes all those that are involved in the mystery. The very murder mystery becomes truth which is always beyod humans grasp we try to discover it using reason but in the end the only order to the world is beyond our ability to understand and in the end we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that their is no order so to speak. It also explores the role of theories in describing the world, they may not be true to reality but if they fit reality if not the true way then pragmatically speaking they are true.

Joseph Smith as Scientist - John A Widstoe

This book was fascionating for the way in which it tried to reconcile theology with science. I loved the way in which he compared the two and demonstrated that both were reliant upon faith. He looks at the teachings of Joseph Smith regarding the eternal nature of matter, energy which he sees as coming from the Holy Spirit, which he likens to the great ether, which was a dominent scientific idea during his time, which states that the universe is permeated in a ether that peervades through everything, this he says is the Holy Spirit that supplies life, light and governs the world, it is God’s presence through all of creation. An interesting chapter is when he talks about plato’s cave and how all we see is the shadows of the reality as nature in its ultimate form is unknowable; our minds cannot comprehend the relation of cause and effect, this makes me think of David Hume who looked at this fact and the limitations of the human mind in what we can know. “Laws of Nature are, therefore, man’s simplest and most comprehensive expression of his knowledge of certain groups of natural phenomena.” (p.34)

Two chapters I really enjoyed were the ones in which he talks about geological time and evolution. Two areas I have been pondering recently. The first he points out the fact that nature is a means through which God can speak to us, it is the second book of scripture, the stars, clouds, mountains and soil are a form of divine revelation of the history of the world. He reconciles this to an interpretation of the creation whereby the days are symbolic of periods of unspecified time, not literal 24 hour periods. He as part of this looks at organised intellgences and that eternity of life, is the eternity of organisation, which is intellegience.

Another great section is the one in which he applies the gospel to science, thereby showing that the gospel is scientific, or science derives from eternal rinciples of the gospel. He starts of with Faith. People often when they lose faith or start to doubt turn to science as a more sure form of knowledge due to its derivation from experiements which comes from the senses and s more tangible and thus has no need for faith. Yet, Widtsoe shows that faith is needed in science, for much of science speaks of worlds far removed from our senses and is beyond that which we can know. He cites molecules and atoms, as an example of that, things which we cannot obersve with our own eyes. They are far removed from the real world, yet, we believe in their existence, despite the fact that most of us have never seen them, and that they seem to contradict our own personal experience. He then points out that as faith in a scientific practice grows it causes scientist to repent, to alter theories and practices to be in harmony with the new principle, such as antiseptic surgery. “In the spiritual life, it is impossible for the person who desires the greatest joy to remain passive in the presence of new principles. He must embrace them; live them; make them his own.” (p. 81) This he says brings obedience to law which he likens to baptism, which is obedience to spiritual law although we may not understand why it is baptism and not anything else. Likewise we may not understand why a coil of wire must be coiled to emit light. “All theoloy and all science contain laws that must be obeyed in order to obtain certain results, although the full reasons for the required combinations are not understood.” If scientists exert faith, change ways, and obey laws then they recieve knowledge or intellegience, which Jospeh Smith said is what the holy ghost is. “the holy ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence it is powerfull in expanding the mind, enlightening understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge.” Thus, a sciemtist recieves a gift from the holy ghost as a reward for their obedience.

In the section on the theory of evolution he uses Herbert Spencer to guide his thinking. “ Man seeks the law of laws, by the operation of which, things have become what they are, and by which their destiny is controlled.” Spencer says that everything is in a state of flux and changes from instant to instant. Everything is either progressing or regressing as it is changing in one direction or the other. This is the law of evolution that things are evolving into a progressive state. The next move hemakes is to draw ths distinction between natural selection and evolution. Darwinian notions of the struggle for existence he rejects and states evolution is true but natural selection does not, and may not be true. He states that one form of life can not change into another form of life but remains in the sphere in which God has created it.