A Reading Odyssey

Aristotle Poetics and Rhetoric podcast

Here's the podcast from our final Aristotle reading group for the 2009 session. We discussed Rhetoric, Poetics and the year of reading Aristotle.

Here's the podcat in mp3 format to download:

Download Aristotle-12-1-09-RhetoricPoetics

It was a wonderful year - joyous and difficult. 

Phil 

Video: Aristotle's Poetics Explained

Really looking forward to the final Aristotle call tomorrow night, especially the discussion around Poetics. If any of you are still fuzzy on the concepts Aristotle lays down in the Poetics, here is an illuminating video clip.

The Virtue of Wild Things

There was an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday from David Brooks that re-examines the classical notions of character against a modern notion. The philosopher's notion of character according to Brooks  is one that's ingrained (see myth and Homer) and expressed though heroic action. The modern, psychological notion of character is something that depends on the situation. Brooks is setting up something of a straw man here, since those of us in the Aristotle reading group know that Aristotle said that character and virtue depends on the situation. Virtue requires hard work and practice and is not necessarily achieved through innate “character.” So it's something of a false comparison.

Brooks uses the new film adaptation of the Maurice Sendak book Where The Wild Things Are. In the film version a boy named Max tries, and fails, to control a group of whiny and adrift monsters. He pretends to be their virtuous king, but cannot make them happy by heroic action. Their happiest moments are when they are working together as a community, building a fort, sleeping in a big pile, etc.

The key section of the column is this:

In the philosopher’s picture, the good life is won through direct assault. Heroes use reason to separate virtue from vice. Then they use willpower to conquer weakness, fear, selfishness and the dark passions lurking inside. Once they achieve virtue they do virtuous things.

In the psychologist’s version, the good life is won indirectly. People have only vague intuitions about the instincts and impulses that have been implanted in them by evolution, culture and upbringing. There is no easy way to command all the wild things jostling inside.

But it is possible to achieve momentary harmony through creative work. Max has all his Wild Things at peace when he is immersed in building a fort or when he is giving another his complete attention. This isn’t the good life through heroic self-analysis but through mundane, self-forgetting effort, and through everyday routines.

Readers, don't you think Aristotle would have sided with the moderns here?

Aristotle's Politics Reading Odyssey call

We had a great conversation tonight discussing Aristotle's Politics. 

You can listen to the conversation either now on this webpage or later as a podcast. 

To listen live simply click on the link below and it should start playing. 

To listen later as a podcast, then right click on the link below and choose "Download Linked File." This will download the file to your computer and you can then put it into iTunes (or your non-Apple player mp3 software).  Thanks! Phil

Aristotle-Politics-10-6-09-ReadingOdyssey

Aristotle Politics - Questions?

I hope your Politics reading is going well. Book 1 is a bit rough with the awful commentary on slaves and women - at least I found it one of the more difficult to tolerate passages.

Barring that, how is your reading going?

Can you send one or more quick thoughts to the group?

Here's an example:

"Hence men seek after a better notion of riches and the art of getting wealth than the mere acquisition of coin, and they are right." Book 1, Chapter, 9, Section 17

I liked this passage in book 1. Aristotle raises an interesting question about wealth and riches - in other words, is the goal of wealth to accumulate money? He gets into funny stuff answering it - talking about household management and archaic definitions of business but I think he raises an interesting question. 

The "emptiness" of simply accumulating money has been an issue for eons. We still seem to be focused on it and many in business still complain about the emptiness of striving for it. Send your quick thoughts  so we can have some online dialogue before our call tonight.

Thanks!

Phil

Conversation with Barry Schwartz about "practical wisdom" and Aristotle

The Reading Odyssey's Aristotle 2009 reading group had a good conversation with Professor Barry Schwartz about "practical wisdom" and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Download the mp3 from the dialogue here:

Download BarrySchwartz-Sept1-2009

Thanks!

Phil 

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics - Books IV - VI: recording

We had a good call tonight discussing Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Books IV - VI. 

Download Aristotle-7-7-09NichEthicsIV-VI.mp3

We discussed a wide range of issues: liberality, generosity, moral virtue, justice, practical wisdom.

And we prepared for our call with Barry Schwartz in September.

Phil 

P.S. You can register for the free call and discussion with Barry here.

Nicomachean Ethics - Books I - III

We had a great phone conversation - and before that e-mail dialogue about Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Books I - III.

