Pythagoras! My original plan was to try and link the perfect concordes to moral theory, but I think that whole operation is shaky, at best. That topic would involve quantifying values which would be subjective by nature. So what will I do now? That's a good question.
Pythagoras has a quote that I really like. It is the sixteenth aphorism from his chapter in the reader. "The tetractys is a certain number, which being composed of the four first numbers produces the most perfect number, 10. For 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 come to be 10. This number is the first tetractys and is called the source of ever-flowing nature, since according to them the entire kismos is organized according to harmonia, and harmonia is a system of three concords, the fourth, the fifth, and the octave, and the proportions of these three concords are found in the aforementioned four numbers."
Just... wow. For a musician, it is an amazing thing to hear that harmony is the origin of the universe, and it kind of makes sense in a romantic way. Everything in our bodies works together in a kind of harmony, and at our best, we interact with our environment harmoniously. I would like to make a paper topic out of this, but my concern is making it 3000 words (That's a lot of words! I barely even speak 3000 words out loud on a good day.) Here are my thoughts:
1. Explain Pythagoras' world view in relation tot he tetractys. I'll need to use secondary sources for this. Unfortunately, the reader doesn't give too much information about it besides aphorism 16.
1.1- I think I'll gush about the importance and awesomeness of music somewhere around here. At some point, I'll need to talk about the beauty of harmony, why harmony is an inherent quality of goodness, and why music is awesome.
2. Analyze it. Is this a sound way (hah. music pun) to construct the world? How does this relate to abstract ideas and corporeal objects?
3. Do I agree with it? Why? Here's another section which will require a lot of sources. Fortunately, there's a lot about Pythagoras in our library. That makes me happy.
4. Who objects to this? If I can't find anybody in the books in the library, I'll look to European Philosophy. Those guys have a few ideas on how the world is made, and I'm sure they'll disagree with Pythagoras.
5. Who concurs with this? For example, I think Gottfried Leibniz would concur with the theory of harmony. His theory of Monads revolves completely around the theory of pre-established harmony within the monads.
6. Conclusion! Yeah!
So yeah! Pythagoras! Conference Paper! Go Team!
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Blog Round Six: Dubstep Remix - Diotima
Woah. I've seriously neglected this. My bad.
Anyways, I like the chapter in which Socrates recounts his questioning by Diotima. The first thing that struck me is that she quickly broke Socrates' usual style of reasoning. In other Socratic dialogues, Socrates tends to reason in binary. What I mean by this is that he says either something is or it isn't, with no middle ground. But Diotima quickly says, "Then don't force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever is not good to be bad. It's the same with Love: when you agree he is neither good nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly and bad; he could be something in between." Indeed, the whole theme of the Diotima sections is reconciliation between absolutes. She says that Love is neither mortal nor immortal, but in between. Love, according to Diotima, is a mediating force between the extremes of wisdom and ignorance, good and bad, and beautiful and ugly. Love is the state of wanting something, instead of having something. Therefore, loving is an action, rather than a state. As Diotima says, "I conclude that you thought Love was being loved, rather than being a lover."
I'll admit that when Diotima begins to talk of "reproduction and birth in beauty," she loses me. I think her conclusion is that a desire for immortality is love. But is that it? I hope we cover that in class today.
I really need to step up my game on this. The semester is almost over.
-Andrew
Anyways, I like the chapter in which Socrates recounts his questioning by Diotima. The first thing that struck me is that she quickly broke Socrates' usual style of reasoning. In other Socratic dialogues, Socrates tends to reason in binary. What I mean by this is that he says either something is or it isn't, with no middle ground. But Diotima quickly says, "Then don't force whatever is not beautiful to be ugly, or whatever is not good to be bad. It's the same with Love: when you agree he is neither good nor beautiful, you need not think he is ugly and bad; he could be something in between." Indeed, the whole theme of the Diotima sections is reconciliation between absolutes. She says that Love is neither mortal nor immortal, but in between. Love, according to Diotima, is a mediating force between the extremes of wisdom and ignorance, good and bad, and beautiful and ugly. Love is the state of wanting something, instead of having something. Therefore, loving is an action, rather than a state. As Diotima says, "I conclude that you thought Love was being loved, rather than being a lover."
I'll admit that when Diotima begins to talk of "reproduction and birth in beauty," she loses me. I think her conclusion is that a desire for immortality is love. But is that it? I hope we cover that in class today.
I really need to step up my game on this. The semester is almost over.
-Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)