In the discussion of poetry, I was hoping for a callback to Plato's Cave. It seemed a natural to add that the images cast on the walls are the works of poets, and philosophers who have experienced Good and Beauty would no longer want to read these works.
This book was a struggle for me, but I'm very glad to have read it. I hope to join the Zoom call on Sunday.
I also sensed a hint at the cave when talking about the shadow art. Definitely something there on truth vs. imitation. In essence now we're banning the cave?
Thinking about it further, there's the truth (the form), then the manifestation of the truth (a single bed), then there's photos or paintings of the manifestations. Today, we now can add AI generated images based on the photos. More is being done to get us further away from the truth or form. The cave seems to me firmly entrenched.
For those who plan on joining the Zhuangzi read-along later this year, the History of Philosophy in China podcast has wrapped up its segments on Confucianism and Mohism, and will begin its segment on Daoism with the June 28 episode. I presume that it will start with the Daodejing, and I'd guess that it will get around the Zhuangzi right around the time that we're reading it.
Jared, can you tell us a bit more about your rationale for picking the books you did for the future read-alongs? That can give us more purpose when we read and help the discussion along. And have you selected which translation of Chuang Tzu to use?
I'm in the brainstorming phases of a piece about grief and was moved by Socrates' addition of a final stage, Reflection. The prior stages (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) are the provenance of the irrational part of the soul, so why not get as quickly as possible to acceptance and turn the experience over to the rational part of the soul? This, in my reading, gives meaning to the event. This is also easier said than done (and one wonders, what kind of grieving he went through, or is this admonition two removes from reality? :P)
I also liked the line that misery is a cup that "can never get its fill" which is a sort of adjunct to our common "misery loves company."
Combining this with the emphasis on how tragic poetry fixates on drama and conflict, appealing to the base emotions of the masses for entertainment, suggests an incredibly austere personality. One wonders, can I watch *one* episode of some nonsense? How many minutes/days/months must one be exposed to this kind of nonsense before it is a net negative and I am a giggling unthinking buffoon?
Book X was very interesting to me as a contribution to Plato's doctrine of the forms. In the other middle-period dialogues that feature the forms (the Meno and the Phaedo are the two I'm familiar with), the examples are normative qualities like the Good and the Beautiful, or what might be seen now as fundamental physical qualities like the Hot and the Cold, the Large and the Small, the Equal and the Unequal. The reader is left wondering whether there's the forms are many or few. Is there a Form for every predicate?
Book X takes us in the direction of an answer, using Bed and Table as examples of forms, which are imitated imperfectly by craftsmen. As far as I know this is the only place where we see this in Plato.
It suggests an interesting conception of forms that "couch" can be one. Like there is some eternal conception of "couch" that craftsmen can only make exemplars of, that predates even the first ever constructed couch. This sort of follows what we read in e.g. Phaedo, where the soul possesses eternal knowledge that we just need to "remember." I can't tell if it's utterly preposterous or completely genius though, to suggest that "couch" is some eternal form along the lines of, say, The Good or beauty or...
In the discussion of poetry, I was hoping for a callback to Plato's Cave. It seemed a natural to add that the images cast on the walls are the works of poets, and philosophers who have experienced Good and Beauty would no longer want to read these works.
This book was a struggle for me, but I'm very glad to have read it. I hope to join the Zoom call on Sunday.
I also sensed a hint at the cave when talking about the shadow art. Definitely something there on truth vs. imitation. In essence now we're banning the cave?
Thinking about it further, there's the truth (the form), then the manifestation of the truth (a single bed), then there's photos or paintings of the manifestations. Today, we now can add AI generated images based on the photos. More is being done to get us further away from the truth or form. The cave seems to me firmly entrenched.
GenAI as a 3rd remove from the truth is profound. I love that conception.
For those who plan on joining the Zhuangzi read-along later this year, the History of Philosophy in China podcast has wrapped up its segments on Confucianism and Mohism, and will begin its segment on Daoism with the June 28 episode. I presume that it will start with the Daodejing, and I'd guess that it will get around the Zhuangzi right around the time that we're reading it.
Jared, can you tell us a bit more about your rationale for picking the books you did for the future read-alongs? That can give us more purpose when we read and help the discussion along. And have you selected which translation of Chuang Tzu to use?
I'm in the brainstorming phases of a piece about grief and was moved by Socrates' addition of a final stage, Reflection. The prior stages (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) are the provenance of the irrational part of the soul, so why not get as quickly as possible to acceptance and turn the experience over to the rational part of the soul? This, in my reading, gives meaning to the event. This is also easier said than done (and one wonders, what kind of grieving he went through, or is this admonition two removes from reality? :P)
I also liked the line that misery is a cup that "can never get its fill" which is a sort of adjunct to our common "misery loves company."
Combining this with the emphasis on how tragic poetry fixates on drama and conflict, appealing to the base emotions of the masses for entertainment, suggests an incredibly austere personality. One wonders, can I watch *one* episode of some nonsense? How many minutes/days/months must one be exposed to this kind of nonsense before it is a net negative and I am a giggling unthinking buffoon?
Here’s an cool illustration of the Spindle of Necessity by Tyler Miles Lockett: https://www.reddit.com/r/classics/comments/15327no/platos_spindle_of_necessity_illustrated_by_me/
Book X was very interesting to me as a contribution to Plato's doctrine of the forms. In the other middle-period dialogues that feature the forms (the Meno and the Phaedo are the two I'm familiar with), the examples are normative qualities like the Good and the Beautiful, or what might be seen now as fundamental physical qualities like the Hot and the Cold, the Large and the Small, the Equal and the Unequal. The reader is left wondering whether there's the forms are many or few. Is there a Form for every predicate?
Book X takes us in the direction of an answer, using Bed and Table as examples of forms, which are imitated imperfectly by craftsmen. As far as I know this is the only place where we see this in Plato.
It suggests an interesting conception of forms that "couch" can be one. Like there is some eternal conception of "couch" that craftsmen can only make exemplars of, that predates even the first ever constructed couch. This sort of follows what we read in e.g. Phaedo, where the soul possesses eternal knowledge that we just need to "remember." I can't tell if it's utterly preposterous or completely genius though, to suggest that "couch" is some eternal form along the lines of, say, The Good or beauty or...