In Fantasyland today, it's the '50s. By the end of that decade the average American was watching TV for a third of their waking life-and remember, this was before cable. There were about three channels, but those post-midnight test patterns were mesmerizing. "Nowhere and never had people spent more time consuming fictions and advertizing," and not reading or patronizing the arts. We'e topped them for screentime, though, haven't we? Thanks, Steve Jobs.
And continued thanks to Walt Disney for magically transforming Marceline, MO into Main Street USA.
Did Hugh Hefner deserve our thanks for his part in starting the sexual revolution? His "wankers" and "readers" were grateful, if not fully liberated from misogyny and stunted sexual/emotional development. [Hef U@d... obit]
And then there's the also-recently-departed Reverend Billy Graham, our "ad hoc national Pastor-in-Chief" who, like Hef, promised liberation and salvation. I wonder how many of his congregants returned from a Graham crusade and unwound (so to speak) with a centerfold. Sin and repentance will always need one another, as in a sense Graham and Hef needed one another.
In A&P today we turn to Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. A freethinker, by her accounting, is anyone who shares the Enlightenment commitment to displacing superstition and supernaturalism with reason and evidence adduced from the natural world. And a secularist is one who insists on distinguishing private faith from the conduct of public affairs. Freethinkers and secularists have been more central to our history than is commonly acknowledged. Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for instance, was censured by her fellow suffragists for excoriating Christianity in her Woman's Bible.
When asked to explain the Constitution's omission of God, Alexander Hamilton deadpanned: we forgot. Or maybe "the framers [were] so godly that any mention of the Supreme Being in the Constitution would have been as superfluous as acknowledging the sky overhead." Or just maybe they were secularists... and poor Tom Paine was their scapegoat. Common sense suggests nothing less, just as it supports Jefferson's dictum: "it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I've known Christians who agreed, though the more vocal of them continue (like Jefferson's hysterical critic John Mason) to sputter about "devils," "horror," etc. They placed Jefferson's name alongside the French corrupters Voltaire and Rousseau. Jefferson must have found that gratifying.
And continued thanks to Walt Disney for magically transforming Marceline, MO into Main Street USA.
Did Hugh Hefner deserve our thanks for his part in starting the sexual revolution? His "wankers" and "readers" were grateful, if not fully liberated from misogyny and stunted sexual/emotional development. [Hef U@d... obit]
And then there's the also-recently-departed Reverend Billy Graham, our "ad hoc national Pastor-in-Chief" who, like Hef, promised liberation and salvation. I wonder how many of his congregants returned from a Graham crusade and unwound (so to speak) with a centerfold. Sin and repentance will always need one another, as in a sense Graham and Hef needed one another.
In A&P today we turn to Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. A freethinker, by her accounting, is anyone who shares the Enlightenment commitment to displacing superstition and supernaturalism with reason and evidence adduced from the natural world. And a secularist is one who insists on distinguishing private faith from the conduct of public affairs. Freethinkers and secularists have been more central to our history than is commonly acknowledged. Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for instance, was censured by her fellow suffragists for excoriating Christianity in her Woman's Bible.
The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, she was commanded to ask her husband at home. Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up. grThere was room for freethought in colonial America, says Jacoby, because its religious pluralism militated against a common cultural definition of heresy and sparked widespread interest in views like Deism. Evangelicals and rationalists alike supported separation of church and state.
When asked to explain the Constitution's omission of God, Alexander Hamilton deadpanned: we forgot. Or maybe "the framers [were] so godly that any mention of the Supreme Being in the Constitution would have been as superfluous as acknowledging the sky overhead." Or just maybe they were secularists... and poor Tom Paine was their scapegoat. Common sense suggests nothing less, just as it supports Jefferson's dictum: "it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I've known Christians who agreed, though the more vocal of them continue (like Jefferson's hysterical critic John Mason) to sputter about "devils," "horror," etc. They placed Jefferson's name alongside the French corrupters Voltaire and Rousseau. Jefferson must have found that gratifying.
I've noted how it offended Southern Baptists in the administration Belmont University, years ago, to learn that I'd attended a few Unitarian Universalist services. They evidently shared the Calvinist revulsion at the thought that nobody should be left behind, everybody should be saved. What kind of a god damns his own children? The kind a progressive, secular, young and hopeful democracy leaves out of its founding documents.
*Last semester when we took up the subject of Epicurus and the Stoics we heard a report on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. "Stuff your eyes with wonder," and don't "hide your ignorance... you'll never learn." Well, the un-bookish oafs currently running the show in Washington haven't concealed their ignorance, but will they ever learn? Will we ever learn to stop electing un-bookish oafs?