To download the mp3 

audio click here:

Download Aristotle-6-9-09NichEthicsI-III

We had a great dialogue about whether:

- virtue and "good" are habits or intentions (Aristotle says they are habits)

- happiness is a "final good" - what Aristotle means by that and how 21st century westerners might understand the word "happiness" differently (i.e. Aristotle seems to say that happiness is objective and not subjective inner state as we modernists believe)

- individual and community - and how Aristotle's emphasis seems to be on community

- the connections to prior texts we've read like Plato (whom Aristotle attacks directly in Book I) and Herodotus (especially the story of Solon and Croesus)

- the power of reading an ethical text that is not spiritual - i.e. many group members remarked that they found it interesting to read a philosophical treatment of ethics

See the comments below for the pre-phone call e-mail dialogue.

Thanks to HiDefConferencing, Citrix Online and Constant Contact for sponsoring our reading groups and making possible the phone calls and recordings!

Thanks,

Phil 

Aristotle Call Canceled and New Schedule

Folks,

 

After talking to a number of you - who are not ready with your bit of polished logic (or can't make the call at all) - Pat and I decided to move the second call on Organon to May 12.

 

We are then going to take Physics and Metaphysics out of the mix.

 

So, we'll do Organon part II in May and then go right into the stuff you'll really like - Nicomichaen Ethics, Politics, Poetics and Rhetoric.

 

Here's the new schedule for the rest of the year:

Tues, May 12 -  Organon Discussion II

 

Tues, Jun 9 - Nicomachean Ethics (in its entirety)

 

Tues, Jul 7 - continuing Nicomachean Ethics (in its entirety)

 

Tues, Sep 8 - continuing Nicomachean Ethics (in its entirety)

 

Tues, Oct 6 - Politics (Books 1-3; 8-9), Rhetoric (Book 1) and Poetics

 

Tues, Nov 10 - continuing Politics (Books 1-3; 8-9), Rhetoric (Book 1) and Poetics

 

Thanks!

 

Phil

Aristotle Homework

Bill,

Thanks for sending in your homework.

Reminder to everyone else - work on your homework for Tuesday. It's not due in written form. Bill sent it because he'll miss the call.

Back to your points below, Bill:

- I think it's an older translation - and that's why we get "premiss."

- Original premise or truth - I think the current scientific method would say that that approach dispels the philosophical problems by relying on repeatable experiments to test hypotheses. you don't need to know the truth ahead of time - you hypothesize and then test. and then repeat.

- As for Aristotle - I believe you are right that he settles on definition and "things which cannot be proved" as his foundation.

- As for me, I straddle the scientific method approach and the post- modern approach. I think truth might itself be a challenging concept. 

I think there is something that is fundamental - but I think we also participate in creating both the questions and answers. It's difficult to formulate my point-of-view here because I alternate between something more traditionally scientific and something more influenced by elements of the post-modern approach.

- In either case, my neurons continue to dance

Phil

On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Swislow, Bill wrote:

Phil, here are my thoughts on a passage from Aristotle. Sorry I'll miss the discussion.

On page 113, line 36, he writes:

"A man must believe in some, if not in all, of the basic truths more than in the conclusion.

And then:

"The conviction of pure science must be unshakable."

This seems like part of the payoff for his lengthy considerations of syllogisms and the relationship of the premissto the predicate. In short, the premiss of a syllogism must be better founded than the predicate. But how is the premiss to be founded? If you believe in the unshakable conviction of science, it's not going to be tolerable to have infinite regress (that is, every premissis founded on some preceding premise into infinity) or to rely on circular logic to establish the foundation of knowledge.

What's not clear from these passages is what, other than "conviction," constitutes that foundation. It's possible I didn't read all the way to that payoff, or that I missed it because I didn't follow his argument. But if he does posit a convincing foundation, Western civilization in all the centuries since should feel pretty foolish, since we still struggle with the issue. The best we have to offer still seems to be faith -- whether in God underpinning all reality or in the perfection of mathematics as the foundation of all knowledge -- or some version of existentialism: Faced with the prospect of infinite regress or of religion, let's more or less arbitrarily settle on the most plausible answer and run with it.

That seems to be more or less what Aristotle did: In his statement on page 124, line 31, it appears he did not pretend to have solved the problem: "I call the basic truths of every genus those elements in it the existence of which cannot be proved."

However, he does seem to hope that many of those basic truths can be settled upon by definition. If  a triangle has three sides by definition, we can assert as a basic truth that all triangles have three sides.

Anyway, my other great confusion is why this translations uses "premiss" rather than "premise."

Bill