- This topic has 4 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
Please vote in the poll !!
If you want to comment on the poll, you must be signed in (i.e. registered).My vote goes to Marcus Aurelius because he possessed the greatest philosophic mind of all of the emperors. His Meditations are a tour de force in Stoicism. He probably came closest to the PHilosopher King of Plato’s hopes as described in The Republic. 😀
Marcus Aurelius is a good choice. I haven’t read Meditations, though I should do that sometime. I found some quotes from him, a few of which I put below. They sound like a combination of Plato, Proverbs, and perhaps Hegel.
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill.
Whatever is in any way beautiful hath its source of beauty in itself, and is complete in itself; praise forms no part of it. So it is none the worse nor the better for being praised.
If and when you read the Meditations, you also need to go straight into Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic. Compare the two very closely and the whole of Stoicism is revealed. Christian philosophers owe much to Stoicism and also to Plato…..Hegel, well he’s a whole new ball of wax. I think he contributed more to Marx and Weber than to any other branch of thought…..just my opinion. 🙂
I can imagine that the Stoics owe a lot to Plato. I flipped through an old copy of Plato’s Symposium that I had read years back (a good read) and I can definitely see the similarities there – particularly Socrates’ resistance to temptation and to the inebriating effects of wine.
But I didn't mean to suggest that Marcus Aurelius had a particular connection to Hegel's philosophy. It was just that a quote or two of MA's sounded like it had Hegelian elements. For instance:
If mind is common to us, then also the reason, whereby we are reasoning beings, is common. If this be so, then also the reason which enjoins what is to be done or left undone is common. If this be so, law also is common; if this be so, we are citizens; if this be so, we are partakers in one constitution; if this be so, the Universe is a kind of Commonwealth.
It is interesting that you shared that last quote of MA. No doubt that quote was referenced by many a Whig who wished to trace the commonwealthman/country ideology back to the Romans where civilized law and virtue supposedly began. I think it funny to view Marcus Aurelius as a Whig debating Tories in Parliament. 😀
Getting back to Plato, and the Symposium, what do you think of the story recounted by Socrates concerning the hermaphrodites or the Manwomen as he called them? Got to love how a Greek philosopher can draw from mythology to explain homosexuality! Elsewhere we see Socrates play the "mentor" to Timaeus thus proving where he stood on the issue.
My favorites include: The Apology, The Crito, The Republic, and The Symposium.As far as the Symposium, I think the homosexual references are merely contextual as the guests discuss their definitions of love. Although I would have to read it again to develop and refresh my insights, the book presents an interesting dialogue when we separate mere “belief” (embodied by most guest dialogues) from “knowing” (embodied by Socrates’ dialogue). The Republic is another good book, though I haven’t studied that one in depth quite as much.
As far as Marcus Aurelius' quote - yes, it sounds like it's something the British might have used later on in the justification of governing norms. I'm sure there are essays out there linking the two.I don’t think the homosexual references are contextual for two reasons. One, homosexuality was ritual with the role of the mentor in Hellenic aristocratic life. Two, we see Socrates lay with Timaeus in another book The Timaeus. It was normal for an older established aritocratic male (this instance Socrates) to take on a younger up and coming member of the elite class in a two year mentorship. During these two years the two men engage in a homosexual relationship and at the end of it, the elder bestows gifts of money and property to the younger to get the latter started in his promising career. Often the elder male may offer one of his daughters to his protege. It was an acceptable way to distribute wealth, create alliances, and initiate young men into the adult world. The reason aristocratic men found these types of relationships attractive was because they viewed women as mere sex objects and baby makers. Remember that women were not allowed to achieve high levels of education (Sappho and the Vestal Virgins aside). It was more fulfilling to them to have someone that could engage them in intellectual pursuits and contests of physical prowess. Remember though, this ritual was primarily an aristocratic practice. The lower classes did not engage in homosexual practices as openly and prevalently as did their social superiors. If you watched Colin Ferrel in Alexander you’ll notice he had a homosexual mentorship with a colleague of his from his days at Aristotle’s Lyceum Academy. If one did not know this tidbit of Hellenic culture, one would think the director was just trying to be controversial. In all honesty, he was trying to be historically accurate…but in my opinion, he could have left it out and the story of Alexander the Great would have been fine.
I haven’t studied the issue, but based on my readings of Greek texts it did seem like a common occurrence. What I meant by saying the homosexual references in Plato’s Symposium were “contextual” was that they weren’t there as the main thrust of the book, which was an attempt to determine the meaning of “love”, philosophically-speaking. In other words, I doubt it was a gay apologetic work.
Having not seen Alexander the movie, I can't really comment on it; however, given the nature of modern socio-political agendas, I wouldn't put it past Oliver Stone to put that stuff in his movie for reasons other than mere historical accuracy.I lost respect for Oliver Stone when he tried to ram The Last Temptation of Christ down our throats! I did enjoy Nixon and The Doors, but Alexander failed to live up to its potential. Stone is very anti-Christian. He has issues and I think they are gnawing at him.