Epicurus and his friends retired from public life, having lost all patience with the unhappy society of their peers whose fear of death they diagnosed as a waste of time and a violation of logic. Better to live simply and bravely with your pals, they thought, pursuing (but not wallowing in) pleasure and avoiding the gratuitous mental pain of the material rat race. Like Aristotle they wanted to live well and flourish, with a bit more emphasis on fun and happiness. Also like Aristotle, they deeply valued friendship. Their commune inspired Marx's dissertation.
Contrary to scurrilous popular rumor they weren't lascivious hedonists or self-indulgent esthetes, preferring a plentiful pot of cheap stew to share over good conversation. Bread, cheese, and olives were staples - their version of pizza. The most valuable commodity of all, they thought, was the precious gift of time. As their admirer Henry Thoreau would eventually say, they considered that"the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run." In the long run we're all safely dead, he and they figured, so we'd better make the best of the time we have.
"Epicurean" is another of those adjectives that's drifted far from its progenitor's intent. Check out the latest issue of Epicure magazine, promoting the "gourmet lifestyle" and designed for globetrotting "bon vivants" and "well-travelled foodies." Epicurus and friends would rather have just hung out in the Garden and chatted over their modest but filling fare. "If you start drinking expensive wine, then you'll very soon end up wanting to drink even more expensive wine, and get caught in the trap of longing for things that you can't have" - not without abandoning your friends and slaving your time away to pay for your refined and expensive taste in vino. I'll stick with the Bay Bridge Sauvignon they sell at Kroger for $2.99, and the sale-priced IPA.
Be calm and carry on, as we say. "Calm is an internal quality that is the result of analysis: it comes when we sift through our worries and correctly understand them. We therefore need ample time to read, to write, and most of all, to benefit from the regular support of a good listener: a sympathetic, kind, clever person who in Epicurus’s time would have been a philosopher, and whom we would now call a therapist."
True to his doctrine, Epicurus died painfully but without fear or complaint. He "suffered all his life from bad health, but learnt to endure it with great fortitude. It was he, not a Stoic, who first maintained that a man could be happy on the rack."
And "in a final letter to Hermarchus, Epicurus writes, 'On the happiest, and the last, day of my life. I am suffering from diseases of the bladder and intestines, which are of the utmost possible severity.' But he goes on, amazingly, 'Yet all my sufferings are counterbalanced by the contentment of soul which I derive from remembering our reasonings and discoveries.'" Critchley
Be calm and carry on, as we say. "Calm is an internal quality that is the result of analysis: it comes when we sift through our worries and correctly understand them. We therefore need ample time to read, to write, and most of all, to benefit from the regular support of a good listener: a sympathetic, kind, clever person who in Epicurus’s time would have been a philosopher, and whom we would now call a therapist."
True to his doctrine, Epicurus died painfully but without fear or complaint. He "suffered all his life from bad health, but learnt to endure it with great fortitude. It was he, not a Stoic, who first maintained that a man could be happy on the rack."
And "in a final letter to Hermarchus, Epicurus writes, 'On the happiest, and the last, day of my life. I am suffering from diseases of the bladder and intestines, which are of the utmost possible severity.' But he goes on, amazingly, 'Yet all my sufferings are counterbalanced by the contentment of soul which I derive from remembering our reasonings and discoveries.'" Critchley
Ludwig Wittgenstein was an epicurean, in his day. "Death is not an event in life." Well, that sentiment's a bit self-centered but it's literally true, with respect to one's own demise. "I was not; I have been; I am not; I do not mind." But what of the pain of losing friends and loved ones? We must turn to the Stoics to deal with the loss of precious others, and may then find them coming up somewhat short of heart and soul.
Ataraxia, calm, tranquility, serenity, equanimity... that's the big stoic aim, based on the idea that we can't control external events but can control our inner attitudes and responses. Can we? Shouldn't we try, in any case? We should control our emotions, say stoics like Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius, lest they overwhelm us with the madness of violent feeling.
Marcus Aurelius asks, 'Why do you hunger for length of days?' The point of life is to follow reason and the divine spirit and to accept whatever nature sends you. To live in this way is not to fear death, but to hold it in contempt. Death is only a thing of terror for those unable to live in the present. "Pass on your way then, with a smiling face, under the smile of him who bids you go."
Ataraxia, calm, tranquility, serenity, equanimity... that's the big stoic aim, based on the idea that we can't control external events but can control our inner attitudes and responses. Can we? Shouldn't we try, in any case? We should control our emotions, say stoics like Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius, lest they overwhelm us with the madness of violent feeling.
Marcus Aurelius asks, 'Why do you hunger for length of days?' The point of life is to follow reason and the divine spirit and to accept whatever nature sends you. To live in this way is not to fear death, but to hold it in contempt. Death is only a thing of terror for those unable to live in the present. "Pass on your way then, with a smiling face, under the smile of him who bids you go."
Epictetus: "Men are disturbed not by things [pragmata], but by the opinions [dogmata] which they have of things. Thus death is nothing terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But
the terror consists in our opinion of death, that it is terrible."
the terror consists in our opinion of death, that it is terrible."
Cicero thought we shouldn't worry about dying, but not for Epicurus's reasons. Live now, Seneca said, life's long enough for those who make the right choices about how they spend the hours of their days. Annie Dillard and Maria Popova agree, "how we spend our days is how we spend our lives." But did Seneca make the right choice complying with crazy Nero, in his final hour? Not his finest, I'd say.
"The Stoics were keen astronomers and recommended the contemplation of the heavens to all students of philosophy. On an evening walk, look up and see the planets: you’ll see Venus and Jupiter shining in the darkening sky. If the dusk deepens, you might see some other stars – Aldebaran, Andromeda and Aries, along with many more. It’s a hint of the unimaginable extensions of space across the solar system, the galaxy and the cosmos. The sight has a calming effect which the Stoics revered, for against such a backdrop, we realise that none of our troubles, disappointments or hopes have any relevance." They'd have been pleased to ponder all those game-changing "new" exoplanets, and (unlike some religions, says David Weintraub) to welcome ET. Winston Churchill too: “I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time.”
Some questions: Are you afraid of death, of dying, or of any other aspect of human mortality? Why or why not? What's the best way to counter such fear? Are you epicurean in any sense of the word? Have you experienced the death of someone close to you? How did you handle it? Do you believe in the possibility of a punitive and painful afterlife? Do you care about the lives of those who will survive you? Which do you consider more important? Why? Do you consider Epicurus's disbelief in immortal souls a solution to the problem of dying, or an evasion of it? Do you find the thought of ultimate mortality consoling or mortifying?
And one more: Can Epicureans and Stoics help us break our addiction to the spectacle of Drumpf? "...as each new day brings a new scandal, lie or outrage, it has become increasingly difficult to find our epistemological and ethical bearings: The spectacle swallows us all." Can we afford the luxury of ignoring him? Can we sustain our sanity if we don't? What do you say, Emperor?
"The Stoics were keen astronomers and recommended the contemplation of the heavens to all students of philosophy. On an evening walk, look up and see the planets: you’ll see Venus and Jupiter shining in the darkening sky. If the dusk deepens, you might see some other stars – Aldebaran, Andromeda and Aries, along with many more. It’s a hint of the unimaginable extensions of space across the solar system, the galaxy and the cosmos. The sight has a calming effect which the Stoics revered, for against such a backdrop, we realise that none of our troubles, disappointments or hopes have any relevance." They'd have been pleased to ponder all those game-changing "new" exoplanets, and (unlike some religions, says David Weintraub) to welcome ET. Winston Churchill too: “I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time.”
Some questions: Are you afraid of death, of dying, or of any other aspect of human mortality? Why or why not? What's the best way to counter such fear? Are you epicurean in any sense of the word? Have you experienced the death of someone close to you? How did you handle it? Do you believe in the possibility of a punitive and painful afterlife? Do you care about the lives of those who will survive you? Which do you consider more important? Why? Do you consider Epicurus's disbelief in immortal souls a solution to the problem of dying, or an evasion of it? Do you find the thought of ultimate mortality consoling or mortifying?
And one more: Can Epicureans and Stoics help us break our addiction to the spectacle of Drumpf? "...as each new day brings a new scandal, lie or outrage, it has become increasingly difficult to find our epistemological and ethical bearings: The spectacle swallows us all." Can we afford the luxury of ignoring him? Can we sustain our sanity if we don't? What do you say, Emperor?
- “Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.”
- “You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”
- “The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”
- “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
- “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”
The slave said something very similar. “Don't explain your philosophy. Embody it.”
Don't you wish the emperor and the slave had been on the ballot in November?
==
10.4.17. On this day... 1957 USSR launches Sputnik I, 1st artificial Earth satellite... 2006 WikiLeaks is launched, created by internet activist Julian Assange.
And it's the birthday of Anne Rice (1941), who said “The vampire is an articulate character in our literature. In the last 30 years or so, the vampire has been an articulate, charming, beguiling complex person so he’s miles away from a zombie. The vampire is the poet and the writer of the monster world. The zombies are the exact opposite. They’re not sexy, they don’t listen to good music and they don’t wear good clothes.”
On writing, Anne Rice once said: “There are no rules. It’s amazing how willing people are to tell you that you aren’t a real writer unless you conform to their clichés and their rules. My advice? Reject rules and critics out of hand. Define yourself. Do it your way. Make yourself the writer of your dreams.” WA
==
2.23.17. Happy 384th birthday to master diarist Sam Pepys, who expressed an epicurean attitude when he observed "how a good dinner and feasting reconciles everybody.” He was more the hedonist, though. “The truth is, I do indulge myself a little the more in pleasure, knowing that this is the proper age of my life to do it; and, out of my observation that most men that do thrive in the world do forget to take pleasure during the time that they are getting their estate, but reserve that till they have got one, and then it is too late for them to enjoy it.” Gather ye rosebuds...
5:30/6:26, 55/76, 5:34
10.4.17. On this day... 1957 USSR launches Sputnik I, 1st artificial Earth satellite... 2006 WikiLeaks is launched, created by internet activist Julian Assange.
And it's the birthday of Anne Rice (1941), who said “The vampire is an articulate character in our literature. In the last 30 years or so, the vampire has been an articulate, charming, beguiling complex person so he’s miles away from a zombie. The vampire is the poet and the writer of the monster world. The zombies are the exact opposite. They’re not sexy, they don’t listen to good music and they don’t wear good clothes.”
On writing, Anne Rice once said: “There are no rules. It’s amazing how willing people are to tell you that you aren’t a real writer unless you conform to their clichés and their rules. My advice? Reject rules and critics out of hand. Define yourself. Do it your way. Make yourself the writer of your dreams.” WA
==
2.23.17. Happy 384th birthday to master diarist Sam Pepys, who expressed an epicurean attitude when he observed "how a good dinner and feasting reconciles everybody.” He was more the hedonist, though. “The truth is, I do indulge myself a little the more in pleasure, knowing that this is the proper age of my life to do it; and, out of my observation that most men that do thrive in the world do forget to take pleasure during the time that they are getting their estate, but reserve that till they have got one, and then it is too late for them to enjoy it.” Gather ye rosebuds...
5:30/6:26, 55/76, 5:34
"Can Epicureans and Stoics help us break our addiction to the spectacle of Drumpf?" and "Can we afford the luxury of ignoring him?" -
ReplyDeleteEpicurus, in my opinion, provides an extremely optimistic lens through which to view our current political situation. I read through the link about the organization and reasoning behind the commune, and while I agree with it, I'm not entirely sure how I'd use those ideas to deal with the eccentric (crazy? insane?) decisions and opinions in Washington.
Unless I could somehow impose real Epicurean beliefs on the current administration, I still think everyone's best bet is to vote in upcoming elections and pray for impeachment.
The second question may be obvious, but the quote that immediately comes to mind is "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Latham Crihfield
ReplyDeleteDr. Phil Oliver
Intro to Philosophy (PHIL 1030-008)
February 23, 2017
Date Missed: Quiz for Thursday, February 16th
This essay is to make up for the quiz on the missed day of February 16th, 2017. Life has delivered us many idioms of the course of several hundred years. There is one famous idiom that we all may or may not have heard: “One swallow does not make a summer.” The legendary Greek philosopher Aristotle first coined this idiom. Like all idioms, this particular one has a unique meaning behind it. Now what Aristotle meant by his idiom of “one swallow doesn’t make a summer” was that just because you say something good has happened does not mean that one or more good things will happen afterwards to improve on whatever situation you are in. In this case, if you happen to see a swallow, it does not mean that the summer season will happen right after or later on. Another example might be if you see a four-leaf clover, it does not mean that you will become rich. With that in mind, let us now focus on the lesson of virtues and self-happiness. Now, the Greek term “eudaimonoia” often means happiness or welfare, particularly over personal agendas or calmness in oneself. In order to increase our chances of improving our personal welfare, or eudaimonia, we must practice self-control, create motivation for ourselves, and focus on our own well-being and personal agendas. We cannot achieve eudaimonia however, without first having a set of virtues. Virtues are our own versions of having high moral standards that are specific characteristics to be valued; it is a vital trait or quality of an individual that is deemed morally good. Virtues are considered a foundation of higher principles of good moral beings. “Truth by authority” is knowledge based on authority. This kind of “truth”, however, may depend on the reputation of the individual or upon the institution of authority, like a well-known university or the government of Greece. If the truth comes from a person of high standards, such as a king or a governor of a city or town, their truth is considered of higher value than that of a show polisher or carpenter or even a homeless person who has been living in the dirt and mud for many years now. This kind of authority can be harmful to people’s philosophies or philosophy in general. It can forcefully obtain or censor knowledge, or perhaps it can intervene on an individual’s free will and moral standards. Even worse, authoritative truth can often be imposed onto the people as the actual truth and that nothing else can challenge it. In other words, it can be considered to be the “real truth” (or “alternative truth” in today’s society, as Miss Conway so infamously coined the term “alternative facts”). Philosophy is the study of how a person seeks knowledge about the world, its environment, and its existence, and the authority of truth based on a person who’s status was higher than that of Aristotle’s status greatly affects the terms of philosophy as a result.